Back in April, President Obama made it clear that his administration would release 44 photos of detainees abused in Afghanistan and Iraq, in the name of transparency. The ACLU felt this would be proof that the abuses that happened at abu Ghraib was not “aberrational” (what is not considered an aberration? 1 in 100,000? 1 in 10,000? 1 in 10? 100 allegations per year?).
Obama said, “I want to emphasise that these photos that were requested in this case are not particularly sensational, especially when compared to the painful images that we remember from Abu Ghraib.” He also later said the small number of perpetrators were charged and tried in 2004.
The administration then abruptly changed course, saying it would not release the photographs. The White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, explained, “The president believes that the specific case surrounding the damage that would be done to our troops and our national security has not fully been developed and put in front of the court.”
According to Thomas Ricks, General Odierno had a direct influence on President Obama’s reversal.
When photos from abu Ghraib went public (during a time of war)….did that sort of transparency help our efforts in securing a more stable and peaceful Iraq? Did it cost the lives of U.S. and Coalition soldiers? Undoubtedly, it did.
Certainly, the public outrage over the ugly incidents contributed to needed improvements that might not have occurred as stringently had there not been a vast media uproar over the abuses. That kind of transparency can lead to healthy reform; but in a time of war, I question the wisdom in such news releases that endangers the lives of our soldiers, creates public hysteria and misperceptions, and fuels and inflames anti-American sentiments that threaten to undo the overwhelming amount of good we have been trying to accomplish in Iraq.
The ACLU accused the White House of betrayal and stonewalling.
Today — the day the Obama administration would have been required to release the photos, incidentally — we may have found out why.
Ret. Major General Antonio Taguba, the author of the Abu Ghraib report, described their content to the Daily Telegraph:
These pictures show torture, abuse, rape and every indecency. I am not sure what purpose their release would serve other than a legal one and the consequence would be to imperil our troops, the only protectors of our foreign policy, when we most need them, and British troops who are trying to build security in Afghanistan. The mere description of these pictures is horrendous enough, take my word for it.
To be honest, I’m not sure I have much to say about this, beyond that it’s deeply unsettling, and raises more questions than it answers.
For one, I can’t verify that Taguba is speaking about the same set of photos as Obama and the ACLU; I don’t think Obama would have agreed to release the photos if the content were so graphic and dangerous, to the coalition forces and to the victims.
Second, I don’t know why Taguba, who has been retired for two years, who no longer speaks for the military, gave this interview. The Pentagon has already discredited the paper and said that the description of the photos is inaccurate.
Third, we know of incidences of sexual abuse at Abu Ghraib. If these photos concern new incidences, I hope that all the perpetrators have been court-martialled and tried, already. The “few bad apples” line is only valid if we have confidence in the oversight and governance of U.S. prisons abroad. (Not really a comparison here, but an n.b., that sexual abuse and prison rape is a systemic problem in the U.S.)
And finally, nothing yet from the ACLU on their site. I’ll be interested to see what they have to say about this.
Taguba was quoted in the Telegraph as saying he supported Obama’s decision not to release the pictures.
“I am not sure what purpose their release would serve other than a legal one,” he said. “The sequence would be to imperil our troops, the only protectors of our foreign policy, when we most need them, and British troops who are trying to build security in Afghanistan.”
He added: “The mere depiction of these pictures is horrendous enough, take my word for it.” (Reporting by Andrew Gray in Washington and Luke Baker in London; Editing by David Storey)
The problem here, is that the damage is already done. Taguba should have kept his mouth shut if he’s so concerned about the effect the images will have. Saying “The mere depiction of these pictures is horrendous enough, take my word for it” does nothing to alleviate the effects of seeing the actual photos, because suppression of them merely stirs the imagination of the conspiratorial-minded and anti-Americans who will believe in the worst. At this point, we’re “damned if we release, damned if we don’t release”. If the photos are not as bad as how Taguba is hyping them to be, then perhaps releasing them and quelling those who demand full transparency is less dangerous than suppressing the images. If, however, Taguba is accurate, then not releasing the photos is an indictment of “guilt” as to the severity of the images.
Nothing has been more damaging to our efforts in the war on terror Overseas Contingency Operations than the leakage of information that are of national security concerns.
A former fetus, the “wordsmith from nantucket” was born in Phoenix, Arizona in 1968. Adopted at birth, wordsmith grew up a military brat. He achieved his B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles (graduating in the top 97% of his class), where he also competed rings for the UCLA mens gymnastics team. The events of 9/11 woke him from his political slumber and malaise. Currently a personal trainer and gymnastics coach.
The wordsmith has never been to Nantucket.
