... “Baghdad will burn” is more compelling than yowling noise about supporting the troops.

Not only is it not more compelling, it’s not even substantially different. It’s a complete ass-pull by somebody who has everything to gain, personally, by keeping his American bodyguards around indefinitely.

Releasing the photos, short of a request by a judge (hopefully), wouldn’t not have helped anything.  We already have the photos from Abu Ghraib and we already know what Darth and his minions wrought.  They would have just brought a fresh round of violence against our troops and more recruitment by Al Quaeda.

Baghdad will indeed burn.  Sooner or later.  They are going to have their civil war, sooner or later.  We are just delaying the inevitable.

Well, that part’s true, but it’d be nice if we weren’t in the middle of it. 

In addition, Obama’s all about the decisions made after deliberation.

I think the right thing to do would have been, like the ACLU says, to release them and repudiate the act, then *follow through* and make sure justice is actually served.

This, of course, would have put our right-wing into even more of a frenzy they are in now, might have cost points from ‘moderates’ (i.e. moderate right-wingers), and jeopardized Obama’s authority on the home front, which I understand is already pretty shaky amongst some part of the populace.

Some might say Obama is taking the coward’s way out. I personally nuance my thoughts and think he’s taking the path that is opened to him due to his position of power, and that this is typical of every time we rely on the state to do the progressive thing. The state, by design being driven by conservative motives to preserve the status quo, presents constant incentives for scaling back any plan for progressive reform that put a lot of pressure even on progressives that go in power, not to mention people who, like Obama, are mostly centrists who push mild progressive reforms that are called for by the more progressive wing of their party and are not actually things they believe in strongly themselves.

I think the prospect that there would have been civil unrest in Iraq if the pictures had been released with American still forces still there is a pretty banal observation. How bad would it be exactly? That’s harder to say, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to imagine a very, very bad situation. That’s not something you want to have happen, from a strategic standpoint, while we’re on a plan to withdraw. Especially since it’s unlikely that the photos really have much value anyway.

Maliki warned that Iraq would erupt into violence and that Iraqis would demand that U.S. troops withdraw from Iraq a year earlier than planned

How about we anticipate those demands, withdraw a year earlier, and then release the pictures (preferably under the ACLU’s terms of public repudiation of the acts and prosecution of the malefactors)? Really, it’s not a matter of if Mesopotamia will erupt into mass sectarian/ethnic/tribal war, but when. As with Magis and Punditus, I’d rather our troops are out of harm’s way before it happens (although I wouldn’t mind leaving behind the American soldiers in those pictures as Maliki’s personal bodyguard).

Beyond logistics, I don’t know what’s keeping Obama from withdrawing earlier. Beyond the 20% of Fox-News-viewing jingo Know-Nothings, and maybe 5% of neoCon opportunists, American voters understand we have no practical business there. Military bases and oil (the real reasons for Cheney’s invasion) aren’t worth further lost opportunities in spent American lives and treasure, especially since the bases will be little more than fancy Khe Sanhs and the oil will be effectively inaccessible while the priests and tribal headmen once again attempt to settle their many grudges.

o_o

“oh what’s that you say? if i show these pictures you’ll tell us to GTFO? promise?”

Not only is it not more compelling, it’s not even substantially different.

This.

How is “if you release the photos, Iraqi soliders will die” any different from “if you release the photos, American soldiers in Iraq will die”?

I’m so thrilled that we, as a people, continue to be less concerned about doing the right thing and more concerned about whitewashing our tombs. America: proudly covering up torture since… I don’t even know how long. The 1770’s, probably.

First, the photos will come out sooner or later.  So this is only a temporary delay.

Second, they already hate our guts, how much worse could it be, and if the picture are so incredibly bad that the whole Islamic world will erupt, it will erupt anyway because they already know most of the most damning details.

Third, not releasing the photos plays directly into the hands of Darth Cheney, et al, and allows them to all too easily maintain a political atmosphere that refuses to upset the boat too much.  Releasing them will add life to the story and perhaps even result in truly serious investigations.

Fourth, America needs to face the truth about the actions that were done in our names.  And just because the truth is ugly and shameful, that’s no reason to stick our heads in the sand.  We needed the My Lai Massacre investigated and exposed.  We needed Watergate investigated and exposed, We needed the Arms-For-Hostages stuff investigated, and the Saving and Loan thing investigated, etc.

When our government does bad things to us and others, all the sin should be brought out in public so we can squeeze the pus out and start the healing process…

And seconding Gracchus on saying, basically, “Want us to leave earlier? Ok.”

First, the photos will come out sooner or later.  So this is only a temporary delay.

Along those lines, I’d prefer a president who is smart enough to *get* this and take advantage of it. Who do you want to be: the president who bravely put a stop to torture or the president whose staff sold the pictures on the sly to the highest bidding newspaper?

And, basically, ditto on every word MikeEss said.

Releasing them will add life to the story and perhaps even result in truly serious investigations.

And tag me with the “Most Cynical Commenter” sign, but I honestly think this is why Obama isn’t releasing the photos. He doesn’t want investigations - he’d made that very clear. And, frankly, I don’t think it’s because he’s just oh-so-concerned with putting the past behind us.

And when I say “Obama doesn’t want investigations” I don’t mean it in the Magical Grand Chess Master way. I mean it in the slimy politician way. Just saying.

Pure CYA in my view. Blocking the release of pictures was giving bad press, so his PR staff test marketed some convincing excuse, after the fact. If this was true he should have said it the day it was decided.

Ya know, it’s really interesting to watch an awful lot of progressives act just like neoconservatives; hyper moralistic arguments, little, if any, recognition that their prior assumptions might be wrong, and no apparent concern for possible adverse consequences to actions they prefer.

I dunno.  I can’t help but think that an Iraqi civil war in which American troops are caught in the middle will result in much greater bloodshed for Iraqis than if we are able to withdraw our troops first.  The U.S. military is not going to hesitate to engage as much force necessary to prevent massive American casualties. In which case, I think Auguste has a point that “Baghdad will burn” is more compelling than “support our troops” as a rationale for keeping the pictures under wraps.  Not sure if I think this is enough of a justification, but I don’t think it’s a non-issue. 

Frankly, Obama will be criticized in this situation no matter what he does because this situation is so FUBAR’d there is no “good” decision.  Only varying levels of bad decisions.

Essie:

Not to be all that contradictory but…

The very nature of the media is to gravitate to the most sensational story, even if it’s something idiotic like O. J. that means nothing to the health of the nation.  If I were Obama, it wouildn’t want this bullshit to distract from the most imporatant thing we have to deal with and that’s health care.  If Darth were to be proscecuted that would be the lead story every day for God knows how long.  He just isn’t worth it.

Magis, no offense because I want my goddamned health care, but I actually feel like this whole old-hat torture thing is about a million times more important. Insert your own Godwin here, because I’m too tired to come up with a good one, but I really think this is important.

Anyway, if he DID release the photos, we’d be talking about how the Grand Chess Master had distracted the media with torture so he could push through his health care plan without anyone noticing or objecting. Which actually wouldn’t be a half-bad plan.

Obama isn’t perfect, and I do not believe his “don’t focus on torture” thing is some kind of good move on his part, whether it be the Grand Chess Master theory or just the Beleagured President Trying to Cope theory. Frankly, after his stoney silence on DADT, I’m beginning to doubt that he’s even a terribly nice person, because - really?? - how hard is it to say that it’s a crummy idea to dismiss experts in a time of warfare just because they likes them some of Teh Gay. I don’t like feeling that way about the guy I voted for enthusiastically, but there - I said it.

If Darth were to be proscecuted that would be the lead story every day for God knows how long.  He just isn’t worth it.

Oh, and by the way: If I were given a choice between releasing the photos and NOT getting Cheney et. al. versus NOT releasing the photos and getting Cheney et. al, I’d still want the photos released.

I am very uncomfortable with covering up America’s sins so we can pretend they never happened. This is not, to me at least, about “winning” or getting Cheney or whatever. It’s about the right thing.

Yeah, completely credulous. Call me when someone comes up with an excuse that isn’t one of the same excuses the Bush Administration was coughing up in 2006.

I’m disappointed that he won’t release the photos, but certainly not surprised.  Nobody ever expected Obama to perfect.  He’s a politician and PR matters a lot to him.  Even if the photos were released, I doubt anyone would be punished for the crimes.  I think the best plan would be to withdraw our troops and then release the photos.

I dunno.  I can’t help but think that an Iraqi civil war in which American troops are caught in the middle will…
Read Baghdad Burning blog of 2005 / 2006. The Iraqis needed no pictures from Liddie England to know what was going on then and certainly don’t need any now. Their sons, daughters, cousins and neighbors went through the horrors depicted. They know. The pictures would enrage US people out of their complacency, the Iraqi already know. Why do you think there are IEDs for soldiers there ?

“I am very uncomfortable with covering up America’s sins so we can pretend they never happened. This is not, to me at least, about “winning” or getting Cheney or whatever. It’s about the right thing.”

And the Iraq invasion was about helping the Iraqi people.

I am very uncomfortable with covering up America’s sins so we can pretend they never happened. This is not, to me at least, about “winning” or getting Cheney or whatever. It’s about the right thing.

I’ve said these four words before and I’ll say them again: Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Yes, it’s less satisfying than seeing these scumbags in the dock at The Hague, but revenge is less important to me than documenting their crimes and incompetence for posterity.

And when I say “Obama doesn’t want investigations” I don’t mean it in the Magical Grand Chess Master way. I mean it in the slimy politician way. Just saying.

I supported and voted for the man as the best of a bad lot—probably the best we’ve seen in decades, and better than we deserved after the embarrassment of 2004. But I was under no illusion that Obama was a some kind of radical progressive messiah. He’s a centrist politician who’s in thrall (albeit to a slightly lesser degree) to the same economic and national-security and MSM establishment that’s been running the show during all those decades.

And the Iraq invasion was about helping the Iraqi people.

No, it wasn’t.  The NeoCons had themselves convinced that this would be a walk-over and the we could end up with a nice base in the mid-east to replace the one used to have in Iran.  It was about extending power, no more, no less.  It wasn’t about oil, it wasn’t about nation-building, it was hegemony “r’ us.  Real Politik if you prefer.  On a strategic basis, we could give a shit less about the Iraqi people.  If they were weak enough to accept Saddam, so be it. 

There was no causus belli so we had to invent one (several actually, serially).  If we gave a shit about “people” we would have done something about Darfur long ago.

Ooops, didn’t see the quotes.  Went over my head, sorry.

Isn’t this a bit like not wanting to arrest a rapist out of a concern for the feelings of the victim in having the case come to court?

Isn’t this a bit like not wanting to arrest a rapist out of a concern for the feelings of the victim in having the case come to court?

Actually, since supposedly many of the pictures depict rape, it’s EXACTLY like that.  One might even say, it IS that.

it’s less satisfying than seeing these scumbags in the dock at The Hague, but revenge is less important to me than documenting their crimes

Precisely. To me, getting Cheney or Bush is not the end goal. Transparency is. We’ve been torturing people for decades, or so I’m told, and I’d kind of like for it to 1) come to light so we can stop pretending it hasn’t been happening and 2) stop.

But I was under no illusion that Obama was a some kind of radical progressive messiah.

Well, I’m going to admit to being taken in. I was starry-eyed up until we started seeing the “No Progressives Need Apply” sign that the administration hung out when offering appointments and Seeker started pointing out how ridiculous it was.

Isn’t this a bit like not wanting to arrest a rapist out of a concern for the feelings of the victim in having the case come to court?

Actually, since supposedly many of the pictures depict rape, it’s EXACTLY like that.  One might even say, it IS that.

Sorry? Did I miss the story where a raped or otherwise tortured Iraqi came out and asked for the pictures to not be released? If not, then no, it’s nothing like that.

What it is like is not wanting to arrest a rapist out of concern that he might be convicted by a jury of his peers.

Unless you meant to put scare quotes around “concern” and I missed the snark.

We don’t need a truth and reconciliation commission, we need indictments.

The truth will come out just fine at the trial.

Reconciliation can come after the guilty parties have made their pleas for clemency, or have served their sentences.

Everything, EVERYTHING Essie said.

My main concern is that the victims of rape in the photos would be humiliated and be forced to relive their experiences in the release.

I am completely disgusted with the Obama administration right now because of the whole preventative detention thing, the photos, the foot-dragging on DADT, whenever these things have been handed to him on a platter.  I am most upset about preventative detention.  I will not be supporting him in further elections unless these things - all of them - get unfucked, and fast.

I don’t want my healthcare and my rights at the cost of the rights and lives of other people.  Fuck that; it’s not worth it.

Well according to Glenn there is a new bill in the works to make sure that the pictures NEVER COME out…regardless of what FOIA says.  In his words:

As long as the Defense Secretary certifies—with no review possible—that disclosure would “endanger” American citizens or our troops, then the photographs can be suppressed even if FOIA requires disclosure.  The certification lasts 3 years and can be renewed indefinitely.  The Senate passed the bill as an amendment last week.

Were it not for this bill I could maybe swallow this Baghdad will Burn excuse a little better.

It was about extending power, no more, no less.  It wasn’t about oil, it wasn’t about nation-building, it was hegemony “r’ us.  Real Politik if you prefer.

Back in 2002 and now, I put the real reasons a bit differently: oil reserves and oil-services revenues; the rose-coloured PNAC fantasy; and a personal vendetta (a certain CinC determined to prove his manhood to both Poppy and Saddam). Only a twisted ideology like neoConservatism could simultaneously accommodate all three.

Post-Saddam nation-building was a definite hegemonic component of the PNAC fantasy ideology, but realpolitik (and indeed reality) had very little to do with with the idea of forcing Western democracy at gunpoint on the various cultures of Mesopotamia.

The numerous stated pretexts for invading on the basis of clear and present dangers (WMDs! AQ training camps! another 9-11!) were, as you say, completely bogus. And the people of Iraq? Inconsequential bystanders to the main game, whose history and culture and language weren’t even worthy of study prior to the invasion of their country.

We don’t need a truth and reconciliation commission, we need indictments.

Y’know, after what I just wrote I was tempted to backtrack about criminal prosecutions and agree with you. But the fact is, 25% of American voters shared in this insane delusion, and they’re fully capable of grinding this country to a bloody halt (in the midst of an economic and environmental crisis) if their “heroes” face prison time. If you think that their worst was making it impossible for Clinton to govern during a time of prosperity, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

Once we can swallow the bitter fact that these crapweasels will never face real justice, Truth and Reconcilliation Commissions are the best we can hope for. At the very least, they can help drive a stake in the heart of the blood-sucking ideology known as neoConservatism.

*I* would be fine with no photos, but Cheney, W, Alberto Gonzales, and anyone else approving of torture on a high level being brought to trial for crimes against humanity. The photos can come out in evidence in court, but not be played to the papers.
I think the people of Iraq deserve justice and will find it more satisfying than pictures.

*I* would be fine with no photos, but Cheney, W, Alberto Gonzales, and anyone else approving of torture on a high level being brought to trial for crimes against humanity.

Yeah, with Obama’s people providing cover on that one, too? Good luck. The photos and the approval of torture are part and parcel of a larger attempt to let the last administration off the hook. Here’s yet another example of this behaviour that just came through my news feed:

A federal judge on Wednesday dismissed lawsuits targeting the nation’s telecommunication companies for their participation in President George W. Bush’s once-secret electronic eavesdropping program. In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker upheld summer legislation protecting the companies from the lawsuits. The legislation, which then-Sen. Barack Obama voted for, also granted the government the authority to monitor American’s telecommunications without warrants if the subject was communicating with somebody overseas suspected of terrorism.

Sorry? Did I miss the story where a raped or otherwise tortured Iraqi came out and asked for the pictures to not be released? If not, then no, it’s nothing like that.

The agent in the comment was the oh-so-concerned prosecutor choosing the spare the poor victim by letting her attacker go free.

Renmiri: I’m not saying Iraqis don’t already know what has happened, but it’s amazing how things like actual photos of abuse can act as a flashpoint to more violence in the name of honor.  Having your nation’s humiliation played out internationally, with vivid photographic detail,  can be an effective motivator to act to oust the imperialist troops.  And as I already said, I’m not convinced that Obama’s decision is the best one—I kind of lean toward the “they want us out earlier? Aw, shucks, I guess we better leave.” position.

I also think you have rather more faith in the American public’s capacity to let their initial outrage result in actual change and prosecution of those responsible.  Too many people do not want to see America’s dark side, no matter how necessary it may be.  As a historian, I am always in favor of complexity and truth over nationalism and myth.

it’s amazing how things like actual photos of abuse can act as a flashpoint to more violence in the name of honor.

On the flipside, it’s not only photos of abuse that serve as flashpoints. Note which other major government is focused on “protecting” its citizens from certain photos from (and indeed all mention of) a 20-year-old event today.

Piator, my snark meter was malfunctioning, then. Sorry.

ote which other major government is focused on “protecting” its citizens from certain photos from (and indeed all mention of) a 20-year-old event today
Indeed

Baghdad has been burning for a long time. Our media simply does not report it.

Gracchus:

I concede, sorta.  It certainly wasn’t realpolitik in the classic sense, but they actually thought it was.  In any event, they were so utterly naive the didn’t see the civil war coming.  I still don’t think it had anything to do with oil except tangentally.  The “dick measuring” aspect probably did though.

The Green Zone must burn. Ironically, the American heroes who buggered male Iraqi children consider themselves to be heterosexuals.

If Darth were to be proscecuted that would be the lead story every day for God knows how long.  He just isn’t worth it.

He’s not worth shit.

Prosecuting criminals regardless of who they are is paramount.  If politicians are above the law, then we are not a democratic republic.  We really are a banana republic.

Pardonning Nixon was a grave error.  Had he been prosecuted and jailed, then everyone associated with him would have been tainted forever.  They wouldn’t be in power, and Nixon’s policy of “IF the president does it/says it, it’s legal” would be a joke, and not our reality.

Refusing to prosecute is admitting that it’s perfectly acceptable to shred the Constitution.  It’s disgusting.

The Constitution was never worth a damn.  It was made a long time ago for circumstances that are pretty different from now, and had an explicit emphasis on creating hypocritical sweetness to ease the plutocratic nature of american society in the 18th century.

I don’t really support Obama’s move plus or minus.  I think the public just doesn’t have enough access to the decisionmaking to say either way.  I have tended to accept the idea that release wouldn’t actually do much that is *positive*.  However, I frankly don’t think the Iraqis would be immature about the horrors.  So I think this is mere bullshit to keep more people in the US heirarchy from facing legal liabilities without a statute of limitations.  The statement by Maliki is simply the victim pressured and coached to support the power-structure.  That said, the situation in Iraq is pretty tense.

I do think that some of the comments by people like Essie Elephant are largely unproductive.  In the end, this issue just isn’t important compared to everything else.  If I wish to slam Obama, I would go straight to gay rights.  He has been a pretty major dissappointment there…

Shah8, Obama’s record on civil liberties and cleaning up the mess of the previous administration has been quite poor. I think that’s been well-documented upthread. Whatever you think of the Constitution, the fact remains that we have laws against this kind of thing. When people can be thrown in jail for years for marijuana possession but people whose crimes literally caused the deaths of thousands of people go free, something is deeply wrong. Essie and likeminded people are completely right about this.

Jerry, your third sentence has always been true, and always will be true, that’s just human nature’s heirarchal function.  One of the ways to tell where you are in the scheme of things is what you can get away with.  Thus by definition, it would *always* have been hard to hold Bush accountable.  Which is why I would slam Obama for something that’s pretty accomplishable with little political pain, rather than fight on something that, while righteous, is also quixotic.

Well, let’s put it this way: Obama ran on a platform of specifically undoing many of the policies of the Bush era. Obviously he’s not the first or the last politician to renege on a campaign promise, but I think our responsibility as voters is to hold him (and indeed, the rest of the Democratic party) accountable for those promises. In my view, the real barrier to trying the crimes of the last 8 years is not political will or popularity but rather the establishmentarian attitude in Washington. I think Obama is good enough and smart enough to make it happen if he wants to, so the problem I have with him right now is that he doesn’t seem to want to, and I find that unacceptable. That’s not to say that I think progressives should give up gay rights or health care or any other number of things we’d like to have; it’s to say that we shouldn’t let anyone off the hook for what they said they’d do, especially when that person ran on an ostensibly progressive (of sorts) platform.

A Truth and Reconciliation Commission would not only be entirely inappropriate, legally insufficient, and completely ineffective in such a case, it would give a bad name to all Truth and Reconciliation Commissions that might come after.  People who say that a TRC would be appropriate here just don’t know anything about them.

There has been plenty of (often legitimate) criticism of TRC’s that they are used for political expedience and unwillingness to prosecute, when prosecution would be appropriate and possible - doing such a thing in these circumstances would just add to that.  Argentina came under immense flack for eventually giving up on prosecutions, after it had managed to convict the heads of its old military junta and had faced two coup attempts. 

For the US to use a TRC to get out of having to prosecute would be a craven and pathetic political degradation of the very concept.

And, just to clarify, I say that not because I hold up prosecutions as the pinnacle of all things just, or because I hold up retribution as the purest and best for of justice, but because Truth Commissions can (and should) have a different (and in some circumstances complementary) function to prosecutions.  In the past they have often been degraded as a second best to prosecution and a political tool to avoid dealing with the crimes of the past, or simply a way to deflect criticism and pretend that everyone can now “move on”.

Recently, however, they have started perhaps to come into their own and stand on their own two feet.  See perhaps Sierra Leone, East Timor, Peru (and perhaps Morocco).  All have their problems, but also their value.  A US TRC in this area would be an enormous set back.

In the end, this issue just isn’t important compared to everything else.  If I wish to slam Obama, I would go straight to gay rights.

I think gay marriage rights are incredibly important and I would never denigrate that particular cause, but I’m deeply disturbed by the attitude that the fact that our country is torturing and raping people as an official “legal” policy with no repercussions “just isn’t important” compared to, say, the right for gays to marry. I’m pretty damn sure that if it were American gays that were being tortured and raped as part of legal policy you might give a damn about that.

In which case, frankly, you’re a racist. Because, at the end of the day, you care more about “your people” (Americans, whites, gays, whatever) being tortured and raped than you do about Iraqi folks. And you consider the fact that a person in America can’t get a marriage license (which is a travesty, no doubt) to be somehow more important than the fact that somewhere right now a person is being raped and murdered by our representative forces while our (Hope! Change!) president helps to protect the perpetrators. Which has the further repercussions that it ensurs that his own troops, and the troops to come after his administration, and so on, get the message loud and clear that, yeah, you can rape and torture whoever you want and it’s just one of the ‘perks’ of joining the military.

So, really, that many words to say that I find your priorities horrific and - sadly - fairly mainstream American. After all, as long as you’re not being legally tortured, why should you care if someone does it to someone else?

Now, that is the sort of thing that makes me a misanthrope, Essie Elephant.  If you make a reaching and slanderous judgement on other (anon to you) internet folks, don’t be shocked if people just decide not to take you seriously.

Calling me a racist because I’m mostly interested in having a good outcome happen to real, live, people, and am not interested in symbolic/legal victories is stupid, and more so because, well, I am not minimally knowlegable about racism.  I am not invested in the release of the photos because I don’t see that a huge bit of good would happen.  More than that, most of the good would happen to US and not the Iraqis because it improves *our* character/ability to hold people accountable rather than improve Iraqi security or any other sense of wellbeing.

So take the silly judgemental attitude, and stick it where the sun don’t shine.

on first glance I’d say that when the prime minister of Iraq warns that “Baghdad will burn”, and you’re sitting thousands of miles from Baghdad and he’s not, maybe you believe him.

And when the president of Afghanistan says that the civilian death toll from air strikes is unacceptable and counterproductive in the fight against ‘terrorism’, maybe you say “We can’t fight with one hand tied behind our back”.