On the Photos
I don’t have a great deal to say about this business of Obama refusing to release photos of detainee abuse. I briefly had myself convinced that this is a complicated issue, but it really isn’t. There ought to be an overwhelming presumption that the American people have the right to see the facts about what our government is doing in our name, with our money. There has to be some secrecy in the name of national security—it’s good that we don’t publish our nuclear codes or the details of the presidential security detail—but the notion that vague invocations of national interest or policy expediency should be permitted to sweep things under the rug is repugnant.
Of course if you want to think about why this is happening, ask yourself when’s the last time a politician lost an election because he was too deferential to the attitudes and institutional prerogatives of the national security apparatus of the United States. I don’t think it’s happened since the early 1970s. And it’s a not a coincidence that back then we got FISA and the Church Committee and so forth. But until it happens again, things will get worse and worse and worse in general even if there are spots of improvement.
59 Responses to “On the Photos”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
May 14th, 2009 at 9:22 am
A couple things one can say:
(1) This isn’t necessarily a permanent decision;
(2) As many are pointing out, anyone making the case that releasing these photos would harm U.S. interests, endanger U.S. military personnel, or so on are indirectly helping to make the case that the fact of torture itself has those effects.
May 14th, 2009 at 9:31 am
Could it not also be the case that the Obama administration is thinking one move ahead on this?
Recall how often the Bush administration managed to moot judicial proceedings at the last moment by dropping charges, etc. Presumably, this was to avoid going to trial, losing, and establishing a precedent that could tie their hands on other matters.
By forcing this to trial, now we’ll get a ruling. Presumably, the administration will “lose” but maybe that’s what they want.
May 14th, 2009 at 9:32 am
(2) As many are pointing out, anyone making the case that releasing these photos would harm U.S. interests, endanger U.S. military personnel, or so on are indirectly helping to make the case that the fact of torture itself has those effects.
Yep. It’s amazing how Conservatives have been so willing to defend the act of torturing a detainee, but get upset at the ideas of photographs of that same torture.
May 14th, 2009 at 9:35 am
What about $50 billion budget for secret operations? Don’t Americans have some right to know how we’re tampering in other parts of the world or developing the next horrific weapon to wipe out or make homeless millions of people?
May 14th, 2009 at 9:45 am
“By forcing this to trial, now we’ll get a ruling. Presumably, the administration will “lose” but maybe that’s what they want.”
I’m generally skeptical of double-bankshot theories like this one, and it’s probably naive to hope that Obama secretly agrees with us even when he seems to do the opposite.
That said, if Obama does want to release the photos without alienating the Pentagon or spending any political capital on it, he’s probably going to get his wish.
May 14th, 2009 at 9:49 am
Health care. Climate change. Those are the issues that matter right now. Releasing those photographs would cause a huge distraction and it’s the last thing we need right now. It’s not a decision that I feel great about, but the two weeks that we’ve already spent focused on the torture issue are lost time as far as the key issues of the Obama presidency are concerned, and those photographs would raise all of that to a new level. That, I suspect, is the real reason why Obama made this choice.
May 14th, 2009 at 9:51 am
I am as strongly opposed to torture as any good liberal, or what used to be any good American, but I agree with the President’s decision. Do we really think that people are going to be held accountable because of the release of these photos? Out of all the Abu Ghraib bullshit we only had what, Lyddie England thrown away for a few years?
In the absence of any compelling benefit emerging from the photos’ release, and with the knowledge that there would be with the release of the photos increased threats and motivation to attack American and coalition forces, I think the President is making the right call.
May 14th, 2009 at 9:55 am
There ought to be an overwhelming presumption that the American people have the right to see the facts about what our government is doing in our name, with our money.
And think of what we could accomplish — whether in health care, transportation, or simply less debt — if our spending on the Empire were only twice that of China’s, not almost five times more.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:00 am
“Do we really think that people are going to be held accountable because of the release of these photos?”
We think the photos might possibly increase the pressure on our elected officials, but that’s not the point. The point is that we think “the American people have the right to see the facts about what our government is doing in our name, with our money.”
Even if it doesn’t help. We have that right.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:03 am
There’s no doubt that using torture was a terrible idea. But we know that torture was used, we know who ordered it done, and the Obama Administration is not trying to deny that it was done.
In an ideal situation — i.e., the war on terror is over, Al Quaida has been destroyed, Afghanistan has been stabilized — then the photos could and should be released. But the fight is still going on. Releasing the photos now would compound the original mistake of using torture in the first place because the photos would be a great benefit to our enemies, who could use them to stir up more anger against us.
Presumably, Obama is more skilled at moving us through the mess that his arrogant predecessors created. After eight years of Bush-Cheney, it’s tough to trust our leaders. But I think we need to trust Obama’s judgment on this one.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:04 am
I tell you what, I’ll block the release of the photos and you give me everything you’ve got on Cheney.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:04 am
Could it not also be the case that the Obama administration is thinking one move ahead on this?
We really need a 12-step program for Obamabots like this. Though arguing that Obi Wan Obama is thinking just one step ahead of us reality based inferior beings may be a sign of recovery.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:11 am
These photos will find the light of day eventually, I’d rather the administration release them than for them to be leaked to the press.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:39 am
Steve, the President outright lied to us on a number of issues. He claimed he would do one thing, then he turned around and pissed in our faces after he got vots.
You can be a little bitch that takes that and says ‘thank you’, some of us have actual self-respect.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:51 am
While I agree that the idea floated along these lines in this thread is far-fetched, Obama is usually thinking at least a step ahead of most people. I don’t see why this is thought to be some sort of personality cult driven belief. He is much smarter than most people. That’s what smart people do.
If a smarter and more skillful chess player thinks further ahead than his opponents, why wouldn’t Obama be thinking further ahead than less intelligent and less skillful politicians, let alone your average American.
May 14th, 2009 at 11:10 am
If a smarter and more skillful chess player thinks further ahead than his opponents, why wouldn’t Obama be thinking further ahead than less intelligent and less skillful politicians, let alone your average American.
Methinks thou dost protest too much. In context, my reference was not to Obama’s intelligence but to the oft expressed argument that the Obama administration is somehow not really doing what it quite evidently is doing. This is the 12-dimesnsional chess theory. Although with some, mostly rhetorical, exceptions, the Obama administration has repeatedly taken actions in which they seek to perpetuate some of the worst excesses of the Bush/Cheney national security state. Yet, in the face of these actions, some still argue that this is part of some remarkably subtle plan to achieve exactly the opposite of the plain meaning of their actions. IMO, this is just ludicrous. Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?
May 14th, 2009 at 11:12 am
I think the decision to not release them because they are so inflamatory causes people to think the worst. I believe the calculation involved is that thinking the worst does not provoke as much of a response as seeing nearly the worst.
The pictures could be withheld to prevent calls for criminal prosecutions, or to prevent our enemies from using them as propaganda. Unfortunately, Obama’s position on the torture memos erodes our confidence that he isn’t doing the former.
May 14th, 2009 at 11:13 am
Obama’s Razor
[oh-BAA-muh'z rey-zer] -Idiom
The tightly-held belief among progressives that any proposal by President Barack Obama– no matter how conservative or corporatist it may appear on the surface– is actually part of a secret, masterfully-executed plan to enact ultraliberal policy preferences.
May 14th, 2009 at 11:15 am
While I think Obama should release the photos, it would be nice for people to remember that releasing the photos could lead to people dying and not be so blithely self-righteous on the subject.
Mike
May 14th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Marlowe, I did say that the instance of this put forth in this thread is far-fetched. However, similar claims about his actions on the stimulus plan for example, are probably accurate.
May 14th, 2009 at 11:20 am
I wish Obama would release the photos. It’s hard to counter that he isn’t a retread of Bush-Cheney when he repeats the disastrous policies of Bush-Cheney so often. He makes Cheney’s contemptuous remarks about Obama seem like part of a Tambo and Bones crosstalk act.
May 14th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Waterboarding three guys sure has given people a lot to talk about. Unfortunately, killing 3,000 on 9/11 and cutting off heads all over the world; not so much.
We, yes the entire US, already suffered a strategic defeat with the release of the photos from Abu Graib. The whole world knows we tortured people, releasing the photos isn’t going to do any good and may only serve to make the struggle against militant Islam and Wahhabism that much harder.
May 14th, 2009 at 11:30 am
The fastest way for the American taxoayers to find out what was done with their money is to have a grand jury convened, and a indictment brought, the higher up the ladder the better. Until testimony (and other evidence) is entered in open court, and subjected to cross examination, there will be little chance for people to know exactly what occurred.
May 14th, 2009 at 11:32 am
The whole world knows we tortured people, releasing the photos isn’t going to do any good and may only serve to make the struggle against militant Islam and Wahhabism that much harder.
The release of Abu Ghraib photos AND Bush’s veto of the anti-torture bill did the damage. The fact that the torture of Abu Ghraib was instigated by those higher up than those convicted did the damage. The smirking euphemisms for torture did the damage.
May 14th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Waterboarding three guys sure has given people a lot to talk about. Unfortunately, killing 3,000 on 9/11 and cutting off heads all over the world; not so much.
Oh yes–no one ever talks about 9/11.
Sheesh.
If you want to make the argument that torturing people who are suspected of being very bad people, or suspected of maybe knowing some very bad people, or suspected of something or another, is a good thing to do, fine. Bbut don’t be surprised when people disagree, and it is simply juvenile to claim that if you don’t think the U.S. should be torturing people, that means you don’t care about 9/11.
May 14th, 2009 at 11:43 am
DTM – I disagree with the idea of torturing anyone as it is ultimately counterproductive. The current administration has stopped it. My point is that re-hashing it only makes this struggle that much harder. Engaging in endless self flagellation only distracts us from the task at hand. A lot of things go wrong in war. Correct it and move on. Dragging ourselves through the dirt endlessly serves no purpose.
BTW – what did Nancy know and when did she know it?
May 14th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
My point is that re-hashing it only makes this struggle that much harder.
I think that is a valid concern, but I also think in the end to maximize our chances of winning that struggle we have to repudiate these acts, preferably with criminal prosecutions where appropriate. In that sense, I disagree with the idea that no purpose is served by this process.
BTW – what did Nancy know and when did she know it?
Those are good questions, and I certainly think everyone involved should be thoroughly investigated and considered for prosecution (although so far I think it would be very difficult to bring a successful case against Pelosi–but hopefully we’ll see what the facts are and then we can make that determination).
May 14th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
I disagree with the idea of torturing anyone as it is ultimately counterproductive.
Not because it’s morally repugnant and absolutely prohibited state behavior under universally accepted international law?
May 14th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
I think this is probably the best course. Interestingly, it would probably not result in the release of the pictures. A description of any pictures used as evidence would be sufficient. The pictures themselves could be suppressed by the defense as more prejudicial than probative, and the government would probably be eager to agree.
This would be the best of both worlds. The guilty get punished. Our enemies are left with descriptions which have less propaganda value than the already released pictures.
May 14th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
This is a funny sight – Will Allen calling for the use of the justice system. He wants Iraqis murdered in their beds as collective punishment for not having the kind of government of which he approves, but I guess that’s because they are far away brown people who had the bad luck to be born on the oil Will wants to steal.
May 14th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Herschel – War is hell. Firebombing Dresden and Tokyo was morally repugnant. Bombing N. Vietnam killed a lot of innocents. Predator strikes in Pakistan kill innocent women and children every week. If you sign up for it you need to sign up for the repugnance.
I am not adverse to winning. I am adverse to needless cost.
May 14th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
[...] And here’s Matt Yglesias: [...]
May 14th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
You know, there was a time when the U.S. government argued that disseminating photos and film of detainees (in that case, American) constituted an outrage against their personal dignity, which international law prohibits. It specifically bars subjecting detainees to “public curiosity”.
It doesn’t sound to me as if this is the reason the Obama administration is giving to justify non-release, but maybe it’s the reason it should be giving.
Think about it: You’ve been abused and degraded and humiliated by your American captors, and now the government that did that to you might release pictures of it for all the world to see? Would you want that? Your wife to see you wearing women’s underwear or a dog collar, your children to see you reduced to a shell of a man wallowing in your own filth?
Granted, you might want that, for the sake of exposing the abuse. But you might not. And Geneva (or at least, a plausible reading of Geneva, one which the US government has advanced in the past) says you have a right not to.
In all our whining about our ‘rights’ to see these photos, let’s think for a minute about the rights of the detainees. I thought that’s what was at stake here.
May 14th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
DTM – so if we drag this process around for several years and ultimately convict some people then the whole world will think we are good guys and sign on to the winning team? Me thinks not.
May 14th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
[...] Matt Yglesias simply makes the political case. Presidents that cave to the interests of our national security [...]
May 14th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Re: soullite
Steve, the President outright lied to us on a number of issues. He claimed he would do one thing, then he turned around and pissed in our faces after he got votes.
The president changed his mind on an issue – chrissakes, I didn’t see that one coming.
I am no Obama-as-God believer and yet I don’t find the President’s story all too implausible:
He wanted to release the photos,
Military officials knew what kind of effect the release of the Abu Ghraib photos had on enemy recruitment and attacks and weren’t pleased at the thought of going through that again,
They brought their concerns to the president,
The agreed that the photos, which are just graphic depictions of the immoral, illegal, and reprehensible stuff already done (and hopefully to be investigated a la Leahy’s Truth Commission), would not have a public benefit that would outweigh the cost of the increased threat to American and coalition forces on the ground.
Lastly, we’re all mostly brother and sister liberals here, we don’t need to call each other names.
May 14th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
For a utilitarian, using the qualifier “ultimately” before counterproductive is probably a more encompassing basis than moral repugnance or accepted law.
While repugnance is generally a very good shorthand measure of what is moral, it is not infailable. Using a needle to force harmful subtance into an infant’s body is morally repugnant. Rationally, we find it moral when it is a vaccination. Beyond that, many consider it immoral not to use some vaccines because it compromises herd immunity for others. Yet some parents can’t watch it being done to their child.
Laws, of course, have frequently been immoral.
An integral caveat to this is that repugnance and laws should not be disregarded lightly. One must always recognize that our capacity for rational argument is flawed. In addition our character is also flawed. We have a great capacity for rationalizing our own desires, even to the point of genuine self-deception. I believe a failure to recognize this leads some otherwise good people to accept torture. Others, though, accept torture because they don’t give a damn about morality.
May 14th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Marlowe;
After seeing any number of examples of BHO outwitting, and ultimately proving his immediate critics were dead wrong, my lying eyes have learned to count ten before making any declarations. Your strained rhetoric suggests your vision is hampered by the jaundice tint clip-ons your sporting.
After all, since it’s all but certain, the photos will eventually be released, it’s actually more ludicrous to think the administration isn’t thinking many steps ahead.
May 14th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
I can’t believe they’re not using their strongest argument against releasing the photos, the Geneva Convention. Specifically, the last part of Article 13…
“Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.”
It was a war crime to torture, intimidate and insult prisoners. However, those acts are in the past. To now release photographs of the prisoners in humiliating situations means exposing them to public curiosity.
US courts already block details about rape victims (if the cops discover that the rapist videotaped the assault, they never release that to the press), I don’t understand why the administration isn’t arguing that the United States has a treaty obligation not to further humiliate its abused prisoners by releasing photographs of their abuse (self-serving yes, but its still the law).
May 14th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
My point is that re-hashing it only makes this struggle that much harder.
Tough luck, I say. Re-Hash it, punish the malefactors, make penance. If it means no one will trust you for another generation, that’s probably a good thing, as the malefactors behind all of this will probably find a way to work themselves back into government sooner or later. let’s not become a nation of coverups.
May 14th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
I really could care less about a given set of photos; I want prosecutions for people who violated U.S. law and treaty obligations. And I note that by failing to prosecute officials complicit in torture, Obama is dancing pretty close to violating U.S. treaty obligations himself.
May 14th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
“By forcing this to trial, now we’ll get a ruling. Presumably, the administration will “lose” but maybe that’s what they want.”
Um, there was a ruling. The ruling was that the government has to release the photos. That’s what the administration is now fighting.
This argument never makes any sense, but it makes less sense now than ever before.
May 14th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
“Think about it: You’ve been abused and degraded and humiliated by your American captors, and now the government that did that to you might release pictures of it for all the world to see? Would you want that? Your wife to see you wearing women’s underwear or a dog collar, your children to see you reduced to a shell of a man wallowing in your own filth?”
Well, in the Abu Ghraib pictures the victims were blurred out. I imagine that’s what would happen here.
But given that some of the torture victims are suing for these images to be released, so that the world will know what was done to them, your question is moot. I think that we are the last people who should decide what’s best for the precious dignity of our victims, especially when protecting that dignity just happens to spare us embarrassment as well.
May 14th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Releasing the photos is a destructive way to counter the argument that getting waterboarded is fun.
A better way, which saves American lives, is to shout down the sick fucks who argue that getting waterboarded is fun.
Look, there was no law during the Bush Administration. Rule of law has not yet been restored. Torture is the most blatant direct breach of the law. Until everybody in the Bush Administration who can be prosecuted is prosecuted, it means that the Executive Branch can do anything that it wants with absolutely no repercussions.
May 14th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
marlowe wrote:
“Although with some, mostly rhetorical, exceptions, the Obama administration has repeatedly taken actions in which they seek to perpetuate some of the worst excesses of the Bush/Cheney national security state. Yet, in the face of these actions, some still argue that this is part of some remarkably subtle plan to achieve exactly the opposite of the plain meaning of their actions. IMO, this is just ludicrous. Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”
he’s exactly correct.
the knee-jerk response of those obama apologists is so predictable as to be laughable at this point. no matter how reprehensible, no matter how hypocritical, the response will always come:
it’s a super-sophisticated, extraordinarily complex and forward thinking strategy that we will see unfold in time.
what utter BS.
for those who want to ascribe such a theory to this latest betrayal, i have one simple question:
if he was a step ahead of everyone, why did he agree, initially, to release the photos?
surely, all of the same elements and considerations have been in place for months, but several weeks ago, he came to an agreement with opposing counsel to release the photos.
or was that all part of his super-sophisticated strategy? by appearing to flip-flop on such an important issue, he has really set his opponents up for the ultimate take-down!
all that being said, i do agree with one point. he is basically leaving the decision in the hands of the court. he can now say, if they are released, that he did everything in his power to prevent their release, but that courts disagreed. of course, considering the right-wing nuts on the supreme court, it’s very possible, if not probable, that the highest court will never allow the release. so, it is at heart, a nakedly political, immoral decision.
May 14th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Tyro – “Tough luck, I say.”
I am glad you live in a country that gives you that luxury.
May 14th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
danceswithgoats, similar justifications were made for pardoning Nixon as are being made by you. The idea was “oh, if we just move on, the country can deal with the problems we’re facing in the present day.” The result? We just had to deal with the same crap and corruption all over again from many of the same malefactors when the Reagan and Bush/43 administration came along. We know better now. And we know that the best way to deal with the problems of the past is to expose them to the light and punish the perpetrators. your problem is that people like you with good intentions are just being used as tools by the same people who created this mess to begin with.
May 14th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
DTM – so if we drag this process around for several years and ultimately convict some people then the whole world will think we are good guys and sign on to the winning team? Me thinks not.
The whole world? No. More of the world than if we don’t? Frickin’ of course.
May 14th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Ryan and Beowulf,
The government did make that argument. It was shot down by the Second Circuit, which held that:
The court went on to find that disclosure in this case would actually served the underlying purposes of the Conventions by helping to deter future abuse of prisoners.
May 14th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
[...] 14, 2009 · No Comments yglesias: I don’t have a great deal to say about this business of Obama refusing to release photos of [...]
May 14th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
[...] by Matt Zeitlin on May 14, 2009 Ultimately, I agree with Yglesias that there ought to be a very strong presumption in favor of disclosure of bad things [...]
May 14th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
[...] Matt Y. [...]
May 14th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
frankie d
I have yet to see anyone claiming it was some super sophisticated jedi move, or that there wasn’t an element of political calculation involved. Since we can’t really know what considerations compelled Obama’s decision, it’s hardly unreasonable to assume it wasn’t done capriciously, and the most clever snark you can manage doesn’t alter that. My choosing not to impute the decision with all sorts of nefarious intent or betrayals, hardly makes me a star struck naif. And I’d suggest your characterizing the thoughts of others as knee jerk, is pretty tough to square with your own reactions.
“…it’s very possible, if not probable, that the highest court will never allow the release.” The evidence is to the contrary, and it still wouldn’t preclude the photos from ever being released .
“…so, it is at heart, a nakedly political, immoral decision.”
Now that’s knee-jerk worthy of Sean Hannity. Even though I don’t think Obama’s history adds any credence to it, a reasonable argument could be made for his decision being nakedly political, but to claim, at this point, that it’s immoral is flat out, out to lunch.
May 14th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
By the way, for what it is worth I would actually bet against the Supreme Court even granting cert, which means the Second Circuit’s decision would stand and Obama would be compelled to release the photos.
May 14th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Herschel – War is hell. Firebombing Dresden and Tokyo was morally repugnant. Bombing N. Vietnam killed a lot of innocents. Predator strikes in Pakistan kill innocent women and children every week. If you sign up for it you need to sign up for the repugnance.
I was going to express my disagreement with this, but I realized I don’t merely disagree with it; it is utterly wrong on multiple levels.
First, the United States is not at war merely because Dick Cheney says it is. There is nothing plausibly or legitimately characterized as “war” existing between the United States and Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is an international criminal enterprise, with which “war” is not a meaningful concept.
Second, the prohibition of torture is not optional, to be observed only when convenient. It is absolute, and the international agreements forbidding it, to which the United States is a party, and which form a settled and universally accepted part of international law, explicitly, clearly, and unconditionally rule out any justification on grounds of exigency.
Third, the assault on civilian population centers that characterized war in the 20th Century, and especially the Allied conduct of the Second World War, was among history’s greatest crimes. To treat that crime as somehow justifying or excusing subsequent crimes is to enter morally bleak territory indeed. Please don’t ask us all to follow you there.
May 14th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
At least Matt isn’t carrying water for Obama on this issue – yet. Apparently my comment on that the other day struck home.
Obama has ZERO justification for not releasing those photos. It does not matter if people start disliking the US more as a result. It does not matter if some US troops get captured (when was the last time this happened?) and tortured as a result.
What matters is that the US makes a full and complete mea culpa and then repudiates in a clear and unambiguous way the use of torture.
THEN the US has to repudiate in a clear an unambiguous way the use of air power against targets in proximity to civilians. THAT is the major issue in Afghanistan and Pakistan right now and THAT is merely being exacerbated by the appointment of General McChrystal who by all accounts condoned torture under his command and is responsible for many of the operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan which have enraged civilians in those countries.
So the bottom line is that Obama not only has NO PLAN for Afghanistan and Pakistan (not surprising there IS NO possible plan), but that he is TONE DEAF to the problems the US causing itself in those countries by the behavior of the US military.
And not releasing the torture photos continues that tone deafness.
I TOLD you all Obama had no PLAN for dealing with Afghanistan and Pakistan all during his campaign. Chickens are now coming home to roost.
Again, the only appropriate word is: suckers.
May 14th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
This is just dumb.
It should, by now, be obvious that the torture story will not go away until some form of justice, (or something that can at least be called justice) is done. This thing has gone on for literally years since the revelations became public knowledge. You can’t just sweep it under the rug, and all that will happen if you try is that this wound will continue to fester.
May 14th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
Richard Steven Hack Says: I TOLD you all Obama had no PLAN for dealing with Afghanistan and Pakistan all during his campaign. Chickens are now coming home to roost.
I imagine it’s tough for you, you’ve told them all a million times, and still nobody listens. Your predictions have always proved 100% correct, and the only people that can’t see that are the nit-pickers, fools and the envious. Well, chin up, you never needed them anyway. Yawn.
May 15th, 2009 at 8:04 am
Ryan and Beowulf, The government did make that argument.
DTM,
Thank you. That is obviously news to me.
The redaction obviously helps. As does the fact that *some* (as tomemos points out) of the victims are suing for release of the photos (though “some” is a key qualifier — and FWIW Geneva also says prisoners cannot surrender their rights under it, though since they’re no longer prisoners that may no longer hold).
But I still find something perverse about a court ruling (particularly in a torture-related case) that as long as the government’s *motives* are good, the *effect* can be disregarded.
As tomemos says,
I think that we are the last people who should decide what’s best for the precious dignity of our victims
and yet that’s what we are doing.
Ultimately I think *Americans* would be better off with the photos released. Whether the ex-detainees, however, would be better off is something we should, at the very least, ask them about, and factor into our advocacy. I don’t see that happening in this thread. It’s all about what we Americans are ‘entitled’ to.