RECENT POSTS
- Admiral Mike Mullen To Geneva for START Talks
- VP Biden to Indian Prime Minister: “You’re the Hottest Ticket in Town”
- FLOTUS on the State Dinner: Like a Swan, "Calm and Serene Above Water, But We're Paddling Like Mad, Going Crazy Underneath"
- White House State Dinner: The Menu, Entertainment, and Decor
- Dan Pfeiffer, White House Blogger
- Guests Begin to Arrive for White House State Dinner Festivities
- President Obama on Afghanistan Strategy: “It Is My Intention to Finish the Job”
- The Obamas Kick off their First State Visit, Welcome India's Prime Minister to the White House
- Obama’s Afghanistan Strategy To Include “Benchmarks” and “Off-Ramps,” Announcement Next Week
- The Presidential Planner
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.
I'm not sure why Obama's reversal on this is so remarkable. Memos were released which showed that the torture was sanctioned at the highest levels, and we know that it was carried out as such. Now, Obama has received advice from his military commanders that release of the graphic pics will cost the lives of our servicemen. Some may call it a flip-flop, I call it effectively adjusting to the situation. It was a sound decision. We know what went on and we know that it will be investigated - we don't need the gruesome pics. He put our military personnel first.
Posted by: hopesprings52 | May 14, 2009 3:38:10 PM
"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?
Posted by: Sigmonde | May 14, 2009 2:59:47 PM
I thought the whole point of this war was to get rid of the terrorists, but apparently not. Because even if we defeat all terrorist groups, if we abandon our ideals and use Terrorist tactics (torture, kidnapping, rape) then we will never win the war because then we would be the terrorists.
Posted by: Jason | May 14, 2009 2:52:45 PM
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?
Posted by: Sigmonde | May 14, 2009 1:38:45 PM
"In this respect, supporters of water-boarding are ideologically no different than the Taliban....."
A bit of a reach, huh?
As far as Jesus, we can't be sure what he would do. But, what would you do? Would you approve of using waterboarding if you thought it might save lives in an emergency?
Posted by: Sigmonde | May 14, 2009 1:15:27 PM
"What I don't understand is why the American Civil Liberties Union is working against Americans ..... if this is a matter of Afghanistan and Iraqi prisoners being abused by American soldiers, why isn't the United Nations stepping in? The ACLU is designed to protect Americans ... it's not meant to protect foreigners from Americans. Does anyone else have a problem with this?"
I DO! ACLU is a joke; nothing but a bunch of uneducated morons who can't get a real job!
Posted by: TM-RI | May 14, 2009 1:02:30 PM
Sigmonde said "Defining water-boarding as torture remains controversial".
Actually, it BECAME controversial under Bush and Cheney. It had been called torture around the world for centuries. The USA has even convicted people of torture for doing it. I looked up the history of water-boarding, or water torture, or the 'water cure'. Up until the previous administration, it was universally descried as torture.
Sigmonde asked "Do you believe that Jesus would water board someone if it could save human lives?"
No. He wouldn't save his own life from torture and execution in exchange for giving up his beliefs, I absolutely believe he would not condone it under any circumstances.
It comes down to whether or not one believes that the end justifies the means. I don't. The Taliban does, according to the Pakistani Ambassador to the US. And he should know, his country is currently fighting the Taliban some 70 miles from their capital. In this respect, supporters of water-boarding are ideologically no different than the Taliban.....
Posted by: SearamblerOne | May 14, 2009 12:54:31 PM
How would one deal with a prisoner of War soldier or soldiers "now" when they are caught and interrogated in our war camps? Also, how would the enemy deal with their prisoner of War soldier or soldiers from our country "now" when they are interrogated in their war camps. Would it be of equal justice? If their serious about Torture, then it should go both ways, this isn't a game this is involving human lives and we all should play by the same rules. Cutting off heads and slaying people for no reason in some interrogating camps in other countries doesn't sound like fair play to me, but I guess our Government will have to deal with this solution so we'll be on the same playing field with our enemies. I wonder how that will play out. I hope they get the message what's good for the goose is also good for the gander. To bad that we even have to think about torture, but War is cruel. I guess if we all thought on the same wave length and realized we're all people who want to be loved, cared for, and want peace, then War wouldn't even have to be an issue, but War seems to go on and on and on. Hmmmm I wonder why?
Posted by: mimi | May 14, 2009 12:47:31 PM
"How is it that the right-wing so conveniently fogets that John McCain,their anointed candidate in 2008, a victim of torture himself clearly condemned waterboarding as torture? "
That is his opinion. He doesn't speak for every Republican. If he had, he would be president now.
Posted by: Sigmonde | May 14, 2009 12:03:32 PM
"Sigmonde: interesting that you are seemingly willing to take the word of the CIA in terms of what they told Congress and when."
I have never said that. Show me where I have said or please don't make comments like that. Thanks.
Posted by: Sigmonde | May 14, 2009 12:01:10 PM
Sigmonde: interesting that you are seemingly willing to take the word of the CIA in terms of what they told Congress and when. Given the sterling record of the CIA and the intelligence leading up to the Iraq war, I'm just a little bit skeptical.
Posted by: EdDoc80 | May 14, 2009 11:51:04 AM
How is it that the right-wing so conveniently fogets that John McCain,their anointed candidate in 2008, a victim of torture himself clearly condemned waterboarding as torture?
Posted by: William J. LePetomane | May 14, 2009 11:43:30 AM
Someone yesterday seriously questioned the value of what was obtained by waterboarding. The person quoted Jesse Ventura, a former Navy Seal and who underwent waterboarding. Ventura said if he had a couple hours to waterboard Cheney, he coult get Cheney to confess to the Sharon Tate murders. The message, of course, that the information in many cases is questionable.
Posted by: EdDoc80 | May 14, 2009 11:40:06 AM
And now we have the spectacle of Nancy Pelosi at a press conference, calling the CIA "liars", that they are lying to Congress about what and when she knew about waterboarding..
Posted by: Sigmonde | May 14, 2009 11:36:16 AM
you know what the ACLU should also request, rendition approved by Eric Holder under the Clinton administration. let's look at that. i am curious to see what kind of torture Clinton administration did.
Posted by: jaj | May 14, 2009 11:18:23 AM
There should be no doubt that Obama or any future President will use a form of water boarding to obtain information if it meant the saving of human lives, regardless of any pronouncements to the contrary.
Posted by: Sigmonde | May 14, 2009 9:51:54 AM
SearamblerOne: Attacks were stopped in LA so American lives were saved...even Obama admits it due to the info from waterboarding. So the question is would you have prefered the attacks happen in LA and innocent American lives lost or the waterboarding of 3 men who plead guilty to planning the attacks on 9/11 that killed 3000 Americans...their plan was to take those buildings down right away which means more like 30,000 people would be dead. Is Lincoln a war criminal? He suspended then constitution in times of war...actually he suspended it because the liberal democrats wanted african Americans to continue being slaves while the GOP President wanted all men to be equal oh the irony! How bout Truman is he a war criminal dropping nukes on Japan and murdering thousands of innocent women and children or did he do what he needed to to save more American lives?
Posted by: mike | May 14, 2009 9:45:15 AM
Do you believe that Jesus would water board someone if it could save human lives?
Posted by: Sigmonde | May 14, 2009 9:25:49 AM
"I believe Jesus WOULD consider water-boarding torture."
What you believe may be different than what Jesus may have believed. You don't know what he believed. Defining water boarding as torture remains controversial. Abortion was once considered a crime. Now, it is legal.
Posted by: Sigmonde | May 14, 2009 9:18:52 AM
Batman did the Bat Turn in a Chrysler.
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | May 14, 2009 9:01:46 AM
Post a comment
