by Peter Wallsten and Janet Hook
President Obama's decision Wednesday to try to block the court-ordered release of photographs depicting alleged abuse of detainees by U.S. soldiers sets him on a confrontational course with his liberal base. But it is a showdown he is willing to risk -- and may even view as politically necessary.
The president's reversal comes just three weeks after his administration agreed to release the images. The move enraged advocacy groups, which swiftly accused Obama of violating his promises of openness and of parroting justifications for secrecy that had been argued by the Bush administration and rejected by courts.
But in following the advice of military leaders, who had expressed fears of a backlash in the Middle East if the pictures were released, Obama now can tell critics on the right that he did his best to protect the nation's troops, even if the courts eventually force the disclosure.
Obama has been facing intense criticism from former Vice President Dick Cheney and other conservatives, who have argued that the new administration's efforts to roll back Bush-era interrogation policies have made the country less safe.
The praise for Obama that came Wednesday from Republicans such as House Minority Leader John A. Boehner of Ohio and Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina can only help undercut those arguments.
"He's realized the difference between being a candidate and being commander in chief," said Graham, who wrote to Obama last week asking him not to release the photos.
See the full report on Obama's political risks in the detainee photographs in Tribune newspapers and here in the Swamp:
Even if the administration loses its bid in court and the photos are released, Graham added, "it's good for the troops to know their commander in chief went to bat for them."
The release would make public for the first time photos obtained in military investigations at facilities other than the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Forty-four photos that the American Civil Liberties Union was seeking in a court case, plus a "substantial number" of other images, were to be released by May 28 under an agreement reached with the administration last month.
The photos, examined by Air Force and Army criminal investigators, reportedly are less disturbing than the Abu Ghraib images released in 2004 that stoked anti-American sentiment around the world. And after personally reviewing them, Obama on Wednesday described them as "not particularly sensational."
But military officials had expressed concerns that they could spark a backlash in the Muslim world. Obama is scheduled go to Egypt next month to address Muslims in a much-anticipated speech.
His reversal on the photo issue marked his latest attempt to navigate the tumultuous political waters engulfing the Bush administration's interrogation techniques and broader anti-terrorism policies. Liberal groups want a full investigation, as well as possible prosecution of officials who authorized torture of detainees. Obama has acknowledged that torture took place, and he took the unusual step last month of releasing Justice Department memos detailing the harsh interrogation tactics -- but he has resisted prosecutions.
On Wednesday, Obama seemed determined to directly challenge some of the fundamental claims of his own base.
Civil liberties groups have said the photos would prove that abuse of detainees was systemic and not just the work of a few rogue soldiers.
Obama, however, said Wednesday that publishing the pictures "would not add any additional benefit" to the country's understanding of "what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals."
"In fact," he added, "the most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger."
It was unclear Wednesday how officials would proceed, but it appeared likely that the matter would be decided in the Supreme Court, because two lower federal courts have ordered that the pictures be released.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that the national security argument the administration intended to make in court -- that releasing the photographs could create a backlash -- was "one that hasn't been made before."
But, in fact, that issue was raised and rejected by a federal district court judge and the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, which called the warnings of a backlash "clearly speculative" and insufficient to warrant blocking disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.
"There's no legal basis for withholding the photographs," said Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's National Security Project, "so this must be a political decision."
Liberal groups said Wednesday that they intended to keep up the pressure on Obama. The ACLU is seeking many more documents, including memos laying out Bush-era tactics and transcripts of destroyed videotapes depicting harsh interrogation techniques.
Obama's dilemma is that he risks undermining one of the core principles he claimed for his presidency: transparency.
Lucy Dalglish, director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, which joined the ACLU in seeking release of the photos, said she was "astonished" that Obama's lawyers would "find themselves in front of the Supreme Court fighting a FOIA request as one of the first major tasks they go to litigate." She said FOIA cases are rare at that level, and risky because "they don't often go well."
One senior Democratic aide, who requested anonymity when discussing White House decisions, assessed Obama's dilemma this way: "He's always trying to straddle these difficult questions. You make promises because that's what the public wants. But it's a lot different to promise than do it."
Julian E. Barnes in Washington and Peter Nicholas in Phoenix contributed to this report.
Comments
Why should this flip flop by Obama be any more damaging than the dozens of other flip flops we've seen in the first 100 days?
For example, Obama junked "transparency" long ago. But the media only writes about it when the junking gores their ox, and the ox of their leftwing buddies.
Posted by: Gussie Finknottle | May 14, 2009 7:31 AM
Obama in a nutshell:
"You make promises because that's what the public wants. But it's a lot different to promise than do it."
Good job, Swamp, for a balanced article on this blog. Gee, why didn't Silva write this piece? He's always so full of opinions, ever so smug and snarky. What's Silva's opinion on this issue?
Posted by: Bemused | May 14, 2009 7:37 AM
It all boils down to a self-serving political decision that Obama did not want millions in the Muslin world demonstrating and rioting thus spoiling his upcoming "messianic message" of American apology in Egypt. There might be some political cover (hype by the MSM) that the photos would put our troops in greater harm but that does not wash because it is inconsistent with the release of the EIT documents, which created a greater embarrassment to the Democrats and their complicity in EIT use. Cheney won that debate. I would like to think that Obama is finding that being Commander in Chief has responsibilities, so I will agree that in the end he made the correct decision.
billy r, we know you are over the top with your lefty rhetoric of ridicule of the Bush/Cheney's policies, but to streak the fans during the Met's game at Citi Park was a rather extreme protest don't you think?
Posted by: bubba Porter | May 14, 2009 8:02 AM
The flip-flop is much less of risk than doing nothing and allowing the photos to be released. Republicans and moderates wee already throwing fits over it.
http://www.political-buzz.com/
Posted by: matt | May 14, 2009 8:14 AM
billy r, we know you are over the top with your lefty rhetoric of ridicule of the Bush/Cheney's policies, but to streak the fans during the Met's game at Citi Park was a rather extreme protest don't you think?
Posted by: bubba Porter | May 14, 2009 8:02 AM
That was not my Louisville Slugger!
Posted by: bill r. | May 14, 2009 9:33 AM
Funny how Gates is the one who recommended this and no one has jumped on him. Listening to the commanders only apply to the right when it suits them.
Posted by: bill r. | May 14, 2009 9:52 AM
Finally! Something from The Swamp worth reading.
Mark Silva, please take note. This is how journalists are supposed to report a news story.
Liberals who were salivating in anticipation of some Cheney/Bush war-criminal prosecutions...this round goes to Cheney.
Posted by: Chris | May 14, 2009 9:52 AM
"In fact," he added, "the most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger."
-Barack Obama
--
If he truly believes this...( he doesn't) why has he not already signed an Executive order barring the release? As commander in chief- if he sees the release of them as a threat to the troops - he has no rational recourse other than to bar the release now...he does not have to wait for the decision of the courts- in fact, he -using his own words- is obligated to NOT defer this decision to the judicial.
--
What else can this admins attorneys argue in support of not releasing the photos- nothing has changed since the ruling allowing the release...
--
Obama is hoping the courts give him some political cover- he is being completely handled by the ACLU
Posted by: heartburn | May 14, 2009 10:36 AM
Obama is all but immune from a backlash from the Left on virtually anything. While I oppose much of what he has done/failed to do, Obama at his worst is far better than whatever knuckledragger the GOoPers trot out in 2012: Romney, maybe or, in my wildest dreams, the idiot from Alaska. Obama is playing to the middle, which is smart politics if not ideal governance from my perspective. Can't let perfect be the enemy of good.
Posted by: a blinkin | May 14, 2009 10:47 AM
Can't let perfect be the enemy of good.
Posted by: a blinkin | May 14, 2009 10:47 AM
In other words- don't let expecting the president to do the right thing ( be that "governing" or "Leading") -get in the way of winning the office? No surprise or revelation here- It really never was about what is right for the country has it?
And you are worried about "knuckledraggers" and idiots...? go figure..
Posted by: heartburn | May 14, 2009 11:25 AM
@Heartburn:
Wrong.
I think "leading" includes getting a majority of people to follow you. Obama has the "left" in his pocket. He wants to peel off a chunk of the supposed middle, and get them to all to support policies that may not be "perfect" from my perspective, but that are nonetheless "good."
One concrete example would be healthcare. My "perfect" would be nationalized healthcare, like pretty much the entire civilized world outside the U.S. has (and likes). That will never pass. Instead, Obama is pulling for something that keeps the insurance companies in the game, but expands coverage to everyone. This would not be perfect, only good, but it surely would be better for the country than the profit-driven system that currently prevails.
And yes, Sarah Palin is an idiot. Born, raised, and will live to a healthy old age as dumb as a stump.
Posted by: a blinkin | May 14, 2009 3:38 PM
blink,
So you think that BO should not live my the motto "What's popular is not always right, and what is right is not always popular". Are you saying that he would be popular than do the "right" thing?
Posted by: Terry | May 14, 2009 8:17 PM
Good answer billy, what can I say, but smile. Never saw that one coming. Until next time!
Posted by: bubba Porter | May 15, 2009 7:33 AM
blink,
So you think that BO should not live my the motto "What's popular is not always right, and what is right is not always popular". Are you saying that he would be popular than do the "right" thing?
Posted by: Terry | May 14, 2009 8:17 PM
Obama can't have his ideal world. If he were to hold out for his view perfection -- of "right" -- he'd end up doing nothing, which is ultimately more harmful than actually accomplishing something. Ralph Nader, Ron Paul, Alan Keyes, etc., are all roadkill because of their ideological purity. They stuck to what was "right" and never had the chance to accomplish anything. To a lesser degree, the same may be said for GWB, who accomplished virtually nothing domestically because he catered solely to the right.
Posted by: a blinkin | May 15, 2009 9:40 AM
a blinkin, I don't know about that last statement. I think GWB tried to cater to the left early in his administration with NCLB and the Medicare prescription drug expansion. He definitely did reach a point when he just stopped even acknowledging Democrats. I agree with you generally about Obama moving toward the middle because he has the left in his pocket. There are dozens of examples, but another besides health care is how he has quietly put the union card bill on the back burner. What are the unions going to do about it? Vote Republican? I think you are making assumptions about what Obama would consider an "ideal world". Who knows what the guy really thinks or believes. He is a very gifted politician who panders to whatever he thinks people want to hear, and in my opinion, is more beholden to his own advancement than any ideology.
Posted by: Herbie H. | May 15, 2009 11:43 AM
* * * * *
He is a very gifted politician who panders to whatever he thinks people want to hear, and in my opinion, is more beholden to his own advancement than any ideology.
.
Posted by: Herbie H. | May 15, 2009 11:43 AM
.
So, in other words, he’s following Nicolo Machiavelli’s advice:
.
“Therefore it is unnecessary for a prince to have all the good qualities
I have enumerated, but it is very necessary to appear to have them. And
I shall dare to say this also, that to have them and always to observe
them is injurious, and that to appear to have them is useful; . . .”
.
(The Prince, Ch. 18 “Concerning the Way in Which Princes Should Keep Faith.”)
Posted by: John W. | May 15, 2009 1:43 PM
Blink,
Interesting point. However, I would think this was one of big campaign issues - transparency and exposing the "torture". Sounds to me he is wetting his finger and sticking it in the wind to see which way the political winds are blowing. Not the sign of a leader.
Posted by: Terry | May 16, 2009 12:37 PM