Jonathan Turley on the Abu Ghraib photos:

[adamuu]

Jonathan Turley, Professor of Constitutional Law at George Washington University Law School, guest on Rachel Maddow May 13 2009
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x312110

(Rachel asks what do you think explains the 180 turn)

Well, it's perfectly Owellian because we have once again the Obama Administration, Obama himself, making statements and then doing the diametrically opposite thing in policy. It's like saying no one's above the law, but then blocking any special prosecutor or investigation of torture. You know, on the Freedom of Information Act, in January he said 'we will not allow information to be withheld just because it would be embarrassing to the country.' And yet, he just did that today. In his list of justifications today, they virtually came directly out of the Second Circuit's opinion. The Second Circuit rejected all these arguments. What President Obama is saying today is diametrically against the federal law. And if he succeeds, he would, in instead of having a transparent government, he would create this opaque government where you would virtually see nothing because the government could simply say 'well this is going to be embarrassing. Whatever is embarrassing to us injures national security." It's a perfectly horrible argument to make in court, which is why many lawyers told the court that they would stop, that they would yield to federal law. So, it's an incredibly dark moment for civil libertarians. It's just more evidence that this administration is becoming the greatest bait-and-switch in history. That, you know, he's morphing into his predecessor.

(Rachel speculates that the pictures belong to a larger pattern that must be investigated, asks Turley for a response)

Rachel, I think you're asking the exact questions that need to be asked. The problem with having lots more pictures is that it completely disassembles our earlier argument about Abu Ghraib. We portrayed a small group of people who were basically 'hicks with sticks'. And we all knew they weren't. We all knew that this type of culture doesn't spontaneous occur in some small cell block. It has to be nurtured. It has the be encouraged. And what these other photographs indicate is that those people that we tried so long ago, and made the scapegoats here -- and they legitimately should be sent to jail -- but the idea that they were rogue operators is obviously wrong if there are hundreds of other photos where they weren't involved in those photos, or involved other prisoners.

(Rachel asks, is the ACLU right when they say that these photos will come out eventually)

I do believe that they will come out because I believe that Obama is dead-wrong on the law. I think the Justice Department has been wrong all along. You can't have our system of transparency and the Freedom Of Information Act, and allow the government to withhold as a matter of national security stuff simply because it embarrasses us. And I think that if you really want to shut down our enemies, it's not withholding a few more pictures to add to the library of existing pictures. If you want to shut them down, you need to show that we're not hypocrites, that we're not hiding our past sins, and we're not hiding from responsibility. Instead, what Obama said today, is that we're reaffirming what Al Queda's been saying about us -- that we are a nation of hypocrites, that we only adopt principle when we apply it to other people. And so, I think the terrible thing, is that Obama has allied himself in this with the worst possible policies -- the worst possible approach to government. And I think the ACLU will ultimately prevail, and maybe that's what the Obama administration wants politically, is to be forced to released these photos as a political measure. But, by doing this, by putting up this fight, by reversing its earlier statement to the court, it makes a mockery of the system. It makes a mockery of this country.

I think Turley is Rachel's best guest to discuss this development. I'm always happy when I see him on the show.
The first answer may go a little too far -- he's obviously hurt and offended by Obama right now. But the third answer is just so rational and dead-on, I had to transcribe it and enter it into DU's search index. I mean, "ouch."

Now your turn. Any reactions?

[Oregone]

1. I agree with Obama

I mean, come on, he is gorgeous. I really doubt he can make a mistake. Now, if this was under Bush, you know I would be throwing things, shouting, and sitting in at local libraries, demanding their release. But, well, we all know everything Bush did was spawned by idiocy. Well, now, we have a capable, intelligent President that I am gushing over, who could never do anything wrong. So of course its alright.

[bicentennial_baby]

3. ...

:spray:

[dorkulon]

10. You forgot to mention how tall he is.

:crazy:

[CrawlingChaos]

15. In the words of Dennis Kucinich

After detailing his agenda in the debate, "you can have all this, or you can have someone tall".

Oh how I wish it were President Kucinich in the White House today.

[adamuu]

14. the same defense doesn't mean the same crime

Obama is still quite far from Bush
Remember, Bush authorized this in the first place. Then, he used presidential-sounding arguments to justify covering it up.
Just because Obama uses the same argument doesn't mean he's committing the same offense. Not even close.

[zipplewrath]

2. First answer goes too far.

He was fine until he called him "bait and switch" and that he is "morphing into his predecessor". He is making mistakes but they are his own mistakes. And I don't see any evidence of a bait and switch, but more of a lack of consistency. He makes "rules" and then almost immediately takes exception to them (see who he exempts from his lobbying rules). Some see this as "waffling", others will see it as a lack of mindless pedantry and an appreciation of nuance. Some see being willing to change ones mind as a form of intelligence, others see it as a form of weakness. Probably just depends upon whether one agrees with him or not.

[Mari333]

4. love Turley. nt

[Winterblues]

5. I like Turley and appreciate his viewpoint on the Law but when he says

"We all knew that this type of culture doesn't spontaneous occur in some small cell block."
I think he is wrong. Small people do indeed just take it upon themselves to abuse people in their trust. It has always been so and these type people do not need someone from above to tell them to abuse. It is just a part of their mentality. In these particular cases though I would have to say I believe most abuse was on direction from above. They were instructed to get creative and to make the prisoners suffer some..Dogs were brought in just for that purpose and hoods were supplied even though putting a hood on a prisoner is specifically prohibited in UCMJ..

[HelenWheels]

8. I disagree

The "small people" are too cowed by their military leaders to do much of any thing on their own. They were following orders and would not step out of certain boundaries for fear of punishment.

[liberalmuse]

6. He lost me yesterday.

I can't even stand to look at him right now. His words ring false if he uses some of them to try to weasel out of prosecuting war crimes. If his aim is to cover up Bush crimes and move on, then he's left my ass behind. I won't vote for someone like this twice, that's for damn sure. I thought I woke up after a long, agonizing nightmare after Bush left office, but oddly enough, we're still detaining, covering up for torture (and possibly continuing some of the 'harsh interrogations') and we're still blowing the fuck out of civilians in Afghanistan. The nightmare continues. What the fuck?

[adamuu]

7. Have you written to him? n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. Turley's to blame for the photos not being released.

He's part of the reason why criminal investigations are so difficult in Washington because they have the appearance of political witchhunts.

Fuck him and the other criminals.

[dorkulon]

11. Wow.

This is pretty amazing. Turley criticizes Obama, so now it's his fault the photos aren't being released? Amazing.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. Not for criticizing Obama, for participating in political witch hunts.

i.e. Clinton impeachment.

[Uzybone]

13. Turley has gone off the deep end

he did that a while ago when he clamored for impeachment but the third answer is a sign of a mad man.


"Instead, what Obama said today, is that we're reaffirming what Al Queda's been saying about us -- that we are a nation of hypocrites, that we only adopt principle when we apply it to other people. And so, I think the terrible thing, is that Obama has allied himself in this with the worst possible policies -- the worst possible approach to government. And I think the ACLU will ultimately prevail, and maybe that's what the Obama administration wants politically, is to be forced to released these photos as a political measure. But, by doing this, by putting up this fight, by reversing its earlier statement to the court, it makes a mockery of the system. It makes a mockery of this country."


Does this statement make any sense? I essence Turely says this:

Obama is buttressing Al Qaedas ideas about America. Obama has allied himself with the policies of Bush. Obama may want the courts to prevail, but by using the legal system, he makes a mockery of the legal system. He makes a mockery of the country.