Obama defends abuse photos U-turn

[Gandalf]

The release of more photos of prisoner abuse by US soldiers is "of no benefit" and may inflame opinion against the US, President Barack Obama has said.

The pictures were not "sensational" and every case of abuse had been dealt with by the military, with action taken where appropriate, he said.

The White House previously said it would not fight a court ruling ordering the release of the pictures.

US civil liberties activists accused Mr Obama of adopting Bush-era policies.

The pictures were due to be released by 28 May, according to the court order.

The order was issued by an appeals court in September 2008, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

'Mockery'

The US defence department had been preparing to release the images, reportedly taken in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the dispute could now end up before the US Supreme Court.

Speaking outside the White House, Mr Obama said he would not tolerate the abuse of prisoners.

However, he had, he said, directed his legal team to fight the court-ordered release of the photos because he was concerned they might "inflame anti-American opinion and put our troops in greater danger".

The Pentagon had not sought to conceal anything, he added, and appropriate action had been taken against individuals involved in abuses. The president had been advised against publication by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, Centcom commander Gen David Petraeus and the commander of US forces in Iraq, Gen Ray Odierno, a Pentagon official said.

The ACLU said the president's "decision not to release the photographs makes a mockery of President Obama's promise of transparency and accountability".

"It's absolutely essential that these photos be released so the public can examine for itself the torture and abuse that was conducted in its name," ACLU attorney Amrit Singh said.

The human rights group Amnesty International also criticised the president's decision, saying human beings had been "tortured and denied basic rights".

But the switch was welcomed by Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican, and Senator Joe Lieberman, an independent.

"The fact that the president reconsidered the decision is a strength not a weakness," they said in a joint statement.

The BBC's Richard Lister in Washington says that although President Obama has insisted on the need for open government, it appears that on this issue he has been persuaded that - for now at least - such transparency risks doing more harm than good.

Yet another disappointment from Obama. *grumble*

Also, why does nobody ever call for a curb on footage that could inflame anti-Islamic sentiment?

[Androsphinx]

If these photos were half as bad as Seymour Hersh has been claiming for [years], there's no way they could be published - the consequences would be appalling.

[ray245]

I would think one reason those photos exist for a reason is to humiliate the people getting abused. No point letting more people see someone getting humiliate.

At the least he acknowledge the existence of those photos.

[Big Phil]

Also, why does nobody ever call for a curb on footage that could inflame anti-Islamic sentiment?

Why would Americans be concerned about Anti-Islamic sentiment, particularly in the current environment, where Muslim extremists have declared open season on Americans?

[SAMAS]

Still disappointing, even if I do see his point.

[ray245]

Even then, what is the point of releasing the photos to the public? It's not like those photos can't be used as legal evidence just because the general public don't get the chance to see it.

Why do you need to see it personally? Just because we are all curious and requires pictures to see how bad those acts of torture is?

Denying the existence of those photos and not releasing it to the general public is two different thing.

[Sea Skimmer]

This isn’t about what the US public see’s, the US public doesn’t care that much plainly. It’s about what the world sees the US doing. The world now sees the US continuing its path of secrecy even after it was claimed none of the photos were worse then what already came out of Abu Grabh, and that isn’t good when Obama already went so far out of his way to proclaim his new era of transparency. Reversing a decision like this makes it look an awful lot like those photos are worse then what’s claimed, and that’s not a hard thing to imagine. Now I guess Obamas repair the US image strategy is just to do nothing and hope people forget. Might work, but any fucking idiot could do it. Brilliant change.

[CJvR]

Well it would be rather silly to hand the enemy PR weapons of such a magnitude in the middle of a war, even an undeclared one.

[General Zod]

Also, why does nobody ever call for a curb on footage that could inflame anti-Islamic sentiment?

You mean besides the incidents where the US is bending over backwards to apologize for things like flushing the Quran down a toilet or using the Quran as target practice by troops?

[Darth Wong]

I've said this before: the American people made it clear during the election that they wanted a slight change from Bush, not a huge change. Obama charted a moderate path, not a "left-wing" path, and he's only continuing that path now that he's in office. I don't know why anyone expected anything different. He did not run on leftist platform: he ran on a centrist platform. This is centrist policy.

Don't fall for the FOXNews propaganda that he's a representative of leftist politics. He never was, he never claimed to be, and no honest observer of his campaign thought he would be.

[wautd]

If these photos were half as bad as Seymour Hersh has been claiming for [years], there's no way they could be published - the consequences would be appalling.

Then I'd certainly release them. You never know the population opens their eyes and start demanding procecution of the people who ordered to do torture.

[Samuel]

Well it would be rather silly to hand the enemy PR weapons of such a magnitude in the middle of a war, even an undeclared one.

Except we are. Unless of course the photos are beyond what people can imagine... which is what this is implying. The harder you try to hide them, the worse people assume what you are hiding is.

[Androsphinx]

If these photos were half as bad as Seymour Hersh has been claiming for [years], there's no way they could be published - the consequences would be appalling.

Then I'd certainly release them. You never know the population opens their eyes and start demanding procecution of the people who ordered to do torture.

Yeah... this wasn't the sort of thing that got approved, or at least certainly not in any way which could be traced to high-ranking officials. It's not so much torture as very severe abuse.

And remember the broader context: US troops are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, the situation in Pakistan is shaky at best, there's movement on negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, and a major trip to the ME is planned. That's an awful lot to jeopardise for an extra 5% on opinion polls for a course of action Obama isn't very keen on anyway.

[fgalkin]

What possible purpose would releasing the photos serve, aside from satisfying some people's voyeuristic desires, or adding more stuff to put up on anti-American posters during protests? We already know that there has been torture, we are told the perpetrators are being punished (do we know they are punished? Not really, but then we wouldn't even if we saw the photos).

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Androsphinx]

Well it would be rather silly to hand the enemy PR weapons of such a magnitude in the middle of a war, even an undeclared one.

Except we are. Unless of course the photos are beyond what people can imagine... which is what this is implying. The harder you try to hide them, the worse people assume what you are hiding is.

No. Graphic, visceral images are worse.

[Darth Wong]

What possible purpose would releasing the photos serve, aside from satisfying some people's voyeuristic desires, or adding more stuff to put up on anti-American posters during protests?

One possible purpose would be to validate American rhetoric about their freedom and values, instead of making the entire country look like massive hypocrites.

[Androsphinx]

What possible purpose would releasing the photos serve, aside from satisfying some people's voyeuristic desires, or adding more stuff to put up on anti-American posters during protests? We already know that there has been torture, we are told the perpetrators are being punished (do we know they are punished? Not really, but then we wouldn't even if we saw the photos).

I have to disagree. There's a very basic principle that citizens have a right to know what their government is doing in their name and with their money. There's also the commitment Obama made towards transparency, and the court ruling which authorised their release. National security issues are the only legitimate grounds to block publication.

It's also worth noting that governments lie all the time about the data they have but aren't going to show the public for one reason or another. Ironically, the administration's own position that the pictures are not "shocking" makes their action much less justifiable than it would be if the pictures are very bad.

[fgalkin]

What possible purpose would releasing the photos serve, aside from satisfying some people's voyeuristic desires, or adding more stuff to put up on anti-American posters during protests?

One possible purpose would be to validate American rhetoric about their freedom and values, instead of making the entire country look like massive hypocrites.

We already have that with the admission of torture, and the promise of prosecution. Presumably, a list of those tried and their offenses will also be made public.

What possible need is there for the public at large to "see for themselves" how bad the torture was? Are they experts in the field who will put the information to good use and make informed conclusions? Or will they just go "wow, that's bad." Which they already knew.

All these photos will do is trigger a new wave of outrage in the middle east, and provide more material to use as anti-American propaganda, or to cover in swastikas and pin to graves of dead soldiers.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[ray245]

Hell, consider things from the perspective of a person getting tortured and getting pictures of himself being tortured released to the general public, just because of the need of liberty.

Seriously, would anyone wants to see themselves in a humiliating position released to the general public as a whole, just to let people gossip?

[Kane Starkiller]

What possible need is there for the public at large to "see for themselves" how bad the torture was? Are they experts in the field who will put the information to good use and make informed conclusions? Or will they just go "wow, that's bad." Which they already knew.

There is a need because our abstract thinking isn't as good as we like to believe. It's one thing to "know" torture was used and quite another to actually see pictures or even videos of it. If there is a nation on this planet that needs to have all the horrors of the war shoved right up their noses it's United States so maybe next time the decision to go to war won't be passed as lightly.

[fgalkin]

What possible need is there for the public at large to "see for themselves" how bad the torture was? Are they experts in the field who will put the information to good use and make informed conclusions? Or will they just go "wow, that's bad." Which they already knew.

There is a need because our abstract thinking isn't as good as we like to believe. It's one thing to "know" torture was used and quite another to actually see pictures or even videos of it. If there is a nation on this planet that needs to have all the horrors of the war shoved right up their noses it's United States so maybe next time the decision to go to war won't be passed as lightly.

You mean like the horrors of WWII and Vietnam made the US unlikely to go to war? If the "horrors of war" acted as deterrent, there would not have been wars.

I just don't see how the public's "right to know" warrants the releasing the photos now (as opposed to five or ten years from now, when the war in the Middle East is over), with the corresponding spike in violence against US troops in Iraq (as was seen in April-May 2004).

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Androsphinx]

I just don't see how the public's "right to know" warrants the releasing the photos now (as opposed to five or ten years from now, when the war in the Middle East is over), with the corresponding spike in violence against US troops in Iraq (as was seen in April-May 2004).

Well, the discussion about whether or not these photographs should be released at this time is a different matter to what you said before:

What possible purpose would releasing the photos serve, aside from satisfying some people's voyeuristic desires, or adding more stuff to put up on anti-American posters during protests?

There are very real issues of public policy and open democracy involved here, and it's very unfortunate that the only way to have a well-informed opinion on whether the photographs should be released is... to see the photographs. For the moment, am inclined to give the administration the benefit of the doubt.

[Cecelia5578]

What possible purpose would releasing the photos serve, aside from satisfying some people's voyeuristic desires, or adding more stuff to put up on anti-American posters during protests?

One possible purpose would be to validate American rhetoric about their freedom and values, instead of making the entire country look like massive hypocrites.

We already have that with the admission of torture, and the promise of prosecution. Presumably, a list of those tried and their offenses will also be made public.

What possible need is there for the public at large to "see for themselves" how bad the torture was? Are they experts in the field who will put the information to good use and make informed conclusions? Or will they just go "wow, that's bad." Which they already knew.

All these photos will do is trigger a new wave of outrage in the middle east, and provide more material to use as anti-American propaganda, or to cover in swastikas and pin to graves of dead soldiers.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Just who is going to be prosecuted? Obama already ruled out going after low ranking CIA personnel, and the Justice Department just released a report basically saying that Yoo, Bybee, et. al are getting away scot free.

[Samuel]

What possible need is there for the public at large to "see for themselves" how bad the torture was? Are they experts in the field who will put the information to good use and make informed conclusions? Or will they just go "wow, that's bad." Which they already knew.

There is a need because our abstract thinking isn't as good as we like to believe. It's one thing to "know" torture was used and quite another to actually see pictures or even videos of it. If there is a nation on this planet that needs to have all the horrors of the war shoved right up their noses it's United States so maybe next time the decision to go to war won't be passed as lightly.

You mean like the horrors of WWII and Vietnam made the US unlikely to go to war? If the "horrors of war" acted as deterrent, there would not have been wars.

I just don't see how the public's "right to know" warrants the releasing the photos now (as opposed to five or ten years from now, when the war in the Middle East is over), with the corresponding spike in violence against US troops in Iraq (as was seen in April-May 2004).

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

One of the major reasons we left Vietnam was because people actually got to see the horrors of war on their televisions and they didn't like it one bit. The reason the horros of war don't act as so much of a detterant is because most people don't bother paying attention.

[Coyote]

If these photos were half as bad as Seymour Hersh has been claiming for [years], there's no way they could be published - the consequences would be appalling.

Then I'd certainly release them. You never know the population opens their eyes and start demanding procecution of the people who ordered to do torture.

If we Americans were th eonly ones guaranteed to see them, I'd say yes. But the problem is, these photos of us abusing Arabs will only solidify Arab hatred of America and give al-Quaeda a propaganda victory ("So what those American dogs do to us!?").

We already know they are bad. Hell, evil. We don't need to roll in the shit to know that it stinks. The downside? Yes, it will "shield" perpatrators. But the gain will be outweighed by the devastation.