Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Glenn Greenwald makes an excellent point, one originally made by Helen Thomas during a press conference last week when President Obama was waxing eloquent about the power of the images of brutality coming out of Iran to galvanize world opinion and illustrate the nature of barbarism. I didn't watch the press conference so I didn't see this exchange, but bravo to Helen Thomas for bringing it up:
For the last question at his press conference yesterday, Obama was asked by CNN's Suzanne Malveaux about his reaction to that video and to reports that Iranians are refraining from protesting due to fear of such violence. As Obama was answering -- attesting to how "heartbreaking" he found the video; how "anybody who sees it knows that there's something fundamentally unjust" about the violence; and paying homage to "certain international norms of freedom of speech, freedom of expression" -- Helen Thomas, who hadn't been called on, interrupted to ask Obama to reconcile those statements about the Iranian images with his efforts at home to suppress America's own torture photos ("Then why won't you allow the photos --").The President quickly cut her off with these remarks:
THE PRESIDENT: Hold on a second, Helen. That's a different question. (Laughter.)
The White House Press corps loves to laugh condescendingly at Helen Thomas because, tenaciously insisting that our sermons to others be applied to our own Government, she acts like a real reporter (exactly as -- according to Politico's Josh Gerstein -- White House reporters "could be seen rolling their eyes and shifting in their seats" when Obama called on The Huffington Post's Nico Pitney, who has done some of the most tireless work on Iran, gave voice to actual Iranians, and posed one of the toughest questions at the Press Conference). The premise of Thomas' question was compelling and (contrary to Obama's dismissal) directly relevant to Obama's answers: how is it possible for Obama to pay dramatic tribute to the "heartbreaking" impact of that Neda video in bringing to light the injustices of the Iranian Government's conduct while simultaneously suppressing images that do the same with regard to our own Government's conduct?
It's possible because the first is convenient and the second is not. The first makes another country look bad and the second makes us look bad. So the same reasoning magically does not apply to the two situations. This is what logicians call special pleading. Greenwald writes:
Americans are able to perceive torture clinically and in the abstract when they're able to endorse it without seeing its effects. They're able to delude themselves that the extreme abuses at Abu Ghraib were unauthorized aberrations -- rather than the inevitable by-products of the policies they support -- because the photos showing that those abuses were systematically applied at American detention facilities around the world are being suppressed. It's almost certainly true that few pro-torture Americans are aware that the policies they support -- and that were approved at the highest levels of the U.S. government -- have led to numerous detainee deaths, because investigations into such matters are being blocked; court proceedings impeded; and media discussions confined almost exclusively to questions about "water in nostrils." If Americans want to endorse government torture, they should not be allowed to avert their gaze from what they're causing and be spared the facts and details of what is done.
And he is exactly right. The claim that those pictures can't be released because they might lead to the deaths of our soldiers overseas is transparently absurd; do they think those who might attack those soldiers are unaware of the existence of those photographs and won't attack them until they actually see them? I would argue that going to such lengths to block the release of the photos only makes America look worse. It also makes us look weak because we are unwilling to look reality in the face.
But the real reason those pictures are being hidden is because the government knows that their release will undermine their own political positions. Obama believes strongly that if he is forced to pursue torture charges against Bush administration officials, that will lead to a cycle of recrimination from Republicans and undermine his ability to push through the rest of his agenda. He also thinks it will reinforce the image of Democrats as weak on terrorism, something he is fighting very hard to distinguish himself from. And you know what? He's probably right about both of those things.
But those are domestic political considerations and this is a matter of principle. If we ever want to regain our moral standing and credibility in the world, we have to have a full airing of what went on over the last few years. We have to look it dead in the eye, not hide from it. And we have to atone for it and take steps to prevent it from ever happening again. But doing so will likely undermine Obama domestically and he is choosing politics over principle.
Politics
Comments
A slight caveat:
That's a two-way street. It's possible that the reaction overseas will be different -- less clinical and abstract (and, perhaps, more dangerous to our troops) -- if the pictures of torture are widely disseminated, so I wouldn't call the objection absurd. The better argument is that suppressing the torture pictures makes us look like hypocrites -- which we are, of course) but how we handle these pictures makes it less clinical and abstract -- and carries its own dangers for our troops.
Posted by: John Pieret | July 1, 2009 9:33 AM
I also did not see the press conference. But based just on what I've read here I'm not seeing the hypocrisy. In the case if Iran, Obama said the images are powerful. In the case of the torture photos, he also said the images are powerful. Did he go on to say that Iran's attempts to suppress the dissemination of the images from that country was wrong or that the Iranian government has a responsibility to show them?
I agree with the final conclusion, that releasing the American torture images is the right thing to do. But I also agree with Obama that it's a separate question from whether or not the Iranian images are powerful, at least based on the limited information I'm working with so far.
Posted by: Abby Normal | July 1, 2009 10:16 AM
The argument goes both ways, John. The only way to clean this wound is to expose all the horrors we accomplished, acknowledge them, hold the perpetrators responsible, compensate the aggrieved and move forward.
Covering up provides the space for everyone to create their own reality - we in the US pretend it wasn't so bad, our enemies can invent believable stories of wholesale slaughter and indescribably deviant torture.
Shedding light on what actually happened might make people disposed towards the US less so, but it also takes away a powerful tool of those inclined to do us harm - and that is the real enemy.
Posted by: Phaedrus | July 1, 2009 10:19 AM
Obama believes strongly that if he is forced to pursue torture charges against Bush administration officials, that will lead to a cycle of recrimination from Republicans ...
While with the Bush-Cheney crimes against humanity covered up, the Repubs are cooperating with Obama's efforts to restore the economy and the Constitution and all is harmony in DC. Uh-huh.
What is it about US national politics that makes so many smart people so delusional?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | July 1, 2009 10:26 AM
I would challenge the idea that Obama isn't pursuing torture charges because of harm to his administration's agenda.
Everything his justice dept. has done, to date, points towards Obama agreeing completely with the substance of Bush's actions regarding torture, detention and violations of civil liberties.
If you meant to include these as part of his "agenda", then perhaps you are right.
Posted by: Phaedrus | July 1, 2009 10:39 AM
If I were convinced that suppressing the Abu Ghraib photographs actually helps national security, then I would say there is perhaps a compelling Machiavellian argument for Obama's apparently contradictory position.
However, I'm not at all convinced that suppressing the photos does any good at all. I suppose in the worst case we could end up see violent protests reminiscent of the Jyllands-Posten debacle, but -- not to be insensitive to the dozens of people who died as a result of those protests -- it was relatively contained. It's not going to cause an economic or politcal collapse or anything...
And long-term, not releasing the photos I think does foster a mistrust that is damaging to national security. So I guess I reject the very premise of the Machiavellian argument.
Posted by: James Sweet | July 1, 2009 11:04 AM
perhaps, more dangerous to our troops
I have a little difficulty buying this argument. First, everyone knows that torture happened, so they're already really pissed off. Second, wouldn't it piss them off more if we sit and do nothing about the torture, rather than admit our mistakes and punish those responsible?
And this is hypocritical. We cannot condemn Iran for being dicks when we're being dicks.
Posted by: Owen | July 1, 2009 12:04 PM
What, exactly, is different between Obama's agenda and Bush's? The wiretapping briefs, the DOMA brief, the torture pictures brief, the White House visitors stonewalling, the Cheney testimony, etc.
Seriously, can anyone point to an actual substantive difference?
Posted by: Ray Ingles | July 1, 2009 12:47 PM
Given this transcript of the press conference, it appears President Obama was able to avoid Ms. Thomas' question; the very type of question I always want to be an inherent part of any interview with an elected official. Shame on the President for not having the courage to withstand Ms. Thomas' scrutiny, shame on the press corps for not vociferously objecting to his ducking out without answering the question (assuming the transcript correctly notes Obama's avoidance).
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 1, 2009 12:59 PM
Excellent analysis.
As for "the rest of his agenda," Obama has, I think, arranged his list of desired accomplishments into priority order, and he's ignoring anything lower on the list that he thinks will endanger his ability to achieve things higher on the list. Torture charges may, for all we know, be on that list somewhere, but if so very far down. Gay rights may be still on the list, but below such items as health care.
Posted by: JuliaL | July 1, 2009 1:03 PM
perhaps, more dangerous to our troops
How? Suicide bombers aimed at U.S. troops? Already have 'em. IEDs aimed at U.S. vehicles and troops? Already have 'em. Kill U.S. prisoners? Already done. Suicide bomb civilian facilities on the off chance of getting soldiers? Already done.
Precisely how would it be more dangerous to our troops than it is now? The only possibility I see is that it might provoke the torture of our troops taken prisoner. But damned few are taken prisoner in Iraq and Afghanistan. Is that sufficient reason to hide what we did to Iraqi prisoners?
Posted by: RBH | July 1, 2009 1:05 PM
Julia, Obama has had his chance to speak his piece on torture and gay rights and disavowed both through the arguments his DOJ has set forth.
We don't have to wait for him to act, he has acted. I, too, wish for a president who doesn't want to torture, who wants open government and rule of law, and who will recognize the equal rights of homosexuals - but Obama isn't that guy, and wishful thinking doesn't further any of those causes.
Posted by: Phaedrus | July 1, 2009 1:18 PM
RBH stated:
Our top interrogator in Iraq along with his team queried all al Qaeda detainees they interrogated in terms of wanting to understand their motivation for entering Iraq to fight. The number one reason given was American mistreatment of Arab detainees, especially upon review of the Abu Ghraib pictures. So to answer this question and your other rhetorical questions, there is a near certain risk we'd see an increase in the numbers of al Qaeda recruits fighting our soldiers given the nature of these pictures and the fact they are pictures.
I happen to promote our releasing the photos in spite of this predicted cost; precious American ideals and principles are at stake. But we must recognize there is a cost; one which Obama refuses to pay. I respectfully disagree with the President.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 1, 2009 2:22 PM
While there's no question that the rest of the White House Press Corps should have followed up on Thomas' question and not allowed Obama to dodge it, I do understand (without accepting) the reason they didn't. They don't want to damage their special access privileges, with all the spoon-fed stories that come with that. Helen, of course, doesn't share that risk - I don't imagine anyone would dare try to remove her from the list of authorized reporters. After all, isn't she the one who asked what sort of varnish Washington used on his teeth shortly after his first inauguration?
Posted by: BobApril | July 1, 2009 3:16 PM
Principles are everything. It is very sad to see them completely abandoned.
Not to mention Obama's tendency to give away the farm before real negotiations have begun for absolutely no reward of cooperation from the other side.
"Meet the new boss,
same as the old boss."
Well not quite, but it's really pretty sad.
Posted by: BaldApe | July 1, 2009 7:08 PM
Pierce R. Butler | July 1, 2009 10:26 AM:
People want to believe that Obama is making diplomatic compromises, and gaining something from them, because the alternatives are terrifying.
Posted by: llewelly | July 1, 2009 7:43 PM
Exactly. He is making compromises and getting nothing for them. Oh wait. Were we talking about domestic or international politics?
Posted by: BaldApe | July 1, 2009 11:18 PM
Bald Ape:
And that's why you're not cut out to be a politician (that's not an insult BTW). To a politicians power is everything. Don't get me wrong I'm sure the only reason Obama thinks that power is essential to making the USA a better place. Politicians always think that, that's the problem.
Posted by: James K | July 2, 2009 1:34 AM
@James K
Trust me, I'm not in the least insulted.
Posted by: BaldApe | July 2, 2009 7:12 PM
The whole national security argument for not releasing these photos (or any other evidence deemed secret), should be based on two things.
1. There could be real harm done to America from it.
2. Proper behind the scenes integrity always employed.
So I'm willing to buy number 1 even if few commenters here are. I could see those photos being used very effectively in a madrasah for example. But regardless, it is point 2 that really matters because there will always be hidden evidence of some kind of wrong doing and we should be able to have confidence in our government to prosecute the wrongs vigilantly. We should see more than a couple of low level guards scapegoated. The proof could be in those convictions even if not all the evidence were released to the public.
Posted by: Rich | July 2, 2009 11:36 PM
I disagree with Ed and Glenn on this one. I think the President is right to suppress the photos (and by "supress" he is not censoring, he is just not releasing). The situation in Iran is easily distinsuished in at least two ways:
1) Iran is actively censoring other people, not just holding tightly to its own information
2) Iran is censoring information so that it can deny what is going on. The President is not doing that. I don't think anyone is denying the greusome and disgusting nature of the photos.
Inatead, the President is arguing that the photos will serve only to inflame and will not add (substantively) to the debate. The law has a very similar concept. A judge is empowered to exclude evidence--EVEN relevant evidence--when she beleives that it will prejudice the jury. In other words, when emotion will trump dispationate judging. This is why the prosecutor can show photos of the crime scene, but the judge may not allow hundreds of gory bloody photos because it will upset the jury. (I think Greenwald would defend this Rule of Evidence, if pressed, and would back off his absolutist point of view.)
Ed, I think you recognize this view when you say:
But you then immediately go on to argue that America has to see the photos or else people will not be angered by what happened!Why will the photos act as a call to arms in one case and not the other?
Posted by: Chris Bell | July 3, 2009 11:10 AM