From
'The Independent' Friday, 15 May 2009
For anyone living in an open and democratic country, the suppression of information is anathema. So President Barack Obama's decision to oppose the release of new pictures that show US troops abusing prisoners at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison seems, at first sight, to be deplorable and a contradiction of everything he stood for during his campaign. And this is indeed how it has been greeted by many of his most fervent supporters in the US and abroad. They put his latest move together with his decision not to prosecute CIA agents for the use of torture, and accuse him of having "sold out" to entrenched interests.
What might appear to make matters worse is that the White House had initially said it would not oppose a court ruling ordering the Pentagon to release the pictures by 28 May. It is only now, as that date approaches, that Mr Obama says he has changed his mind. Not only, you might say, has he betrayed his principles but he has vacillated and enacted a U-turn.
It is unlikely that Mr Obama's critics will be inclined to reverse tracks as smartly he has done, but they should think again. There is no question here of the administration trying to cover up something the US public does not know about. Publication of the first pictures of Abu Ghraib, in The New Yorker magazine, was completely justified. But what purpose would new pictures serve beyond confirming what is already known: that the "war on terror" fostered abuse of prisoners, which was unacceptable, probably illegal, and endemic?
This is one reason Mr Obama gave for opposing their release. The other was the anti-Americanism they could inflame and the additional danger this would pose to US troops. Some will still argue that he has heeded the warnings from his top brass rather than the better angels of his idealism. But this is not what we see. We see someone who took an informed decision, not as campaigner, but as President. He took the trouble to listen, to consider advice and then to explain why he had changed his mind. That is a mark not of weakness, but of a grown-up leader addressing a grown-up audience. We could do with a bit more of this around the world.
from The Gawker, by John Cook:
The government's argument on appeal was that the photos could be properly withheld under an FOIA (Freedom of Information Act)provision that exempts records "compiled for law enforcement purposes" if their release could "could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual." The photos were gathered by the Army's Criminal Investigation Division to prosecute abuse, so they were clearly compiled for law enforcement purposes. And the Pentagon's argument, which Obama endorsed yesterday, is that the release of the images would "further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger," which means that at least someone's life or safety would thereby be endangered. And the law, the government claimed, doesn't require them to actually identify such an individual.
Three Second Circuit Court of Appeals judges�one of which was nominated by George W. Bush and another of which was nominated by his father�have already considered and rejected that argument: "The phrase 'any individual'...may be flexible, but is not vacuous. [W]e cannot read the phrase to include individuals identified solely as members of a group so large that risks which are clearly speculative for any particular individuals become reasonably foreseeable for the group." In other words, if you are going to say that someone could be threatened by a document's release under FOIA, you have to say who, and how. The exemption was designed to prevent mob informants from getting killed, not to protect entire armies from people who already hate them and are already trying to kill them. After losing to the three-judge panel, the Pentagon asked the full Second Circuit Court of Appeals to hear the case, and the court�which is evenly divided between Republican and Democratic appointees�said no.
