I don't know.
The White House says that President Obama concluded that the photographs' release could bring harm to United States troops. His spokesman, Robert Gibbs, very carefully and slowly offered a further justification: that those who take photographs of abused detainees in the future might be harmed by the release of the photographs because a precedent would be set. Also, the release of the photographs will not enhance anyone's understanding of the specific cases. I'm not sure I understand what Gibbs means, or why these arguments suddenly occurred to Obama.
ABC's Jake Tapper has good insight into the decision-making process.
Here's what I told CBS News radio:
I think it shows how the presidency can change a person's mind about the tradeoffs between transparency and what's best for the country. Obama came into office promising to be more transparent than any president before him - and this was a big campaign issue - but he has slowly come to realize that transparency without context can be costly. That's not an excuse for what he did, but it explains why he is open to changing his mind in these circumstances.
I think there's a legal issue here too: Obama is defending a principle that allows the government to decide what information is harmful to national security interests... and not a court or congress. That's an executive prerogative he wants to uphold.
That said, it's hard to square his decision here with his decision to release those DoJ torture memos, which were very inflammatory. The same arguments can apply. I think the White House would put on a neuroscientist's hat and argue that visual depictions of torture are potentially more harmful than banal legal language describing the depicted practices.
a picture is worth a thousand words. duh.
I disagree with decision, but let's not pretend that 1,000 horrific photos would have the same -- or even similar -- impact as written memos, most of which were already printed in the Red Cross report.
This is a very difficult subject, and it goes back to the Bush Administration. I can believe that the photos would hurt our troops -- which is exactly the point of why torture is illegal. It hurts our troops. They royally screwed our foot soldiers with their abhorrent behavior and yet continue to pretend their torture "made us safer."
The photos and the torture argument are not separate issues. They're inextricably linked.
I disagree.
What does the release of photos of people who have been subjected to torture, physical degradation, and beating by Americans and our agents, accomplish? It would add to the unrelenting gratuitous porn of violence that boosts that part of the media that lives on that kind fodder. What did the tape of the roasted, ripped bodies, hanging from a bridge of some Americans who were killed by an outraged Iraqi mob, accomplish? The beheading of Danny Pearl did not make it into the MSM, but I think it made its rounds on the internet. But, what would the video accomplish? What purpose would it serve? I fully recognize the flaws in my parallels, but, in my judgment the negatives outweigh the positive outcomes.
I say this as someone who was a combat infantryman in Vietnam in 1968-69, who is well past any 'queasiness' about what the dead and the living look like as a result butchery.
I believe that those in the Bush administration should be subject to investigation and, if warranted, be charged for all crimes they might have committed regarding torture and war crimes under all appropriate laws. At the trial, the evidence of torture/war crimes would include these photos. That is how the photos are linked to the Bush administration. The political will to see this unprecedented, but warranted, investigation into the prior presidential administration by the subsequent one would likely be derailed by 1,000 photos as the focus would shift from a verifiable, documented link between The Bush-Cheney Gang and torture, to looking at photos that in reality prove nothing. If I show you a photo of a mutilated body, it doesn't prove who did the killing, the mutilation, or a motive.
I have read Obama's statement. I can't say I agree with him or not. It is an important judgment call, and I am not privy to the knowledge he now has. Certainly it would be a propaganda coup for Al-Qaedda, and Islamic extremists that we would hand them without regard for its impact. It wouldn't help build the political will needed to go after Bush/Cheney; it would create endless arguments about the veracity of the photos, who the victims may be, where they are now, et.al. It would be endless and accomplish nothing.
It seems to me that the there is a great deal of conflation going on between the notion of "transparency" [did Obama ever say he would release every document or photo within his purview regarding the events of the war in Iraq?], justice, national security, and the apparent lawlessness of the Bush/Cheney regime.
It is ridiculous to state that Obama's decision was driven by "expediency." I could conjure up a 50 reasons, but expediency isn't one of them. He will face a firestorm over this decision and there is no doubt he knew it. He might have made the wrong decision, but it had nothing to do with expediency. In fact, the expedient thing to do would have been to be mute on the subject.
Keep your eye on the ball. The republicans will do all they can do to whip up the left to attack Obama's decision. Be careful who you sleep with.
I think the question now is whether Obama will continue to appeal the release, but respect the result, or do what some are calling for and issue an executive order to take the issue out of the courts' hands... and bring on a mini constitutional showdown.
From what I know about this, it's inevitable that Obama will eventually lose here, but there's maybe some virtue in delaying the photos' release until it's least damaging. The eve of a major shift in strategy in Afghanistan is probably not the best time.
Obama's rationale that "the release of these photos, particularly at this time, would only serve the purpose of inflaming the theaters of war, jeopardizing US forces, and making our job more difficult in places like Iraq and Afghanistan” sounds suspiciously like that of German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer decrying the 1961 trial of Nazi war criminal Adoph Eichman. According to Hannah Arendt's "Eichman in Jerusalem," Adenauer, sixteen years after the end of World War II, "voiced his apprehension that the trial would 'stir up again all the horrors' and produce a new wave of anti-German feeling throughout the world." Justice for those who violate society's scapegoats will never be politically expedient, and Obama has just shown expedience to be his higher principle.
Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that the only people who have been prosecuted for the systematic abuse and torture of persons in U.S. custody abroad are the individuals who were photographed at Abu Ghraib. Surely the release of new photos would lead to further prosecutions of low-ranking enlisted soldiers, regardless of whether and how the criminal masterminds are eventually held accountable. Aside from the obvious betrayal and injustice, this creates an very strong incentive to destroy photographic and video evidence of interrogations by or on behalf of the likely scapegoats. Either way, the process of learning the truth and holding people accountable is severely distorted, whether through the selective focus on certain individuals, or through the destruction of evidence.
By contrast, the memos raise more questions than they purport to answer, both up and down the chain of command, thus clarifying more than they distort.
Easy money says the "right time" to release the photos will never come. If you can't live with the evidence of what your country has done, maybe you shouldn't be committing the acts in the first place.
Having been a part of a research team that examined how readers may judge a photograph’s “publishability” depending on how graphic it is, I've been following this story with great interest. Context is significant. As one researcher indicated, "Merely running a powerful image, without sharing what one knows of its significance, is the essence of exploitation.” Indeed, our findings with readers showed a complicated set of results.
The subjects of our experiment reacted with a high measure of editorial hostility toward the constructed images that were circulated as photographs. They overwhelmingly chose not to publish the photograph, and claimed that their hometown newspaper would be more likely not to run such images and that such images would be offensive to their hometown readers. The means of the measured responses showed no statistically significant differences across the constructed levels of increasing “gore.” This seems to run counter to the threshold phenomenon. The mere sight of a covered accident victim, irrespective of the amount of blood in the photograph, was enough to raise measures of concern, high enough to move the subjects to lean toward not publishing the photo if they were made editor for the day. The respondents were just as offended across all levels of “gore” and “location,” suggesting that the newsroom thinking is a construct that is limited to the newsroom and does not extend itself to the readers.
This high degree of rejection for such images may be a reflection of readers’ general attitude toward journalists and journalism, or it may be a reflection of their personal constructs of ethics in the media.
Interestingly, while emotional measures -- “Offensiveness”, “Disturbingness” or “Pleasantness” -- showed distinctly different reactions among men and women, the ethical measure of "Intrusiveness" was consistent across gender and other factors.
At the time, we suggested that more work should be geared toward measuring not just reader’s visceral responses to the presentations of these types of photos but to their level of understanding and perception about the appropriate use and news value of publication of photos. It may indicate a gap in understanding between editors and their respective readers that might be well served by occasional explanations by editors about why potentially disturbing images or evidence are important in their journalistic investigations. Ultimately, many editors might be more effective in bolstering their readers’ confidence and dispelling hyperbolic accusations that the media readily abuse concerns about privacy for political, prurient, or even malicious means.
Finally, the theoretical premises about the waning of interest, or the desensitization to tragedy in incidents further away from the United States, has seemed to be based purely on studies that address the content of news media - wherein it is the editorial process and not the actual perception of the reader that is measured. Our study failed to measure a substantial difference in the emotional response to the accident across all distance categories, pointing toward a consistency in both compassion and interest. The theoretical premise regarding the disinterest among the audience for international news and images needs to be further analyzed through experimental studies that test the responses of real readers.
I can see the value of Obama's parsed defense.
Detainee Interrogation Photos Leak
Long suppressed photographs from interrogations conducted in secret CIA facilities have leaked and give a chilling picture of the long term damage caused by the so called enhanced techniques.
http://www.aratunes.us
Spamming? Ok. Electronic drums. Totally unacceptable.
What's the mystery?! Obama's history in the Illinois Senate & U.S. Senate was one of "voting" "present" - he is the straddling champ of the western world.
His announcement yesterday merely sets up the Supreme Court to actually make the decision. Will Obama's Justice Department file a convincing brief with the Supremes on why the Supremes should accept the appeal and rule against releasing the pictures? Maybe.
But very possibly the Obama Administration could file a very weak brief - leaving the Supremes to decide to decline hearing the appeal - which means the lower court's decision to release the pictures stands - and meanwhile the Great Straddler slides by saying he tried to stop the release but that the courts over ruled him.
I hope that the Great Straddler changes form and is actually decisive on this and makes the case for the Supremes to support him in keeping the pictures under wraps. Otherwise Obama will have surrendered an Executive Branch privilege to nine unelected folks in black robes.