Thanks for this - I believe the mass publication of these photos would only serve to incite greater violence and do more harm than good.

Perhaps the final decision should be left to our soldiers who would most likely reap the greatest impact and suffer the greatest consequences.

Whether we like it or not -- I certainly don't -- there is much danger in the world and only a fool would pretend otherwise. I am grateful that Obama isn't a fool.

P.S., Anthony Romero is a clown.

Your PS is utterly false of course.

You are aware, are you not, that Obama plans simply to open a new Gitmo on US soil and is even now shopping the idea of "indefinitely" detaining the people held at Gitmo? That isn't bold. That is a preservation and continuation of Bush's policy (which is illegal) which Obama said he opposed. It's a naked flip flop based on reasons, had they been given by Bush, would be laughed at as thoroughly illegitimate.

The President simultaneously is planning to restart the military tribunals he clearly opposed as a candidate. Another preservation and continuation of Bush's policy.

Unlike many, I believe the President should not be given any more benefit of the doubt than any other elected political official. For that matter, no President should be given any more benefit of the doubt than other politicians. What was wrong under the Republicans is not now suddenly right because a Democrat is doing it. The hypocrisy of believing it's okay if Obama says so is astounding to me and that seems to be what is behind most of the defense of Obama's most recent flip flop.

These are questions of right and wrong and the truth doesn't change just because a different person is answering the question.

I know people don't like to hear criticism of President Obama. But if we are unwilling to recognize that a policy that is bad is bad no matter who is backing it, then we are fooling only ourselves. Furthermore, it is downright dangerous to close our eyes to the truth and to act as though it isn't there. I think that at least if a double standard is to be applied then those who are for it should at least acknowledge that it is, in fact, a double standard.

Aunt Sam wrote "would only serve to incite greater violence and do more harm than good."

I think there should be an incitement for the good conduct, over the bad. WE THE PEOPLE will not accept Domestic enemies. Including those who deem our Constitution and it's people as irrelevant.

I have not forgotten, how King George (BUSH) defied the people. How he denied us of our rights. He usurped our way of governance. Is it now that he has found some who are weak, forgive and forget.

NEVER FORGET. We need to strengthen our resolve to defend our Constitutional Instrument, our lawful Contract with those who govern.
It is Bush and those he allowed, who must answer for the shame it has brought.

Instead, if I should have proof of his misconduct, he accuses me of shameful conduct if I should expose him? How twisted is that.
If our soldiers are looked down upon who’s to blame. Who abused their authority, which brought ostracism upon them?

In my opinion, it’s all about motivation.
The Bush Administration used FEAR as a tool to motivate a Nation to go to war.
It used it to shut up the critics.
Critics found it difficult to resist the fervor of Nationalism.

Now when the shoe is on the other foot, the BUSH defenders, of Bushes FEAR techniques are still promoting a policy of FEAR.
Fear of what will happen if we release the photos.

MORAL INDIGNATION, A MOTIVATING FACTOR

At what point do the American people get motivated, not for war, but against those who perpetrate vile things? Can the American people, who were critics of the war, get sufficient motivation, absent the photos, to STIR an entire Nation to action? Will the American people be sufficiently motivated, absent the photos, to bring to justice those who abused their authority?

Can those who fight against a wave of blind Nationalism, ever get equal footing in order to resist the power of Nationalism?

It is becoming more evident, that the power in Washington, is not concerned about how its citizens can be motivated by moral indignation. As much as it endeavors to keep it’s power to motivate THROUGH FEAR for WAR.

If sufficient pressure can be brought to bear on the Unlawful Conduct of Torture, without the pictures, I’d prefer that. If not, what tools can be used by the critics of war and its costs, and not just financial, Considering now that are elected officials are bent on sweeping this sordid affair under the rug.

Why should it be that TRUE defenders of America’s virtuous character be silenced; as the hypocrites drag us through the dirt and mud with all sorts of vile misconduct?

To have those in power, defend the violators and not defend America, AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, foreign and DOMESTIC. Bring to justice an enemy who, has pimped her (America), for personal gain.

This is a tough one. As much as complete transparency is needed, as promised, the safety of our men & women comes first. Our President seems right about this.

However, his statement about a few bad apples shocked me to the core. He seemed to morph into his predecessor with that.

Then WTF are you doing here, if the decision belongs to the courts alone?

"He makes the argument for release very well"

No. He makes a weak attempt to justify the ACLU's perverse interest in dirty laundry. It fails rational review.

You seem to forget about politics in your radical insanity support of "transparency" as some ultimate virtue. Obama is scoring major points in Congress where it counts and dodging a lot of flak which would interfere with a number of issues before or coming before Congress. What is the ACLU's real interest? Is it abusing the FOIA? (serious Q, I forget why the ACLU is suing to see the pics at this point)

Let him let the courts force his hand on this.

Wouldn't it be nice if everything were as simple and painted in blacks and whites as oleeb prefers. Of course Obama is going to have to establish some facility for holding some number of the prisoners at Gitmo who are very likely to have committed serious crimes; and of course he is going to have to establish some kind of legal process for determining their guilt or innocence. Some will probably be tried in U.S. District Courts under the criminal statutes, and some probably cannot, because the Bush Admin so corrupted the evidence there would not be enough to convict them under strict U.S. legal standards. But Obama cannot give KSM $50 and put him on a Greyhound bus to anywhere USA. If he did that he would not be President for long.

I'll take Obama any day, warts and all, over Bush, McCain or any other choice we are likely to have. Dennis Kucinich is not a realistic option.

Thank you for mentioning this and for pointing out the ACLU position. This has been my thinking, too.

I think tortured prisoners can still be tried but the testimony from the torture would not be admissible unless the defedant allows it in whether on purpose or by accident (opens the door...).

If there is sufficient independent evidence, a trial should proceed. Could be a big IF in some cases. But I have the impression that KSM is proud of what he did.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7133

Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, whose false tortured confession was used as basis for Bush's war, has reportedly committed suicide...
British journalist and historian Andy Worthington, an expert and author on Guantanamo, concludes: "The most important question that needs asking just now, of course, is whether it was possible for al-Libi to commit suicide in a Libyan jail, or whether he was murdered. I doubt that we will ever find out the truth...Whatever al-Libi’s actual crimes, his use as a tool in a program of 'extraordinary rendition' and torture, exploited shamelessly not to foil future terrorist plots but to yield false information about al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, remains a low point in a 'War on Terror' that has few redeeming features."

Too convenient isn’t it. For those who could torture, could surely murder or have murdered. Dead witness’ are great for the defense team.

It's a very nice sentiment, but is not relevant in terms of the court case about the photos.

The court has completely rejected all the government's reasons for wanting to keep the photos hidden including all the reasons offered yesterday by the President. Whether or not particular documents such as these are public documents is what has been ajudicated and decided. They are public documents. The courts have completely rejected the troop safety argument as a legitimate reason to suppress the release of the photos.

It's the troops' mission to defend democracy. I heard that this morning on the radio from a career Marine.

It is not the troops' mission to be deployed as perpetual hostages as the get out of jail card for every right-wing nut out to destroy human rights and the rule of law.

Obama caved to the rants to Cheney.

dd, r u stating that now you agree with Oleeb's stance?

I don't think anyone is saying Bush would be a better President or that we aren't better off with Obama in the aggregate, but if you're honest it isn't exactly laudable that Obama adopt Bush's position on this matter after promising to undo such things. That is the heart of my objection to Obama on this as it is for many, many others.

There are actually a fairly good sized number of people who simply cannot accept any attempt to hide or otherwise suppress evidence of war crimes by our government and, if the government wins this appeal (which I doubt, but it's possible), that is the effect it would have regardless of intent. The President is playing politics with this issue and that's a big mistake in my view and in the view of many others---all of whom supported him and continue to support him but not on this or issues related to this where he has simply taken the same positions we all opposed for years when Bush took them. He is using his goodwill with millions to do something he knows is not right and he is using the excuse of troop safety to justify it knowing many people will believe it simply because he says so. I have seen this routine performed many times by many different politicians. Having been in and around politics/government for a long, long time I can tell you that is precisely what is happening in this case.

Maybe not everybody (including Obama) is as crazy as you are to think it's a good idea to release more photos.

The wackos on the left are already incensed enough about the "torture" that we did. The crazies on the right have also already made up their minds.
And I know you have.

So releasing more photos doesn't really change anything.

Rachel Maddow said last night that Obama was acting like Bush, referring to the photo release issue.

I agree. Releasing them will help our cause. (It's not the only reason to do it, just a bonus). Just like Abu Ghraib shocked Americans, this would to. It is more impactful than some grainy documents.

Adopting the Bush position, blah blah blah. That's a complete bullshit argument, one which I've now had about enough of. It is not an argument, nor is it reason. It is merely an inflammatory statement that provokes an emotional response that feels like reasoning to people who blinded by their own dogma.

Essentially, what you're saying is everything Bush did was wrong and, therefore, all Obama ever needs to do is undo everything Bush did and then, thereafter, undo the opposite of what Bush did in even half-similar situations and he'll always be right.

Can you not see how inane, how childish, how, indeed, Bushian in its inanity that view is? And ironic though itmay be, Bushian it is. As it happens, it exactly the approach the Bushies took toward everything Clinton did and the result was, among other things, 9/11 and a nuclear armed North Korea.

Have we really become so childishly, cartoonishly reactionary, that the mere fact that the Republicans took a position on a given set of facts or used a word a lot means we're against it because it has Republican cooties? The Republicans have been using the word "freedom" a lot lately. Does that mean we're supposed to be against freedom now?

Fact: the people we are fighting in Afghanistan and their allies in Pakistan are, by and large, ignorant, violent, mysogynistic, fundamentalists who hate us and hate the very notion of the liberalism. They are people who throw acid in little girls faces for the crime of trying to go to school and strap bombs to retarded kids and send them into crowds of people trying to do their grocery shopping. The fact that the Bushies and PNAC loons said bad things about them doesn't make them nice reasonable people, after all.

Fact: the Middle East is full of ignorant fundementalists who are just as prone to believe whatever nonsense caters to their prejudices as our own fundementalists. There are certainly intellectuals and college educated middle class folks who could have a reasoned discussion about these things. Mostly, however, they live in fear because their governments make Mississippi look like social service and educational paradise and, as a result, they are surrounded by angry, ignorant fundementalists who are about as inclined to engage in sophisticated moral reasoning where we're concerned as Fred Phelps is to engage in such reasoning about gayas The mere fact that Bloody Bill Kristol and his pals at National Review like to reference such people in their crypto-racist fearmongering doesn't mean should act like they're a bunch of philosophy majors in a senior seminar class on ethics.

Fact: when Newsweek casually reported about a guard in Gitmo abusing a Koran, riots ensued in Pakistan in which people died and Al Qaeda recruiting surged. Fact: the last photos that got released did result in a surge of Al Qaeda recruitment. Fact: when Danish newspapers printed cartoons insulting Mohammed to show how cool, and press freedomy and secular they were, riots ensued, people died, other people still live under death threats and each and every one those fucking cartoons is used as an Al Qaeda recruiting tool.

Fact: Right now, there are dozens of Arab language websites featuring those cartoons, references to the Gitmo Koran insult and the last round of Abu Gharib photos as propaganda and, in the minds of their audiences, it doesn't matter tht it happened a few years ago. Sunnis and Shi'ites are still killing each other in job lots over something that happened in the Seventh Century C.E. Bin Ladin is still pissed off about the Crusades. Religious extremists often have views about time that are inexplicable to secularists. The fact that some idiot Christian fundementalists s think we're in some kind of cataclysmic other worldly struggle with them doesn't mean that the idiot Islamic fundementalists are an illusion.

Fact: The majority of Muslims in the Middle East do not live in a culture derived from the European Enlightment, have cultural norms that are really, really different than ours, have different baseline assumptions about things, and often process information differently than condescending westerners expect. The mere fact that a bunch of yahoos on the right equate these differences with racial inferiority doesn't mean they made the differences up out of nowhere.

Fact: a bunch of these ignorant, hate-filled religious fanatics--some of whom stated ignorant and hateful and fanatical despite having had western college educations--did, in fact, hijack four airliners full of innocent passenger and use them to kill about 3000 of your countrymen. Thats what they did, thats what want to keep doing to us, on a larger scale is possible and its not going to stop if we suddenly decide to stop fighthing them and blow them some kisses as we leave. The mere fact that Rudi Guiliani exploited 9/11 for his own political benefit as ruthlessly as a sociopathic con man fleacing a bunch of old people doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Fact: our current president knows one hell of a lot more about Muslims and Islam than anyone on the Bush Administration and more than the vast majority of smug, know it all blog commenters who don't have the responsibility for hundreds of thousands of lives hanging on their decisions. If he's afraid of their reaction, it is at least possible, is it not, that decision was the result of a reasoned, sensible internal debate rather than some platitudinious Texas tough-guy porn swagger?

There mere fact that the Bushies kept stuff secret because they were paranoid statists with totalitarian leanings doesn't mean keeping stuff secret is automatically a bad idea. If you think its a bad idea, it is incumbent upon you to explain why on its own terms, not by invoking the specer of George W. Bush.

So, say the pictures get released. Say it sets off a wave of violence that drives the Sunni Awakening factions--who are already getting shit upon by the Shi'ite government-- back into insurgency in Iraq, sets fire to Pakistan, stirs up a new flood of dollars out of Saudi Arabia and cuts the legs out from under us in Afghanistan. You say it won't happen because they'll be totally mature about it and congratulate us on our forthrightness, but if it does, are you going to feel even a little bit bad about it? Are you going to feel even a little in the wrong? Or are you going to find some bullshit rationalization like "well, its not my fault, its the fault of the people who did the stuff in those pictures?"

And this is a comment intended to do what? Be clever? Snide? Sarcastic?

Wackos on the left huh? You mean like the Federal Judges on the 2nd Circuit that have ordered their release and already rejected every single one of the reasons the President provided for not releasing them? Okay. Just so we understand who we're talkin about.

Pictures are not truth, they represent evidence. They don't have meaning outside of context, a specific narrative is needed for each one.

There IS such a thing as prejudicial testimony, whether in law or in gossip.

I think transparency, however uncomfortable, is the foundation of democracy.

That said, I can live with Obama's pragmatic decision not to release the photos if he pursues a vigorous investigation to determine who is responsible for the war crimes and to punish those who committed or authorized the crimes.

Ignoring or covering up war crimes is unacceptable for any country--including our own. If not releasing the photos is meant to cover up war crimes, which we all no took place, then Obama is completely wrong.

We'll have to see. I'm increasingly skeptical about Obama's ability to manage this, however. I can understand his reluctance to prosecute--doing so will be highly disruptive to the country and a distraction to an administration that would rather focus on other things--but I think it will be a dangerous precedent for the whole world if we decide that, when our leaders commit war crimes, we can ignore them because addressing them would be inconvenient for us.

This I have to say about Change - plus ca change, plus ca ne change pas!!!

and mea culpa for the ascription of Pinochet to Argentina.
The analogy stands, though.

Oh yes, I do know the PRICE of blindly following and accepting without question your Leader, my question, is do you know the value of a Principle?

Give me a break. You are saying that because you believe (wrongly) that I just don't like Obama that there's something deficient in the criticism of him. Well, as I said, you are wrong on my not liking Obama. I voted for him. I contributed to his campaign. I have every right,as a citizen and as a supporter to criticize him for flip flopping on promises on issue of great importance to the country. These are not political issues I'm criticizing him on. They are matters of morality and immorality, the rule of law and criminal conduct.

The difference, I think, between person like yourself and me may be that I have been in politics and government for a long time. I have worked closely with many Obamas and I have never had any blinders on about who or what he is. He is a politician plain and simple. A really, really good politician, but a politician. He is not "different" from the rest. That whole marketing ploy was hooey from day one. Axelrod did a great job of getting people to believe but it isn't and never was true. He is just another one of them and he is the ultimate insider's outsider. He's smart and I like that. He has a good heart and I like that. He knows right from wrong and that's a good thing though he often compromises the right when it is easier than doing the right thing which is standard political behavior. He gives a good speech and can be an inspiration when he wants to be. All desirable qualities in a good politician.

But he, like many of his fellow practioners in Washington are wont to do, is making the mistake of playing politics in matters where politics should be put aside and principle defended. He is a politician whose record on these issues (war crimes, torture, etc...) demonstrates a lack of committment to moral and legal principles he himself claimed and prounounced during his campaign and, I might add, on January 21st of this year when he proclaimed that the rule of law and transparency would be the hallmark of his Presidency. His record belies that statement with the notable and welcome exception of the torture memos having been released. Otherwise, he has caved in repeatedly to the worst elements in Washington and his policies on the whole war on terror and anything having to do with the criminal conduct of the Bush years is becoming a mirror image of Bush's policies. This is precisely the sort of craven DC Democratic behavior that has stood in the way of progress on any number of fronts for decades, but on this front it is intolerable and a threat to our future as a civilized republic.

Because you and many others want Obama to be better than he is clearly demonstrating that he is, you can barely contain yourselves when you detect "disloyalty" to him or that someone "dislikes" him. I would submit to you I am far more loyal to him and wanting him to be successful for the country than all those who refuse to acknowledge the reality of what he is doing. He is clearly a captive of Washington and the Washington mindset. He is surrounded by Washington insiders who long ago lost their moral bearings. He is fully invested in the Rahm Emmanuel style of Democratic governance which is reprehensible and duplicitous when it comes to these issues.

If the President actually believes in transparency and the rule of law he has a strange way of showing it thus far (again with the notable exception of release of the torture memos). His moral "flexibility" has been evident since his flip flop on FISA. You don't have to believe this of course. But I say look at what is happening and judge the President not on what you hope he might end up doing but on what he has done. Do not excuse anything with this politician in the White House that you would not have excused when Bush was in. That is only fair and honest. With respect to all of the war crimes of the Bush administration there's no avoiding the conclusion that Obama's record thus far is simply deplorable. It is exceptionally clear that unless there is fierce public opposition to his attempts to cover for the Bush regime's crimes he will continue to cover for them. That is exactly what is going on and what is clearly being foreshadowed by the administration.

He has made a series of horrendously bad judgments on these questions that are both disappointing and dangerous for the future of the country and that's the truth. It has nothing to do with my personal feelings about him though I must say with each and every flip flop and betrayal I lose more respect for him because I didn't think he would completely capitulate to the forces of darkness with this kind of speed. It's a tremendous disapppointment to me that he has shown so little resolve.

And by the way, you wrote:

"Of course, there is an honest debate to be had about those torture photos."

Not really. The courts have already ruled. That debate is over and even the President's position last month was that any appeal would be "hopeless." The debate is about why the President has flip flopped and why he continues to do all he can to keep the previous administration's crimes from being exposed. None of it has anything to do with whether someone likes him or not.

Most of this isn't worth responding to so I won't. If you don't like me because you think I don't like Obama or that I don't like him to your satisfaction, it's really not something I'm gonna lose any sleep over.

You wrote:

"The legal debate may be over, but the national security debate is not."

What are you talking about? There is no national security debate about this, it's merely a political distraction in pursuit of covering up atrocious conduct that our government committed. It has absolutely nothing to do with national security under Obama any more than it did under Bush.