RECENT POSTS
- Gibbs on Capitol Hill Protest: “I'm Sure There's a Jon Voight Joke in Here Somewhere”
- Today's Qs for O's WH – 11/5/2009
- President Obama Makes Curious Appearance in Press Room Heralding AMA and AARP Endorsements of House Health Care Bill
- Obama to Native Americans: 'No Lip Service....I'm on Your Side'
- This Week's Podcast: Peter Galbraith on What Went Wrong in the Afghanistan Elections -- And What to Do Now
- The Presidential Planner
- Obama to “Newcomers” of Classical Music: Michelle Tells Him When to Applaud
- The Biden Gambit
- Italian Court Levies Judgment on U.S. Rendition Program
- Mrs. Obama Goes Classical
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
President Obama Reverses Course on Releasing More Detainee Abuse Photographs
May 13, 2009 12:45 PM
President Obama defended his decision to fight the release of photos showing detainee abuse Wednesday afternoon, saying it would only put American troops in harms way and create a backlash against Americans.
"The most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger," the president said before departing on his trip to Arizona. "Moreover, I fear the publication of these photos may only have a chilling effect on future investigations of detainee abuse."
The move is a complete 180. In a letter from the Justice Department to a federal judge on April 23, the Obama administration announced that the Pentagon would turn over 44 photographs showing detainee abuse of prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq during the Bush administration.
But in a letter sent this afternoon to the District Court Judge in the case, Alvin Hellerstein of the US District Court in the Southern District of New York, acting US Attorney Lev Dassin, writes that while his previous April 23 letter informed the court that the Obama administration had decided not to seek certiorari of the Second Circuit Court's ruling to force the release of the photographs, his office had "been informed today that, upon further reflection at the highest levels of Government, the Government has decided to pursue further options regarding that decision, including but not limited to the option of seeking certiorari."
The deadline for that decision is June 9.
The photographs are part of a 2003 Freedom of Information Act request by the ACLU for all information relating to the treatment of detainees -- the same battle that led to President Obama's decision to release memos from the Bush Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel providing legal justifications for brutal interrogation methods, many of which the International Committee of the Red Cross calls torture.
The president today attempted to undermine the need to release the photos, saying that the pictures and individuals responsible for prisoner abuse were investigated well before he took office.
"I want to emphasize that these photos that were requested in this case are not particularly sensational, especially when compared to the painful images that we remember from Abu Ghraib," Mr. Obama said. "It's therefore my belief that the publication of these photos would not add any additional benefit to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals."
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said earlier today he was convinced against the administration's earlier decision to release the photos by commanders on the ground, who said the move would likely cause anti-American sentiment. Gates cited ousted Gen. David McKiernan, top allied commander in Afghanistan, and Gen. Ray Odierno, top allied commander in Iraq, but Central Command's Gen. David Petraeus is also said to have weighed in.
Odierno, sources said, was the most passionate against releasing the pictures.
"Perhaps what's motivated my own change of heart on this and perhaps influenced the president, is that our commanders, both Gen. McKiernan and Gen. Odierno, have expressed very serious reservations about this and their very very great worry that release of the photographs will cost American lives. That was all it took for me," Gates said at a House Armed Services Committee hearing.
Last Friday, President Obama met with White House counsel Greg Craig and other members of the White House counsel team in the Oval Office and told them that he had second thoughts about the decision to hand over photographs of detainee abuse to the ACLU.
They discussed possible counterarguments that they believed the Bush legal team hadn't tried -- namely, the argument that releasing the photographs constitute a national security risk.
AWhite House official said that the president "believes that the national security implications of such a release have not been fully presented to the court."
At the end of that meeting, the president directed Craig to object to the immediate release of the photos on those grounds. In an Oval Office meeting with Odierno Tuesday, the president told him of his decision to argue against the release of the photographs.
"The reversal is another indication of a continuance of the Bush administration policies under the Obama administration," ACLU attorney Amrit Singh told ABC News. "President Obama's promise of accountability is meaningless, this is inconsistent with his promise of transparency, it violates the government's commitment to the court. People need to examine these abusive photographs, but also the government officials need to be held accountable."
It's unclear what step the White House will now take, whether the administration will challenge the release in appellate court with new arguments or whether it will take the case to the Supreme Court.
The bottom line, a source close to the President tells ABC News, is that he thinks these photographs -- released at a very critical time in both Iraq and Afghanistan -- would hand the terrorists an opportunity to inflame sentiment against the U.S.
"That's something that weighed very heavily on him," the source said.
The idea that the photos should not be released because they would be a risk for US troops is hardly a new argument.
The Bush administration had argued that an exemption from the Freedom of Information Act was needed with these photographs because of the FOIA exemption for law enforcement records that could reasonably be expected to endanger “any individual." The release of the disputed photographs, the Bush administration argued, will endanger United States troops, other Coalition forces, and civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But the Second Circuit Court found that the exemption was not intended "as an all-purpose damper on global controversy."
The Obama argument, however, would be made not under law enforcement grounds, but on national security grounds -- a different legal avenue. Whether the courts will respond differently given the fact that it's a new administration making the argument is also a consideration.
"Through his actions from the first days of his administration, the president has made it clear that the United States will hold itself and all the men and women who serve our country to the highest standards of conduct," a White House official says. "The president would be the last to excuse the actions depicted in these photos... But the president strongly believes that the release of these photos, particularly at this time, would only serve the purpose of inflaming the theaters of war, jeopardizing U.S. forces, and making our job more difficult in places like Iraq and Afghanistan."
Yesterday White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked about a letter from Sens. Joe Lieberman, D-Ind., and Lindsey Graham, R-SC, asking him to reverse the decision, saying the "release of these old photographs of past behavior that has now been clearly prohibited can serve no public good, but will empower al-Qaeda propaganda operations, hurt our country’s image, and endanger our men and women in uniform."
Gibbs said "obviously, the president has, has great concern about any impact that pictures of detainee -- potential detainee abuse in the past could have on the present-day service members that are protecting our freedom either in Iraq, Afghanistan, or throughout the world. That's something the president is very cognizant of. And we are working to -- we are working currently to figure out what the process is moving forward."
-- -- Jake Tapper with Huma Khan, Luis Martinez, Ariane deVogue, and Vija Udenans
May 13, 2009 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (507)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Where's the change? Obama has kept in place the Bush wiretaps, sent more troops overseas, installed a new military leader in Afghanistan to fight a covert and secret war (former commander of JSOC), slowed down the pace of withdrawal from Iraq, re-instated Gitmo military tribunals, and all the while apologizing to foreign leaders about the policies he claimed were so bad, while maintaining all of them. What a hypocrite.
Posted by: disenfranchised | May 18, 2009 10:47:32 AM
The President is listening to his commanders' in chief and that is a good sign. He was told that releasing any more pictures of torture would inflame our enemies even more and put our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan in more danger. He is trying to establish a dialogue with these people and this will not be helpful. I think it is a gpositive thing that he is listening and open to suggestions from the people who are actually there and running things. Why make more out of this than what it is?
Posted by: talmag | May 18, 2009 10:03:27 AM
"If you think BuSH was wrong for war then you should have been in one of the places hit by your friends, because you're too stupid to know who your enemies are. GET REAL!"
===========
I don't think Bush was wrong for going to war. I think he was wrong for not finishing off the war with the enemies that actually hit us, not killing Bin Laden and then choosing to attack the wrong country.
As for the other things you're talking about, I ignored it due to the fact it has nothing to do with the topic of discussion.
Posted by: Joe G. | May 17, 2009 10:30:02 AM
Go back in the past & remember that BUSH hadn't even had time to wipe his butt in the royal throne room when they hit us. If you want to blame anyone blame each and every person that didn't get Clinton out of office after bringing disgrace to the highest office of the United States of American that office should only belong to a person that can be completely trusted; 2 women told on him. That lower the mortal code in the U.S.A. The always present enemy was waiting for us to deny GOD so we lose our strenght; there is a reason that WE ARE THE DEFENDERS & THE DEFEATERS OF ALL NATIONS because GOD ALMIGHTY is with this nation because we have always looked to him on how to act, how to treat others & how to raise our children.
Now these people that have come against us are out to defeat us, not just hurt us. They want to rule over us, or kill us. There isn't any mercy given in there teachings; we have always been there with a helping hand & letting people join our country, but the people also lived by the rules that was set forth by very thorough persons. Our rules are being changed, because of very stupid petty things. Everyone knows that the GOD of our being (YES, our being) didn't make a gay baby, if he did then they couldn't be punish for doing something that is a really sick gross act when done with the same sex, AND because they say they were born that way they don't have to be accountable for their action.SORRY you made a choice to keep thinking of that, or of robbing a bank, or of burning that house down, or of sleeping with that child. You are your own monster. Not your Mother, Father unless they are sick in the head also. Never-the-less you have to stop yourself from thinking of ugly thoughts. If you think BuSH was wrong for war then you should have been in one of the places hit by your friends, because you're too stupid to know who your enemies are. GET REAL!
Posted by: rhonda | May 17, 2009 2:22:08 AM
"His position is changing on everything so quickly he's making the country dizzy. Say what you mean and do what you say."
============
It's not "everything". He still released the memos which were huge in terms of knowing the minds of the people behind the scenes in the Bush Administration. He did flip on the trials of detainees, but he's gotta be careful on that subject. The way they were captured, if one of those guys gets off on a technicality and rejoins Al-Qaeda like happened with a few that got released under Bush how will he ever be able to get the country to support the trials of the remaining detainees?
There's also an argument to be made for leaders that intend to do things one way before they get in office, but because of changing situations or the advice of his cabinet, he changes his mind.
What's the point of having the "team of rivals" model if when they disagree with a policy decision and voice their concerns, you're not at least open to their opinions?
Even the greatest american presidents changes their minds on issues if a pursuasive enough argument can be presented. Then they have to live with the consequences. Look at Abraham Lincoln and his views on slavery. He didn't always agree that slavery should be abolished. It took Frederick Douglas to convince him over time of that fundamental point. After, Lincoln had to live with the consquences of having HALF the country despising him and ultimately getting shot.
You want a President who ways these issues very carefully. Idealistically I would agree that Obama should do what he says he's going to do, but realistically, history has shown us that releasing those photos at this particular time could get troops killed.
They might still come out, but hopefully at a time when Al-Qaeda is weakened in strength, not growing as they are now.
Posted by: Joe G. | May 16, 2009 5:40:01 AM
Sigmonde wrote
``If on September 2nd, 2001 the CIA had captured a terrorist who they thought had vital information about an imminent attack on the World Trade Center, would any of you have approved the use of water boarding to attempt to get the information? ``
----------------------------------------
If X had seen Y, then Z would have multiplied W for N to be equal to A. Do you get it? That is how weak your assertion is.
If.....if......if.......if..... then.....then....
Posted by: keith | May 15, 2009 11:31:35 PM
His position is changing on everything so quickly he's making the country dizzy. Say what you mean and do what you say.
Posted by: zeke | May 15, 2009 6:36:45 PM
When they are released, will Al-Qaeda use the images to recruit, yes or no?
Simple as that...
We have the memos and the world knows we torture, as sad as that is, why give Al-Qaeda more ammunition to increase their ranks?
Posted by: Joe G. | May 15, 2009 1:46:42 PM
The world knows these pictures exist. you can't hide them any more.
If they are not release our "enemies" will have proof the US supports torture and Obama is just as secretive as bush.
If the pictures are release and those who gave orders are prosecuted, the "enemy" has lost it's position.
Posted by: waysie | May 15, 2009 10:57:52 AM
Bush used signing statements to get around laws when he wanted to, why is it such a stretch for some to believe that he used a similar process in getting his legal department to redefine accepted definitions of torture to put his policies into effect...
Posted by: Ida | May 15, 2009 12:44:04 AM
Every day there are thousands that don't make it to full term because they are tortured.
Posted by: R. Pfau | May 14, 2009 9:41:42 PM
The only questions I have is:
1) Does torture work?
2) If it does, is it worth the risk that Al-Qaeda uses it to recruit more extremists to their cause?
3) If it doesn't, do we prosecute the ppl who ordered it as was done with the troops in Abu Ghraib that followed those orders and carried them out?
Lets take the ideology out of this discussion and bring it back to a debate on the facts.
Posted by: Joe G. | May 14, 2009 9:29:42 PM
1) Waterboarding is torture.
2) The world knew we tortured long before the memos were released or Obama became president because of Abu Gharib and reports by Red Cross.
3) Torture is illegal which is why the soldiers at Abu Gharib were tried and jailed.
4) Al-Qaeda uses the knowledge that we torture as a means of recruitment.
These are all well known facts. So if you are going to debate one way or the other on this issue, lets start with what we all know to be true.
Posted by: Joe G. | May 14, 2009 9:17:42 PM
It amazes me, the not so few that didn't make it to full term because they were tortured.
Posted by: R. Pfau | May 14, 2009 9:02:39 PM
Sigmonde - "If on September 2nd, 2001 the CIA had captured a terrorist who they thought had vital information about an imminent attack on the World Trade Center, would any of you have approved the use of water boarding to attempt to get the information?"
I'll take that hypothetical in spite of the fact that it's lame nonsense. If I were the president and I did think that it would truly save thousands of lives I might. But if I did I would make 100% sure that I protected the identities of those who carried it out and afterward I would hold a press conference admitting it and taking full responsibility for it and would at the very least offer to resign my position.
I would not ask for special treatment and I would not make pathetic excuses for it. If it meant I went to prison for it then so be it.
Posted by: morethanpolite | May 14, 2009 8:39:48 PM
Whether you agree or disagree with the presidents choice to fight the release of the photos, and I agree he should be allowed to fight, if the supreme court sides with the ACLU on this issue they're coming out reguardless no matter what Obama wants.
Posted by: Joe G. | May 14, 2009 7:27:11 PM
Read this recent NY Times obituary about a Korean War US Air Force pilot tortured by the Chinese into falsely confessing to conducting germ warfare. Read the details of the torture techniques used on this pilot.
Then tell me how the US Government is behaving differently from the Communist Chinese Government? (And please no lame "he was wearing a uniform" arguments! The Second Protocol to the Geneva Conventions blows away that lame argument.)
US WAR CRIMES. Period.
==============
New York Times | May 8, 2009
"Harold E. Fischer Jr., an American Flier Tortured in a Chinese Prison, Dies at 83"
By DENNIS HEVESI
Col. Harold E. Fischer Jr., an American fighter pilot who was routinely tortured in a Chinese prison during and after the Korean War, becoming — along with three other American airmen held at the same prison — a symbol and victim of cold war tension, died in Las Vegas on April 30. He was 83 and lived in Las Vegas.
The cause was complications of back surgery, his son Kurt said.
From April 1953 through May 1955, Colonel Fischer — then an Air Force captain — was held at a prison outside Mukden, Manchuria. For most of that time, he was kept in a dark, damp cell with no bed and no opening except a slot in the door through which a bowl of food could be pushed. Much of the time he was handcuffed. Hour after hour, a high-frequency whistle pierced the air.
After a short mock trial in Beijing on May 24, 1955, Captain Fischer and the other pilots — Lt. Col. Edwin L. Heller, First Lt. Lyle W. Cameron and First Lt. Roland W. Parks — were found guilty of violating Chinese territory by flying across the border while on missions over North Korea. Under duress, Captain Fischer had falsely confessed to participating in germ warfare....
Posted by: Steve in Los Angeles | May 14, 2009 6:03:09 PM
The point here is that TORTURE is effective in forcing FALSE CONFESSIONS. Cheney needed to force someone to say, "Yes, Saddam Hussein was training Al-Queda in chemical warfare." Cheney et al were willing to torture and murder (the US military admits to more than 100 GWOT homocides-- their term-- against prisoners-- murder is certainly torture) in order to manufacture evidence for puppet Colin Powell to spew at his infamous UN speech in 2003.
All this spells WAR CRIMES. Period. End of argument.
ALSO, torture is morally reprehensible and damning. It is shocking how many commenters here are unconcerned with either real intelligence, fraud, and ethics.
Posted by: Steve in Los Angeles | May 14, 2009 5:09:38 PM
Someone posted this nonsense:
"I thought the whole point of this war was to get rid of the terrorists"
Do you think it is OK to kill terrorists but not OK to subject them to waterboarding?
It is alot I could say about this. First, this is not a war, it is an aggression against a population. The "point" of killing "terrorists" is loaded, because all it takes to become a "terrorist" is for anyone to allege you are. Then you, as an "alleged terrorist", according to people who don't even know your name, are a candidate for summary execution in your own home or neighborhood, thousands of miles from whatever people you are allegedly supposed to be terrorizing. The true terrorists are those promoting this policy of murder. Further, let's humor the ignorant, and discuss waterboarding terrorists. My question is how many of the interrogated individuals eventually were released with no charges? Many times more than were ever convicted of anything. Similarly, that math can give you a general idea of how many "alleged terrorists" killed by the US troops were actually innocent of any wrongdoing even according to the unjust, and inappropriate standards of the US Occupation. Many times innocent are targeted by the US and murdered for nothing. So, how many innocent people should be waterboarded in order to get one tidbid of useful information? How many innocent people should be killed by US forces to kill one person who might potentially threaten the US someday? And ask yourself this, how many terrorists do you create each time you murder an innocent? I bet there are more created than killed in each event. This is wrong, and further, it does not make America or the World safer when you create more enemies than you kill each time you fire your gun. And ask yourself this, if these methods are so just, try them in the states, I personally am more threatened by criminals in the streets of America than by some Iraqi who hates America in the streets of Baghdad. If you don't mind being waterboarded yourself, then go ahead and support waterboarding. Sooner or later some politician will note how "effective" it was and maybe it can be used in your neighborhood. And if someone accuses you of being a terrorist in Main street USA, maybe a Predator Drone can fire a missile into your living room without any due process or regard to who else might be hurt. Then you will finally understand.
Posted by: Taqwa Siddeeq | May 14, 2009 4:55:15 PM
'Do you think it is OK to kill terrorists but not OK to subject them to waterboarding?'
Posted by: Sigmonde
wow... didn't you used to work for the guys in WW2 that were prosecuted and tried at Nuremberg?
The equating of combat and torture here is remarkable
Posted by: 21st Century | May 14, 2009 4:37:03 PM
Post a comment
