CNN reported today that the Obama Administration has again decided to block the release of new photos of alleged abuse of suspected terrorists and foreign troops in US custody. Defense Secretary Robert Gates signed an order Friday blocking the release of all photos of detainee abuse taken between Sept. 11, 2001 and Jan. 22, 2009. The reason given is that the release would "endanger U.S. troops serving abroad".
The ACLU which has been taking legal action to have the release of these photos bluntly states that this "about-face" by Obama ( he had at one time agreed to the release of the photos) "makes a mockery" of his promise of greater transparency and accountability. The decision to block the photos release is in opposition to a 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals 2008 decision that they must be released.
So what do I think?
Despite the fact that I am generally hawkish on the "war against terror", the decision to block the photos' release is the wrong one. The argument that it will endanger US troops abroad in Afghanistan and Iraq seems spurious. The troops are already in great danger in both places. They are also planning to leave Iraq. News of the photos' existence is well known. Hiding them will make the assumed abuse even worse in the imagination of those who hate America anyway. Covering up the truth never works, especially when the cover-up is so well publicized.
Obama is supposedly (to his admirers at least) the "unBush". This is a characterization which I reject as being false in terms of his foreign policy realities, other than for his rhetorical and the symbolic gestures. The present issue bears that out.
Obama's major achievement to date has been convincing most of the world that America will be a different (and in their view a better) place with Obama at the helm. He convinced the Nobel Committee of that, for example. So why block the photos? The abuse did not occur on his watch, so the "unBush" narrative is not harmed by the photos' release. In fact, it is strengthened. The cover up alienates a lot of Obama's supporters, and provides yet more ammunition for those who never fell for the rhetoric in the first place. More importantly it contravenes the fundamental ideals of transparency and accountability - of owning up to the sins of the past, by exposing them and doing something about them.
So why is Obama doing this? Any ideas?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Lewis,
ReplyDeleteI agree that Obama should do what he promised, what the court ordered, and what a democracy deserves.
Why is he blocking the release? A few ideas:
1) The photos would have some antagonistic effect upon adversaries. Maybe not much, but not zero as you suggest.
2) The photos could damage America's global image among people who won't notice a (domestic) story about the U.S. president defying a U. S. court but would notice the photos, which might be reprinted worldwide alongside an international story about U. S. military behaviour.
3) Obama has some need to stay onside with his defence secretary and the wider U. S. defence establishment.
4) Most of all, releasing those photos would be seen as undermining support of U. S. troops and would upset the enormous number of American voters who are sympathetic to those troops.
I'm not saying those reasons are more compelling than the arguments for releasing the photos. I agree that this decision is likely to alienate Obama supporters.
As an aside, you're being a bit snide to imply that such supporters (unlike you) simply "fell for the rhetoric." Criticizing Obama is fine, but enough of your shots at Obama supporters.
Ron.
Hi Ron:
ReplyDeleteThanks, I agree. One reason you omitted. Releasing the photos will increase domestic pressure on Obama to actually do something about the incidents which occurred, eg prosecutions. This is something Obama clearly does not want to happen.
Sorry for coming across as "snide". But to me the number one problem with Obama has always been his clear lack of commitment to the ideas he espouses. This started in the primaries with his supposed commitment to the public financing of campaigns, and has continued throughout whether in regards to transparency, accountability, gay rights, women's rights, budget ear marks, etc. etc. Everyone, even a life long mentor who he once described as a father figure to him ( Jeremiah Wright), and everything, is disposable once it becomes a political liability. The thing is, Ron, he came to the Presidency with no record of accomplishment but on one idea - change you can believe in. And it is simply not there.
Lewis,
ReplyDeleteMy recollection is that -- all your other points aside -- Obama made a wonderful speech about Jeremiah Wright, affirming his friendship but unequivocally refuting his racist statements. Then, after Wright said more, Obama condemned his behaviour and resigned from his church. What's wrong with that?
Ron
Ron
I do not think one could characterize Wright's sermon as "racist". He expressed his anger and frustrations about America's policies. An anger probably held by many others. Obama not only resigned from the Church, but it appears that Wright has become a persona non grata. Logs of the hundreds of those invited to visit the White House in Obama's 10 months indicate that Wright has never been there.
ReplyDelete