Obama to block release of detainee abuse photos

[Sheilbh]

To an extent, yes, but humans are masters of doublespeak. "Whether it looked like a law was broken" is not the same as "certainty that a law was broken." Tons of evidence for more everyday trials is kept under wraps for precisely this reason. 

That doesn't matter in terms of prosecutions.  Of course, if it's decided that no law was broken, then there should be no prosecutions.  What I dislike is the politics of Obama saying even if a law were broken there shouldn't be prosecutions.  I think that's wrong and I think it's disgusting for a President to intervene in that way.  If he wants to play the healer and setter of bones then pardon them if they're guilty.

[The Minsky Moment]

What I dislike is the politics of Obama saying even if a law were broken there shouldn't be prosecutions.  I think that's wrong and I think it's disgusting for a President to intervene in that way.  If he wants to play the healer and setter of bones then pardon them if they're guilty.

On that matter I have more sympathy.  There is such a thing as prosecutorial discretion; the govt can and should make judgments about when to bring a prosecution and can consider possible collateral consequences in making that decision.  I don't read Obama's call on that as endorsing a Nuremberg defense.  I think it is a recognition that these are complex and difficult issues, and that the conduct of certain persons, while IMO clearly over the line, was no so far over as to say that the fact that they relied on what appeared to be bona fide Justice Dept legal opinion does not create valid extenuating circumstances.  It's not akin to gassing people in concentration camps and then claiming you didn't know it was against international law because the gauleiter told you it was OK.

[Neil]

It's not akin to gassing people in concentration camps and then claiming you didn't know it was against international law because the gauleiter told you it was OK.

Was gassing people in concentration camps against international law?

[Razgovory]

What I dislike is the politics of Obama saying even if a law were broken there shouldn't be prosecutions.  I think that's wrong and I think it's disgusting for a President to intervene in that way.  If he wants to play the healer and setter of bones then pardon them if they're guilty.

Normally I'd agree with you but I think it would cause a vicious cycle of each incoming president investigating the last.  If we had huge hearings and trials every four to eight years like the on the level of the Clinton impeachment and trial our government would be paralysed.  The sad fact is every adminstration commits some crimes or breaks some rules.  Usually it's a minor thing.  I don't see a good way to stop it without causing perputual crisis.

[Berkut]

It most certainly is at issue here, since that is exactly what Obama should do, if the court decides the other issues do not pertain. He should "properly classify them" with an executive order. Problem solved, and I am sure you and the ACLU would be happy then.

He can't do that because there are procedures  that must be followed that if properly followed would not permit the classification., and the information must be "national security information concerning the national defense or foreign policy."  Even the Bush people didn't think this could pass the laugh test - that is why (to their credit) never made the Exemption 1 argument.

I understand your response is that the President can just say - damn the law, damn the procedures - i will just classify it and make them sue me.  The problem is that doing that violates his oath of office.  You may not think that is a big deal - that is your right.  I do.

If that is meaningless to you, consider the consequences of endorsing such a mode of operation.  Imagine Obama signs an executive order seizing all of Rush Limbaugh's property, money and equipment.  Rush files a FOIA request to get documents from the government concerning the basis of the seizure.  Obama says no - it's a national security issue and the docs are all classified.  This is of course complete baloney but meanwhile Rush has to wind his way through the courts for years, with no money or means to hire a lawyer.  In the Republic of Berkutland this is all fair game.  But i would hope not in America.

No, that would not be fair game because I do not (in that case) think he would in fact be operating in good faith, and in fact I think one could make a impeachment case against him.

You have yet to explain WHY you think he is doing this if it is NOT in fact because he thinks it is a national security issue.

[Berkut]

Obama has stated he's not going after the individual base personnel, but he also doesn't want to preclude going after the personnel in the Bush administration who OK'ed it. There may yet be a criminal investigation, just not of each individual incidence.

I realise this is impossible given how political the whole thing is but I wish Obama didn't have to state anything on this and prosecutions could be decided on the basis of whether it looked like a law was broken or not.

But this has nothing to do with the law, it is just politics. The entire thing is just politics.

If you took the politics out of it, there wouldn't be anything left.

[KRonn]

Hmm... I wonder what Squeaker Pelosi has to say about all this.....   

[Berkut]

I want McCain back - at least you knew where you stood with the crazy old bastard.               

Your beef with Obama is that you don't understand how he could betray your ivory tower view of how things ought to be - but he was right with you when this was all about winning, and beating the other tribe, and being oh so pure to your principles.

But see something happened to Obama that did not happen to you - he became President. And while you can easily sit here and just assume that the Pentagon wants to suppress this because they are embarrassed, he has to sit there in a room with someone like General Abienda telling him "If you release these pictures, Americans will die". I find your contention that this is and can only be motivated by some crass self interest rather naive and simplistic.

A great opinion piece that sums up my feelings rather nicely on Obama:

Obama is right on Abu Ghraib pictures                                     Friday, 15 May 2009     
                   
For anyone living in an open and democratic country, the suppression of information is anathema. So President Barack Obama's decision to oppose the release of new pictures that show US troops abusing prisoners at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison seems, at first sight, to be deplorable and a contradiction of everything he stood for during his campaign. And this is indeed how it has been greeted by many of his most fervent supporters in the US and abroad. They put his latest move together with his decision not to prosecute CIA agents for the use of torture, and accuse him of having "sold out" to entrenched interests.
What might appear to make matters worse is that the White House had initially said it would not oppose a court ruling ordering the Pentagon to release the pictures by 28 May. It is only now, as that date approaches, that Mr Obama says he has changed his mind. Not only, you might say, has he betrayed his principles but he has vacillated and enacted a U-turn.
It is unlikely that Mr Obama's critics will be inclined to reverse tracks as smartly he has done, but they should think again. There is no question here of the administration trying to cover up something the US public does not know about. Publication of the first pictures of Abu Ghraib, in The New Yorker magazine, was completely justified. But what purpose would new pictures serve beyond confirming what is already known: that the "war on terror" fostered abuse of prisoners, which was unacceptable, probably illegal, and endemic?
This is one reason Mr Obama gave for opposing their release. The other was the anti-Americanism they could inflame and the additional danger this would pose to US troops. Some will still argue that he has heeded the warnings from his top brass rather than the better angels of his idealism. But this is not what we see. We see someone who took an informed decision, not as campaigner, but as President. He took the trouble to listen, to consider advice and then to explain why he had changed his mind. That is a mark not of weakness, but of a grown-up leader addressing a grown-up audience. We could do with a bit more of this around the world.

[Berkut]

What I dislike is the politics of Obama saying even if a law were broken there shouldn't be prosecutions.  I think that's wrong and I think it's disgusting for a President to intervene in that way.  If he wants to play the healer and setter of bones then pardon them if they're guilty.

On that matter I have more sympathy.  There is such a thing as prosecutorial discretion; the govt can and should make judgments about when to bring a prosecution and can consider possible collateral consequences in making that decision.  I don't read Obama's call on that as endorsing a Nuremberg defense.  I think it is a recognition that these are complex and difficult issues, and that the conduct of certain persons, while IMO clearly over the line, was no so far over as to say that the fact that they relied on what appeared to be bona fide Justice Dept legal opinion does not create valid extenuating circumstances.  It's not akin to gassing people in concentration camps and then claiming you didn't know it was against international law because the gauleiter told you it was OK.

I would have a lot more respect for the calls to release these documents if I thought it was motivated by an actual desire to ascertain some truth.

The reality is that it is just motivated by the desire to have a good old fashion witch hunt. It is no different than Ken Starr subpoening anyone and everyone in his little witch hunt.

[Razgovory]

I want to clarify something here.  Are these pictures just of the Abu G. thingy?  Nothing besides that?  If so, what purpose would they serve?

[grumbler]

Like I said, he should just classify them all, and let the ACLU spend a decade arguing against the classification. Maybe by the time they find a judge who will agree with them it will have blown over and the issue won't be as potentially damaging.

Unfortunately, the law on classification does not allow arbitrary classifications for purposes of avoiding government embarassment.

And the judges have been consulted, and they have been unanimous in rejecting your position.  The issue of anti-Americanism isn't goping to blow over in any forseeable future, so the damage done the administration by avoiding compliance with the law is worse than the benefits a delay in releasing these photos would accrue, IMO.

[Berkut]

It isn't for that purpose, it is for the purpose of protecting national security and lives.

Saying it has something to do with embarrassment is only relevant in that the drive to get them published is to embarrass the government, that doesn't mean that the governments wants to protect them for that reason. I will go with the reasons given by the administration. I find them convincing.

[Berkut]

And the judges have been consulted, and they have been unanimous in rejecting your position. 

That actually is not true - the pictures have not been classified, so no judges have in fact ruled on said potential classification, at least so far as I know.

[Admiral Yi]

Now I'm all tingly with curiosity to see them.

[Berkut]

Now I'm all tingly with curiosity to see them.

Its as good a reason to release them as anyone has made.