I would like to see Obama release the photographs. I understand why he will not.

[Occam Bandage]

I do not disagree with anyone who says his excuses as regards the photographs are bullshit, that it represents Obama choosing to side with the concerns of the military over the concerns of transparency, or that his decision to refuse to release is very disappointing.

I do not think it represents Bush-like malevolence either, nor is it an attack on liberalism, nor is it anything of the sort. It is, I believe, a simple decision taken from a purely political perspective. Consider the following, if you would. There are two sides at play here: internally, there is his intelligence and military structure, which strongly opposes releasing the photos partially to protect American soldiers abroad, partially to protect its image abroad, partially to protect morale in those agencies, and partially to protect themselves from public anger. Externally, there is the political left, which strongly supports releasing the photos, partially in the name of transparency, and partially to increase public anger over Bush-era abuses to increase pressure for prosecution. Obama, placed in that situation, has everything to gain by siding with the military and absolutely nothing to gain by siding with the left.

To explain this, let's discuss that last goal of the left: increasing pressure for prosecution. This is an interesting phenomenon. Prosecution of Bush officials is at its core a legal and not a political fight. While it is true that political pressure can sometimes spur Congress to action, all the political pressure in the world cannot be brought to bear on a courtroom. Courts are by design immune to such pressure. What matters for the success of a prosecution, once begun, is the weight of the evidence and nothing but. When it comes to torture, conviction of anyone in particular is by no means a sure thing. Think back to the Plame affair: it was obvious that the White House had leaked Valerie Plame's name to the media, but yet the Bushies were careful to ensure that all damning communications, paper trails, and orders were routed through Scooter Libby. Scooter lied and stonewalled, and the entire investigation fell apart, able to do nothing but convict him on obstruction of justice. There's no particular reason to believe that a conviction is a sure bet, and no amount of political pressure can change that fact.

That much is obvious, of course. You may be thinking that the purpose of pressure is to encourage the prosecution to be launched, with conviction beside the point entirely. Well, no, conviction is not beside the point at all. If Obama launches a high-profile public investigation of his political opponents, and if that investigation does not result in criminal charges, it will be difficult to defend the investigation as anything but an embarrassing waste of time and money. If Obama launches an attempt to throw his political opponents in jail, and if a judge then rejects Obama's arguments as to why a former President of the United States must be jailed, it will be impossible to defend against charges of an unprecedented political witch hunt. Going after Bush would be the highest-stakes game Obama could buy in to. Prosecution of a former President is unprecedented; the only thing that could justify it would be conviction.

Therefore, the only criterion Obama will use to decide whether to launch a public investigation/prosecution will be the weight of the evidence available, for that is the only criterion that will determine whether prosecution would be the nation's final repudiation of Bushism under a triumphant Democrat, or would be the beginning of the nation's rejection of an overreaching, witch-hunting Democrat. Political pressure for prosecution is nothing but noise; it cannot affect the result and therefore it will not affect the decision. The only possible results of that pressure are frustration in the White House and anger among those pressuring who despair to see their calls have not been acknowledged.

So let us return to the choice between the military and the left. If he chooses the military, he loses nothing internally, he gains a small amount of respect in some circles, but he will temporarily increase anger among the left (for a few days, perhaps) with perhaps a negligible lasting impact. If he chooses the left, he will temporarily satisfy some, but will enrage many in his administration (people whose cooperation would be necessary in any investigation, I might add). However, in choosing the left, he will also increase the volume of calls for prosecution; the grisly new public evidence of Bush's abuses will of course horrify many. That would represent a long-term headache, as would the anger among the military and the intelligence services.

There's no net benefit to releasing the photographs. There's a strong benefit to holding them back. While I'm disappointed he won't be releasing them, I'm hardly surprised.

[Cha]

1. I'm glad he's not releasing

them now..there's plenty of time for that when they it's the right time.

Thanks for your views.

[NYC_SKP]

2. I lol at the "Obama is Evil Because He Works for ME and just won't listen" comments.

Like any fucking one of us has ANY idea what he's dealing with or what would really be the perfect response to any of the thousands of decisions he faces.

AND, congress in the meantime gets a pass for dropping the ball on almost all the issues that are pissing us off while they scream about the president.

:shrug:

[BlooInBloo]

14. Definitely lolworthy.

[mscuedawg]

36. THANK YOU!!

Just as I lol at the tightie righties who have better ideas for the economy or what to do with Gitmo prisoners...UNTIL you get them on the spot...then they fall all over themselves...they dont have the plan!

We only see part of what is going on here...but the whining...reminds me of a bunch of fair-weather sports fans ...love 'em when they're winning, smack talk 'em when they're losing...

Its foolish to think transparency overrides responsibility...

[quiller4]

22. As am I. I really think it would be dangerous now and not

just for our troops although I think that is a sufficient reason to delay.

[fujiyama]

23. There's plenty of time? Like how long is that?

Considering our many involvements abroad, I could see this excuse being used for the next fifty to hundred years!

[Flabbergasted]

3. There is a third path, so to speak (probably more)...

I have never considered prosecution of Bush to be viable without, more or less, irrefutable and undeniable evidence. Basically about a dozen full admissions on tape would be required. IOW not happening. The other path is simply to release the photos to damage the Republican party in general. This is what I thought they (Obama) was after in the first place. Rope a Dope Cheney.

In fact Obama may be still doing this. I think some of the photo's will be/were leaked. Will the American MSM pick up on it? If the pics are damning enough maybe. Time will tell.

Oh and well done.

[Occam Bandage]

5. That really would be a case of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

He would certainly damage the Republican party by releasing those photographs. He would also damage his relationship with his military and his intelligence services, would damage his ability to use America's image to enact his agenda abroad (as the pictures would certainly stoke anti-American sentiment worldwide), and would open up a new political battlefront as he had to defend the release of pictures that he had reason to believe would put American soldiers at harm.

[vaberella]

10. Yeah...added to other rope-a-dope motives we'll see in future. n/t

[livefreest]

17. but Al Qaeda and their friends don't have to see a set of pictures to tell

Muslims in the Middle-East Pres Obama is covering up the crimes of the previous administration. The victims of these crimes of torture have families, friends, or have been released and are telling their story in the wider population in Iraq. Pres Obama by saying that it's a few rogue soldiers who tortured he seems to support the idea that no American of importance pays for torture. Now, how will that help "his ability to use America's image to enact his agenda abroad?"
you might have seen this thread already: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5648585

[Occam Bandage]

34. You overestimate the extent to which Middle Easterners follow American politics.

It was obvious to everyone who followed the news, and to many Iraqis, that there were abuses at Abu Ghraib. Yet it was only when the photographs were released that there was a noticeable public reaction in the Middle East.

[livefreest]

39. well i hope you're right

[Kweli4Real]

44. I fear that ...

Many of the calls for releasing the photos to the public are for no other reason than to satisfy some voyeuristic urge, not unlike driving around the block so you can get one more look at that horrific car wreck. We know that folks were tortured, it's on the record. Why is it so important that we, the public, see the bloody pictures? As the OP accurately indicates, posting the photos will do nothing to advance the cause of justice or morality.

[kid a]

4. K & R #5

[slay]

6. Fuck the truth - I vote for the cover-up!!1!

:sarcasm:

[Kablooie]

25. Spoken like a true no clothed emperor!

[K8-EEE]

7. K&R for the thoughtful subject line alone

I TOTALLY understand both sides of the "show it/ don't show it" thing and don't see why some people refuse to.

Folks......IMO, I really think Obama is the king of Rope-A-Dope. Cheney will end up hanging them all, he's FREAKING OUT. While our prez is Mr. Cool. Come on folks...put yourself in Obama's shoes.

[dalaigh lllama]

8. Very cogent presentation

And as you say, no amount of screaming will affect a court case, if it ever does come to that. If it does come to that, these photos could be used then, shown only to the jury.

[vaberella]

9. You be da man OB, You be da man!!!

And O said in the presser that the pictures would be used in prosecution. I think many people missed that.

[leftofthedial]

11. you should be in Cirque du Soleil

[Occam Bandage]

12. I don't think they have much call

for dry, semi-informed explanations of political calculations driving policy decisions. Unless they're looking for some background noise or something to loop over and over again as part of a background to a song, in an effort to demonstrate how language can be separated from meaning as a means of exploring the beauty inherent in communication through dance or some nonsense like that.

[leftofthedial]

13. okay. porn then.

[Occam Bandage]

15. I'll look into it. Might flesh out my CV. nt

[leftofthedial]

16. LOL

:rofl:

[grantcart]

18. Intelligent and thought provoking

Of course there may be another reason, he is currently engaging in some significant changes in the military (noting that Gates has just cashiered the top General in Afghanistan) and is currently fighting on a number of fronts (could only speculate) and feels that the releasing the photos now would be comparatively disadvantageous to larger issues that are even more critical.


But here is the bottom line:


These issues have many different facets and are not as clear cut as they may appear in GD:P.


President Obama has clearly shown that his core beliefs and priorities are keeping with the progressive movement in the US. He also considers all of the different dimensions of the issues and keeps his eye on the key long term goals. Yes, sometimes it is actually possible to trust in the judgement of a leader.

[Usrename]

19. I think his reasons are exactly the same as his predecessor.

The stuff is horrific. Extremely horrific. Sy Hersh says little boys are being sodomized in front of their mothers.

He wants to pretend it never even happened. He wants to move on. Forget about all this unpleasantness. Polish his legacy.

[Jennicut]

30. Hersh said that 5 years ago and has not mentioned that recently.

Those might have been rumors. I have no doubt that the pics were bad but that could be a lie for all we know.

[Occam Bandage]

38. I understand that viewpoint, but I don't think that's reasonable.

If "pretending torture never even happened" was on Obama's agenda, he wouldn't have brought torture up in the first place, he wouldn't have released the torture memos, and he certainly wouldn't have suggested to the ACLU that he was planning on releasing the photographs. There has been a clear shift in Obama's position, and a clear shift following the fallout of the release of the torture memos (which played out more or less as I predict the release of the photographs would). I think that it's more reasonable that the fallout of the torture memos caused Obama to go through a thought process that was in some way similar to my OP, and less reasonable that Obama suddenly decided, two weeks before following through with his claim to release the photographs, that he didn't really want to talk about torture after all.

[Usrename]

43. Let me rephrase then.

Giving lip service to sunshine and disinfectant and so forth (but doing nothing about it) is an attempt to pretend it never happened.

[Occam Bandage]

45. That doesn't make any more sense.

I still fail to see why someone who intended all along to "pretend it never happened" would bring it up, would release detailed memos explaining exactly what happened, and would suggest he intended to release photographs of it. I would think someone who wanted to pretend it didn't happen wouldn't have brought it up, wouldn't have released the memos, and wouldn't have suggested he was going to release photographs.

[Old Hank]

20. Your headline and your message body contradict each other

You start by telling you that you "would like to see the photos released," but then you give us a zillion reasons why it's benefitial not to release them.

Based on your argument, I would conclude that you do not want the photos released.

[Occam Bandage]

32. Not at all. They are reasons why it would be politically beneficial for Obama.

I want the photos released because I think transparency is more important than keeping Obama from having a few headaches. I wish you could understand the difference between someone approving of something and someone understanding the motives behind something.

[tuvor]

21. The photographs can be released only once.

[Kablooie]

24. The court may still order the release but now Obama won't carry the blame.

[CTyankee]

26. That was my thought. I even started a thread on this.

If a paper gets hold of the photos it may or may not choose to publish them. If they choose to, then would the Pentagon Papers Supreme Court case apply and prior restraint could not be allowed? Since Obama was a constitutional expert, he is well aware of the case. And, as you point out, he would just say that it is a matter of settled law.

The real issue is whether the newspaper would WANT to publish them. Embarrassing the Nixon Administration is one thing; if it were a liberal paper it may not wish to embarrass a president the paper likes.

[Jakes Progress]

27. I don't want photographs. I want prosecutions. nt

[bdamomma]

28. didn't the Pentagon give their permission that these pictures could be released.

then why did Petreaus, and the other Military brass tell Obama the pictures shouldn't be released, was Obama only doing this after he spoke to Petreaus and the other commanders. Someone straighten me out about this. thanks.

Nevermind, I found my answer on this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8405557&mesg_id=8405557

[Creideiki]

29. Spark Notes version: Cowardice

[Occam Bandage]

37. Whose? If you mean Obama's,

then I would agree with you. He has chosen political benefit over principle. I'm not outraged by that--a President must pick his battles and how he approaches them very carefully--but I am disappointed that he has decided transparency must take a back seat to his relationship with the military.

If you mean mine, I would think that the charge is absurd. The concept that posting a discussion of one's thoughts is "cowardly" is so absurd, in fact, that I would not even consider it as a reading of your post were it not for the fact that I've seen similarly absurd claims of cowardice leveled with similar justification.

[HamdenRice]

31. How dare you bring logic, strategy and analysis to bear? nt

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our second quarter 2009 fund drive.
Donate and you'll be automatically entered into our daily contest.
New prizes daily!



No purchase or donation necessary. Void where prohibited. Click here for more information.

[HopeOverFear]

35. Excellet post

[NoSheep]

40. Great post.

[chill_wind]

41. It's very curious in a way that they haven't been leaked already

but I think they will come out. Too many in the media are talking about them and I get a growing sense that more than Sy Hersh may have seen or gotten trusted firsthand descriptions of at least some of them by now.

Obama's DOJ will continue to argue against release on National Security grounds and depending on the Judge, the ACLU may or may not prevail anytime soon, but I think they will get out one way or another.. and Obama will be off the hook either way that it happens. That seems to be his objective and his priority-- to tamp down direct warfare with all the alphabet-soup agencies.

They, along with the revolving-door mega money lobbyists and not our elected government are, after all, running the show, and have been forever. Ultimately, we SHOULDN'T be surprised.

[cooolandrew]

42. If he leaves it to supreme court to decide and makes it unpartisan that works for me.