Obama angers ACLU

[Embar Angylwrath]

Obama's offical stance is that the pictures aren't as bad, or at least are no worse, than Abu Ghraib. But now that he's reversed himslef, it only give fuel to people who will scream "What is he hiding if they are no worse than what we've seen already?" If they truly are no worse than Abu Ghraib, there really wouldn't have been much of a dust up. It would have been just peeling away of the scab, but not another cut.

Again, he really fucked this up. And politically, he has to hold the line now, because a second reversal will show him as indecisive. This will be hammered out in the courts now.

[Lurker]

Partha,

We've known since 2004 that the torture was approved directly from Rumsfeld and the White House although it was denied by some here. There were many discussions on these boards about Abu Ghraib and how it wasn't just a few bad apples since the techniques used at Gitmo and were detailed in the list of approved techniques signed by Rumsfeld. We knew even then about the Army lawyers refusing to sign off on the criminal activity.

Releasing more photos wouldn't do anything at this point but expose a few more bad apples. The most troubling part of Obama's statement showed exactly how these pictures would be spun; that these acts were carried out by a "small number of individuals".

Obama has a split personality on all this. On the one hand he continues to oppose investigating criminal acts by the Bush Administration. On the other hand, he releases documents showing these criminal acts were approved at the highest level and were not just the random acts of individuals. Obama ended the torture regime but has no desire to punish the perpetrators. It's disappointing in a way, but I understand why he doesn't want to derail his policy agenda by pursuing this.

Hopefully his involvment isn't critical to seeing justice done.

====

Embar,
You are just wrong. Releasing the pictures would have created a firestorm much bigger than not releasing them. People can scream "what is he hiding" and imagine the most horrific things, but without the pictures it won't be fodder for the cable news 24/7 and it won't discussed by the general public. Your political instincts suck.

[Harlowe]

Images invoke feelings much more powerfully than words alone. It's removing all doubt. You can think the worst, you can read about it, but without the images in your head there are doubts there is a fuzzy, unrealness to it.

But I'm not entirely sold that it's absolutely the right decision. I certainly wouldn't go so far as saying "He fucked up big time" either way. That remains to be seen.

[Ddrak]

You are just wrong. Releasing the pictures would have created a firestorm much bigger than not releasing them. People can scream "what is he hiding" and imagine the most horrific things, but without the pictures it won't be fodder for the cable news 24/7 and it won't discussed by the general public. Your political instincts suck.

This isn't about cable news and internal politics. It's about America's image overseas. Hiding the pictures definitely serves to quell an internal firestorm but it also pushes the image the America is NOT about freedom, open government or any of the things it tries to push on others. It serves once more to undermine everything the US attempts to do overseas. How can you tell the Iranians to allow more freedoms and openness in their government when they'll point straight back and say "about those photos you're suppressing..."

As for the assertion that pictures are more visceral and real, do you really think that the terrorist recruiters and those wishing harm on Americans can't push their own pictures in the absence of published ones? By *not* publishing pictures they get the opportunity to run around dreaming up whatever shit they want. By publishing you at least have a concrete "this is all" to fall back on. I'm also pretty sure the Taliban doesn't get good CNN reception.

I think Embar's political instincts are good on this one from an international point of view. Of course, it's all hypothetical.

Dd

[Lurker]

Greenwald and Sullivan, two writers I respect, think this is further proof that Obama is covering up for Bush's crimes. It could be, although the release of the torture memo's seems to disprove that somewhat.

Ddrak,
We're having an open debate about torture and Obama has publically reversed all the Bush era decisions regarding torture. I don't think not releasing photos (and there would always be more photos not being released no matter what decision was reached on this batch) is going to give the Iranians additional cause to question our belief in freedom and openness.

Having a new batch of photos on display 24/7 for the next few weeks would serve no purpose. Talk and dreaming up shit doesn't have the same impact.

And Embar's political instincts do suck. You are wrong to say they don't.

[Harlowe]

when they'll point straight back and say "about those photos you're suppressing..."

That seems highly unlikely as long as the issue itself is not being suppressed.

[Embar Angylwrath]

when they'll point straight back and say "about those photos you're suppressing..."

That seems highly unlikely as long as the issue itself is not being suppressed.

The issue IS the pictures now. Obama fumbled and made the pictures the issue. You and Lurker don't get that.

[Lurker]

We get that you think it's a fumble.

[Embar Angylwrath]

We get that you think it's a fumble.

What you don't get is that the issue now IS the pictures. And Obama not releasing them causes more damage than just releasing them.

Tell me Lurker... what was the international firestorm when the Abu Ghraib pictures surfaced?

[Lurker]

Not sure what you are asking. Can you clarify your question?

[Embar Angylwrath]

Sure, you mentioned in a previous post that releasing the pictures would cause a firestorm. I assume you mean an international firestorm. And I also assume that since you've been comparing the release of these pictures to the release of the Abu Ghraib pictures, you think those cuased a firestorm too (otherwise, how could you credibly make the claim these will cause a firestorm)

[Lurker]

You don't remember the international firestorm when it became public knowledge were were torturing people in Abu Ghraib?

[Embar Angylwrath]

You don't remember the international firestorm when it became public knowledge were were torturing people in Abu Ghraib?

I remember other countries speaking out against it. But did the US suffer anything more than adminition? No.

AND.. I might add that all this happened on the last guy's watch, and in that context, the response would be much more muted.

[Kulaf]

I think one thing you might all be forgeting in trying to understand Obama's motivations is that he now has a duty to respect the power and office he holds. Anything he opens the former President up to will be used by future Congresional parties to come after future Presidents. Bottom line is GWB thought he was doing what was right in his duty to protect the country. Ascribe whatever party politics you want to it but that is what the man firmly believed.

Obama doesn't want to undermine his office.

[Rsak]

Ascribe whatever party politics you want to it but that is what the man firmly believed.

That requires Empathy Kulaf. Sadly the majority of the posters in this thread are incapable of using it.

[Partha]

Anything he opens the former President up to will be used by future Congresional parties to come after future Presidents. Bottom line is GWB thought he was doing what was right in his duty to protect the country. Ascribe whatever party politics you want to it but that is what the man firmly believed.

I firmly believe it's my duty to protect the country by ordering the death of an American citizen and selling his children into slavery. Does that mean it would be hands off if I was President and ordered it? Because ordering torture is against the law, as well.

Your argument is the same as Nixon's at the bottom. It's not true, and hopefully it never will be.

[Harlowe]

Rsak you are positively, without a doubt, the Grand Poobah of the empathy-lacking members.

Kulaf,
I would be more apt to believe Bush thought he was doing the right thing and was somewhat oblivious to the wrongness of his actions, not so much Cheney. To me, he is opportunistic, evil incarnate.

[Lurker]

We certainly want to avoid doing anything that would make future Presidents afraid to commit high crimes.

[Embar Angylwrath]

We certainly want to avoid doing anything that would make future Presidents afraid to commit high crimes.

We have impeachment, do we need more?

[Rsak]

Harlowe you are mistaken. If I was lacking empathy I would never get sucked into those arguments where I have the vain hope that the person I am talking to cares about the discussion or the topic at hand. The notion that you can agree to disagree.