dagblog - Comments for "Let's Look at the Court Decision Ordering Release of the Photos The President Now Seeks to Overturn"

Oleeb, I don't know how you

rowanwolf — Sun, 17 May 2009 22:00:00 +0000

In reply to Let's Look at the Court Decision Ordering Release of the Photos The President Now Seeks to Overturn

Oleeb, I don't know how you could have stated it any clearer.

1. The court ruled against the Bush arguments to withhold these visual materials.

2. Obama is presenting the same argument as the Bush administration in not releasing the material.

3. The court order stands.

The choice Obama needs to make is to follow the Bush lead in defying a court order, or to comply with the court order. Period.

You are astutely correct in identifying that central issue, and clearly taking us away from the noisy debate that acts like this is a political point. It is a legal point and thank you for centering the real crux of the issue.

I recommended this article, and would have recommended it four more times to get to a Five Star rating! *****

Forensics deals with what's

eds — Sun, 17 May 2009 11:48:18 +0000

In reply to Let's Look at the Court Decision Ordering Release of the Photos The President Now Seeks to Overturn

Forensics deals with what's on the table. You post trash, I call it like it is. I apprenticed as a janitor some time ago. You certainly must know what fallacies you're trying to get away with, but I certainly don't know why.

You certainly would know a

oleeb — Sun, 17 May 2009 06:02:15 +0000

In reply to Let's Look at the Court Decision Ordering Release of the Photos The President Now Seeks to Overturn

You certainly would know a lot about trash, but in this case I'll go with the opinion that was upheld on appeal.

The reason is because that is

oleeb — Sun, 17 May 2009 05:57:57 +0000

In reply to Let's Look at the Court Decision Ordering Release of the Photos The President Now Seeks to Overturn

The reason is because that is the law which is no small thing.

The pictures must be released in accordance with the law.

From the court's order:

"Our nation does not surrender to blackmail, and fear of blackmail is not a legally sufficient argument to prevent us from performing a statutory command..."

The order makes very clear that the possibility of "inflaming" Muslims any more than they are already inflamed is nothing more than speculation and that there is a counterbalancing positive impact to the release. The court carefully and in great detail goes through arguments, weighs them, and finds that the claims of the Pentagon are nothing but claims and claims that the law does not yield to and for good and established reason. Specifically on the troop safety claim the court went way out of its way to hear the argument (which it could have rejected out of hand as out of order)and gave the government every possible chance to make a credible claim. The government's claim was not sufficient to suppress the documents, in this case, photos.

Among other things the court directly addresses your point:

"With great respect to the concerns expressed by General Myers, my task is not to defer to our worst fears, but to interpret and apply the law, in this case, the Freedom of Information Act, which advances values important to our society, transparency and accountability in government."

Please note that the Judge pays deference to the military particularly since he was a part of the JAG in the US Army for several years as a young man and thus has real empathy with the concerns voiced by the Generals.

The court makes clear why the law anticipates the difficulty of situations precisely like this and addresses specifically what the importance is of follwoing the law in releasing public documents like these photos:

"Publication of the photographs is central to the purpose of FOIA because they initiate debate, not only about the improper and unlawful conduct of American soldiers, "rogue" soldiers, as they have been characterized, but also about other important questions as well---for example, the command structure that failed to exercise discipline over the troops, and the person in that command structure whose failures in exercising supervision may make them culpable along with the soldier who were court-martialed for perpetrating the wrongs;"

The court clearly anticipates the importance of release of the documents in order to spark debate that could lead to thos responsible for these crimes when it says:

"and the person in that command structure whose failures in excecising supervision may make them culpable along with the soldiers who were court-martialed for perpetrating those wrongs;"

All of these reasons, clearly laid out are compelling and sound and unassailable. Your personal assessment differs with the judge which is fine, but the judge considered and weighed every argument, as did the appeals court and found the reasons offered by the government, the very reasons Obama now submits, unconvincing and inadquate to suppress the documents. There is a massive difference between one's personal opinion and that of a judicial opinion of this kind which was clearly given tremendous thought and all the merits of both sides given a fair and honest hearing.

If you cannot see how exceptionally clear the law is in this matter, particularly after reading the opinion or excerts then I just don't know how to explain the matter to you except to say this isn't a matter in which you (meaning anyone) get to create a new reason for suppression of public information that is outside the law, with no evidence to support the claim or that tips the balance of any of the tests the law requires in favor of your new and nonstatutory claim. In a nation where the law is supposed to be supreme, then that is what counts, not the emotional response to suppress because of the specter of possible negative consequences and the court specifically made that point more than once in its decision.

I'm sorry. I saw nothing in

Ramona — Sun, 17 May 2009 04:26:15 +0000

In reply to Let's Look at the Court Decision Ordering Release of the Photos The President Now Seeks to Overturn

I'm sorry. I saw nothing in the judge's comments that would justify releasing those photos. That's what we're talking about here--isn't it?

How is deciding not to release inflammatory torture photos "covering up the truth"? We KNOW the truth. What exactly will these photos add?

"the balancing analysis

eds — Sat, 16 May 2009 23:08:58 +0000

In reply to Let's Look at the Court Decision Ordering Release of the Photos The President Now Seeks to Overturn

"the balancing analysis weighs in favor of disclosure in the present case. There is a substantial public interest in these pictures"

That's the problem in a nutshell. You MUST weigh, and you must have sufficient reason for release.

The judge is wrong on 43-44, it's not "blackmail" it's prudence. Ditto on 45, it's not "need pretext" but "inflamed passions" which is the criterion.

I stopped at that point. The opinion is trash, as cited by the OP.

So what was an obvious

oleeb — Sat, 16 May 2009 19:29:33 +0000

In reply to Let's Look at the Court Decision Ordering Release of the Photos The President Now Seeks to Overturn

So what was an obvious attempt to cover up the truth under Bush is now suddenly a virtuous and wise move because the leader handing you the ver same line has changed?

Nothing has changed about this case factually. There are no changed circumstances of any kind. Not one thing is changed and there is absolutely nothing but speculation and fear (as the judge so clearly pointed out) to warrant continued suppression of these photos.

Like you, I am not sure what

diachronic — Sat, 16 May 2009 18:00:31 +0000

In reply to Let's Look at the Court Decision Ordering Release of the Photos The President Now Seeks to Overturn

Like you, I am not sure what that "chilling effect on future investigations" may be. As a matter of fact, it blatantly contradicts his assertion that the "bad apples" were already punished.
I detect the "benevolent paternalism" of the behavioral economists whose thinking permeates the White House. In my opinion, it is we, not the terrorists of al-Qaeda who hardly need incitement, who are the targets of this action. Obama does not want to undermine his own program by exposing how deeply poisoned the command structure of the American military has been and no doubt continues to be -poisoned from the top.
As for qualms regarding photos triggering riots in Pakistan, it is estimated that there are now a MILLION refugees in that country. The scale of this catastrophe is not easy to understand, and it has far more dire consequences for Obama's policy than any photos could have.
But as I said, Obama wants us to have faith in the command structure. Given what has transpired, that is simply not possible.

Oleeb, I read your excerpt,

Ramona — Sat, 16 May 2009 17:52:55 +0000

In reply to Let's Look at the Court Decision Ordering Release of the Photos The President Now Seeks to Overturn

Oleeb, I read your excerpt, so please don't keep repeating, when someone doesn't agree with you, that they must not have read it. We're reading--really.

In your very first cite, the judge says:

With the exception of the small number of Darby photographs that I ordered to be withheld, where the risk of exposure is too great and the informational value is minimal, the balancing analysis weighs in favor of disclosure in the present case. There is a substantial public interest in these pictures, evidence by the active public debate engendered by the versions previously leaked to the press, or otherwise obtained by the media.

If he, in fact, wants so scrupulously to follow the law, how is it that he finds the authority to withhold ANY pictures? If he is deciding which pictures to hold back and which will be shown, wouldn't you agree that he's crossing a legal line? I'm not a legal scholar by any means, but I thought following the law meant "following the law"--which, in this case, means releasing the photos.

He cites "public interest" as further reason for the decision. That's specious. There are many times when "public interest" cannot and should not be the basis for issuing a legal determination. Security issues and Privacy issues trump public interest, for example.

But this is the part that is most troubling to me:

The terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan do not need pretexts for their barbarism; they have proven to be aggressive and pernicious in their choice of targets and tactics. They have driven exploding trucks into groups of children at play and men seeking work; they have attacked doctors, lawyers, teachers, judges and legislators as easily as soldiers. Their pretexts for carrying out violence are patent hypocrisies, clearly recognized as such except by those who would blur the clarity of their own vision.

This may be true enough, but does it have a place in a written judgment? What does this have to do with his "strict" interpretation of the law as it applies to questionable photos? Who is he trying to convince, and why? If, as you say, he has the law on his side, this is nothing more than hyperbolic nonsense, best left to opinion pieces.

Clearly you believe this is a legal issue, and nothing more. I believe in the law, but I see this as a moral and safety issue, as well. I'm not convinced by the judge's interpretation, but I'm glad you took the time to post this. It's useful to talk about it at length (but you'll notice we're doing it pretty well without pictures).

Oleeb, it would be great if

Lalo35adm — Sat, 16 May 2009 16:51:43 +0000

In reply to Let's Look at the Court Decision Ordering Release of the Photos The President Now Seeks to Overturn

Oleeb, it would be great if you could turn your sharp eye on Holder's testimony to the House Judiciary Committee last week.