Inside Obama's Detainee Photo Reversal

Understanding Why Obama Backed Down On Release Of Detainee Photographs

(CBS)  This column was written by Jeff Emanuel, a special operations military veteran and combat journalist. A director emeritus of conservative weblog RedState.com, his writings can be seen there and at Jeff Emanuel.net

---

Saying that no good could conceivably come of it, President Barack Obama this week reversed his administration’s plan to release photographs of alleged detainee abuse dating from the Bush administration's war on terror without at least putting up the appearance of a legal fight.

"The most direct consequence of releasing [the photographs], I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger," Obama said to reporters Wednesday in an attempt to explain the rationale for his 180° reversal in policy. Less than a month ago, the administration had announced it would publicly unveil dozens of photographs of alleged abuse of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan by American servicemen and women.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which filed a Freedom of Information Act request in 2003 seeking the release of these and all other detainee photographs, didn’t have to reach far into its bag of epithets when determining how to respond to Obama's decision.

"The reversal is another indication of a continuance of the Bush administration policies under the Obama administration," said ACLU attorney Amrit Singh. "President Obama’s promise of accountability is meaningless [and] this is inconsistent with his promise of transparency."

"It's absolutely essential that these photos be released," Singh hyperbolically declared.

Making the Right Decision

However "inconsistent" it may be with Obama’s campaign promise of open and transparent government (one which he hasn’t done the best job of living up to in any aspect of his four-month tenure in office), his decision to withhold these photographs of detainee abuse is the right one in this case. And where national security is concerned, it’s far more important that President Obama be right and effective than that he be consistent.
Whether or not there is in fact a "legal basis for withholding the photographs," something Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, vehemently denied on Thursday, is a matter for the Obama administration and the Supreme Court to sort out in the coming weeks and months.

Far from being "absolutely essential," though, there is no tangible benefit to America or any of her citizens that could come from publishing years-old photographs of wrongdoing by a tiny number of American servicemen and women, all of whom have already been investigated and punished for their parts in those actions. The only good that could possibly have come from releasing these photographs would have been felt by the extreme anti-American left, whose insatiable appetite for "war crime" pornography demands constant feedings of similar material.

The "needs" of the extreme (and perverted) few here in the U.S. and abroad are and should be far outweighed by the fact that, internationally, the release of these images of distant-past, already-punished actions would have provided America’s enemies with yet another powerfully visual tool with which to recruit future jihadists and terrorists to their cause - something we saw in spades after the 2004 release of the Abu Ghraib detainee photos.

"Thousands Of Al Qaeda Recruitment Posters"

Though the claim made by Yousef Munayyer, a spokesman for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, that "Abu Ghraib set the bar for obscene inhumanity" is laughable on its face (Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg and the thousands of others tortured and slaughtered by radical Islamists were unavailable to comment on Mr. Munayyer’s assertion), there is no doubt the disclosure of images from the infamous coalition prison affected jihadi thought and recruitment in a way mere verbal description never could have.

"The greatest recruiting tool we had" in the immediate aftermath of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq “was Abu Ghraib,” a former al Qaeda leader told Senator John McCain in 2007, affirming the case made by soldiers and pundits alike, including Generals Ray Odierno (commander of Multinational Force-Iraq) and David McKiernan (outgoing commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan), that publishing these images would put even more lives at risk both at home and abroad.

In other words, quietly acquiescing to the ACLU’s demand for release of these photos would have been tantamount to publishing and distributing "thousands of al-Qaeda recruitment posters," as Ben Johnson at FrontPage Magazine put it, all on the taxpayers’ dime and the Obama administration’s watch.

Obama acknowledged this fact himself in a speech given in Strasbourg, Germany three weeks before his Justice Department’s initial decision not to fight the order to release the photographs. “When we saw what happened in Abu Ghraib, that wasn’t good for our security,” Obama told the German crowd. "That was a recruitment tool for terrorism."

Though it took some prompting from the commanders of our forces who are currently serving on the front lines of the war on terror, Obama finally acknowledged that the resulting effects of the Abu Ghraib photographs’ release would also almost certainly hold true for these images, should they be released to the public and broadcast around the world.

During the late stages of the 2008 presidential campaign, National Review Online’s Jim Geraghty famously coined the phrase "All Barack Obama statements come with an expiration date." That his decision not to challenge the release of these photographs came when it did, as opposed to after the action had been taken, is fortuitous for all who stand to suffer from increased jihadi activity and terrorist recruiting.

Now, we must simply hope his decision to fight these images’ harmful publication doesn’t expire before that battle has been won.

[noloyalisti]

There are plenty of Christian fascist extremists right here in this country that don't like us and want to destroy us (because we don't agree with their extremist, shallow and uneducated ways).

These anti-choice people make me laugh. They are so interested in unborn fetuses but have no problem with starting right wing wars for oil and torturing other human beings. They are the ultimate hypocrites. They act like they want to protect life when they could care less. LOL.

[debdew692]

Islamic extremists will always hate us and want to destroy us. If the safety of this country means a little torture. Then by all means do what needs to be done. I don't like it but it is one of the evils of life. I can't imagine having to be responsible for the safety of a nation. I don't think they liked it but they were put into a situation of no other choice.

What about abortion? Do you like it? I know I don't. It is just one of the evils of life. A great evil since those lives never had a choice. No one asked them if they wanted to live. They were an inconvenience that didn't fit into someone's life. You want to talk about torture. How about having your body pulled apart. Who is fighting for their lives?

[noloyalisti]

The 9/11 coverup beats anything the Nixon Republicans ever attempted...
Posted by inventagod

You are right on about the purpose of 911 and the coverup by our government. Now that we know the torture started with the 911 to lie us into war, it is high time to have a REAL investigation into the World Trade Center demolitions.

[noloyalisti]

Torture is done to terrorize, it's as simple as that. That is why the Japanese did it and the Vietnamese to the invaders of their country. Not releasing the photos falls into the failed Republi CONS message of denial and making us less safe. Not releasing the photos will just further inflame the Islamic extremists. Time to fess up to our crimes.

[formrusmcsgt]

So its torture to let a dog bark at a war criminal, yet when our cops let a dog chase down and knaw on an a suspect in the US its ok.
Posted by mav547166

You're a total idiot.

Canines are used in the U.S. to apprehend criminals, not to interrogate them.

[formrusmcsgt]

And where national security is concerned, it?s far more important that President Obama be right and effective than that he be consistent.
-----
Although I voted for Obama, I remember wondering when he annouced that his administration, if elected, would release the photos what the arab reaction to them would be.

This reversal makes me think one of two things happened:

1. He lied and never intended to release them;

2. He made the announcement out of ignorance without having seen the photos and underestimated their potential impact;

[ramos1129]

During the late stages of the 2008 presidential campaign, National Review Online?s Jim Geraghty famously coined the phrase "All Barack Obama statements come with an expiration date." That his decision not to challenge the release of these photographs came when it did, as opposed to after the action had been taken, is fortuitous for all who stand to suffer from increased jihadi activity and terrorist recruiting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prior to 01/20/2009, we had President Bush who never ever reversed a decision even if it was later found to be wrong. Bush would simply blunder along regardless of the cost. President Obama, on the other hand, makes a decision and sticks to it. But, if at some point, it becomes clear that that is the wrong decion, Obama will correct it. Which President would you prefer?

In my opinion, Obama considered the overriding possible cost to our soldiers and marines and that was his sole consideration in refusing to release the photos. That overrides everything else.


The release of the photos is now moot. Sometime last week, someone leaked them to the Austrialian media who released them. They are now available worldwide.

[mnbrant]

As a liberal veteran of the Army I see no problem with letting all the pictures out. The CIA has already revealed itself as inept and corrupt without any pics whatsoever. Osama has no problem letting all his torture/death pics out and it hasn't changed the political landscape one iota. Osama indeed seems to be winning in the torture pic war from my viewpoint.

[noloyalisti]

We obviously need a leftist plan, the conservatives and Republican "plan" to steal everything is a complete disaster. The Government of Pigs party was WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING since the disaster that was Reagan.

Obama has NO CHOICE but to release those photos, to with hold them from the public is ILLEGAL, just like the entire presidency of the Bushoccio Crime Family.

[inventagod]

Propaganda from the Bu$h Crusades...

http://men.style.com/gq/features/topsecret

[budmag06]

What's the big deal??? They already have been leaked to the press by Obama. Obama lies about everything.

[inventagod]

We are torturing idiots to cover the real reason the NeoCons did 9/11...
When will we get Bu$h and Cheney under oath about their involvement and planning the forever oil war?

The 9/11 coverup beats anything the Nixon Republicans ever attempted...

[mav547166]

So its torture to let a dog bark at a war criminal, yet when our cops let a dog chase down and knaw on an a suspect in the US its ok.

[creeper00]

Oh, for crying out loud, CBS. Most of those photos have already been made public, some as long as two years back.

Are you ever going to quit shilling for this president?

[ConcernedSoldier]

From what I know, those photos are of already decided cases, so wanting them revealed to obtain justice it not the case. We live in a representative republic not a true Democracy. The President was elected to govern, let him do his job. Saying that his truthfulness is now irrelevant is ludicrous. People want a media circus. Why do we feel we must micromanage every decision. The government does do things out of sight of its citizenry, there is no way nor should there be one in which we second guess every decision. The citizen has their choice on election day, we made our bed, now, well, you know the rest...

[hinzsight]

The imagination is a powerful thing. Is it possible that by not releasing the photos the President is allowing everyone's imagination to fill in their own versions of what terrible deeds they believe the interrogators must have done?

I find it difficult to believe that the president did this to protect our military.

[ubrew12]

I just think the GOP doesn't want Americans to see the lengths the Bush Administration went to CREATE THE VERY TERRORIST threat we went into Iraq to fight.

That can be the only purpose of such routine, unAmerican humiliation.

[PVperson2]

Jeff Emanuel, I have only this to say about your article and stand on this issue, "Bull Sh*t".

[elz523]

We, as citizens, should DEMAND these photos be released! America did it! Now it's time to PAY for sinking that low!

Posted by Dehaluyi1 at 7:18 AM : May 16, 2009

I agree with what you say until you reach this conclusion. The one's who will pay the price might well be our soldiers. Normally I think that we must face the evil that we do in order to prevent further evil done by us. In this case we can accomplish the same goal without endangering our troops.These are our innocent sons and daughters who are serving and fighting out of a sense of duty to our country. We should not needlessly put them in harms way.

[J_Thomas12]

We have no legal justification to hide the photos, but it would be bad for us to do so.

Just a criminal wants to protect his reputation by avoiding public disclosure, we want to protect ours. it would not be in our interest to reveal true things that would get people upset at us.

In particular it would be bad for us to reveal the photos before the iraq elections. They are due to vote on whether to accept the US army staying in iraq. If they vote no we will have to leave or else get rid of the iraqi government and set up a new iraqi government under firmer control. The current iraqi leader is trying to avoid the election, but if there was massive public unrest in iraq because of the photos he would not be able to block it.

Iraqis know about the torture and they don't like it. A majority of iraqis has wanted us to leave since the very beginning of the occupation, though usually each year they've said they want us to leave within a year or two and not immediately. If the election is held, probably they will tell us to go away.

Entirely apart from right and wrong, releasing those photos would cost us iraq. We would lose the bases, lose control of the iraqi government, lose control of the oil. The war would be lost. So no matter what the law says, it isn't practical for us to release them.

But this leaves me with a certain doubt. Was the information we got from that torture worth the consequences?