Yesterday the Obama Administration once again struck a blow for obfuscation and secrecy and against transparency in government by refusing to comply with a federal court order to release photographs of American soldiers abusing prisoners.
The President's rationale?
"This is not a situation in which the Pentagon has concealed or sought to justify inappropriate action," Obama said of the photos. "In fact, 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." (source)
The President is now attempting to shield himself and his Administration by invoking the safety of American soldiers to justify continuing the intense secrecy and paranoia that marked the previous Administration.
It's important to note that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals specifically rejected the Administration's argument in its decision.
We hold that in order to justify withholding documents under exemption 7(F), an agency must identify at least one individual with reasonable specificity and establish that disclosure of the documents could reasonably be expected to endanger that individual. We need not shape the precise contours of the exemption today, as it is not a close question whether the government has identified any relevant individual with reasonable specificity. It is plainly insufficient to claim that releasing documents could reasonably be expected to endanger some unspecified member of a group so vast as to encompass all United States troops, coalition forces, and civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. The structure of FOIA and the applicable legislative history, both of which contemplate a far narrower role for exemption 7(F) than that envisioned by the defendants, amply confirm our holding. (source)
It appears President Obama is making a cynical appeal to popular sentiment using the same shopworn argument that was roundly rejected by the federal court.
The question is, why?
President Obama himself characterized the pictures as "not particularly sensational, especially when compared to the painful images that we remember from Abu Ghraib" (source) - if this is so, then how do these photographs increase the threat to American soldiers and civilians abroad?
I believe the answer is, they don't. I believe what's really driving this decision is that the President is more concerned with domestic opinion than foreign opinion. President Obama is facing increasing heat from the Left for his perpatuation of Bush-era civil rights abuses, including embracing definitions of secrecy in the interest of national security that would make David Addington blush. The President has staked out legally, ethically, and morally questionable ground on the issues of unlawful detention and kangaroo courts, and as a result received strong vocal and legal resistance from civil rights advocates.
I believe what the President fears ultimately is this.
'Kim Phúc and her family were residents of the village of Trang Bang, South Vietnam. On June 8, 1972, South Vietnamese planes, in coordination with the American military, dropped a napalm bomb on Trang Bang, which had been attacked and occupied by North Vietnamese forces. Phúc joined a group of civilians and South Vietnamese soldiers who were fleeing from the Cao Dai Temple to the safety South Vietnamese held positions. A South Vietnamese Air Force pilot mistook the group for enemy soldiers and diverted to attack. The bombing killed two of Phúc's cousins and two other villagers. Associated Press photographer Nick Út earned a Pulitzer Prize for his photograph of the aftermath. It also was chosen the World Press Photo of the Year for 1972. The image of Phúc running naked amidst the chaos became one of the most haunting images of the Vietnam War. In an interview many years later, she recalled she was yelling "Nong qua, nong qua" ("too hot, too hot") in the picture.' (source)
'General Nguyễn Ngọc Loan (December 11, 1930[1]–July 14, 1998) was the Republic of Vietnam's Chief of National Police. Loan gained international infamy when he executed handcuffed prisoner Nguyễn Văn Lém, a Viet Cong soldier, on February 1, 1968 in front of Vo Suu, an NBC cameraman, and Eddie Adams, an Associated Press photographer. The photo (captioned "General Nguyen Ngoc Loan executing a Viet Cong prisoner in Saigon") and film would become two of the most famous images in journalism and started to change the American public's views on the Vietnam War.' (source)
A picture, it is said, is worth a thousand words. These two Pulitzer Prize-winning images internalized the impact of the Vietnam War more than scores of editorials and thousands of protests could ever hope to achieve.
I believe the President understands this, and because of his insistence that Americans must "look forward" he fears the impact that release of more photographs of prisoner abuse will have on American opinion.
I don't believe President Obama when he says he that the photographs "put our troops in greater danger." Killing civilians while pursuing rebels and terrorists presents a far greater and more immediate danger to American soldiers and civilians, and yet the Administration is willing to increase the number of American soldiers and the tempo of operations in Afghanistan (and presumably neighboring Cambodia Pakistan as well), potentially increasing civilian casualties and the commensurate risk to Americans from jihadis righteously-pissed-off Afghans. The people of Afghanistan, like the people of Vietnam before them, don't need photographs to remind them of the horrors perpetrated in the interest of so-called 'national defense' of the United States.
On the other hand, the impact of photographs of detainee abuse on American public opinion could be a game-changer, one the President seems determined to avoid at all costs.