Torture Pictures: When a Flip-Flop Isn't a Flip-Flop

Sure as shootin', the torture pictures will be released. The courts will authorize them or some exceptional leaker will free them. In the digital age, if you know a picture exists and it's in hot demand--whether it's a nude Miss California or a gruesome bit of aggressive interrogation--there's little or no chance it won't be found.

So what's the Obama game, opposing the release of photographs he knows will be public and whose release he previously supported?

What we're starting to see emerge here is the Obama PR doctrine. It's a series of ritualistic bows, and even the appearance of tacit submission, to the other side.

Opposing the release of the pictures is like the flag pin in his lapel. Having made the pin an issue in the early stages of his campaign--precisely articulating what all non-flag-pin-wearing people feel--he then reversed himself. This was a tacit victory for the pin-wearers, while at the same time sending an altogether different signal to the non-wearers: We have to fight the people who make us wear these pins.

Continue reading on newser.com

Comments

[DWX]

If Prseident Obama truly wants to change the world’s perception about American, then it is imperative for Obama to come clean and confess all her (U.S.) past sins; otherwise, there will be no redemption.

[camper65]

I wondered how long it would take for an Obama worshiping dialectitian to start spinning. While it wasn't a record, it was damned good time.

[FearlessFreep]

The irony, of course, is that he's just making himself look weak.

[asemeco]

We need a progressive president that is not a bad remake of Jimmy Carter. Obama is it. He knows how to pick his battles to avoid losing the war. A battle delayed is not necessarily a battle lost.
While I may not agree with his particular picks, I agree with the overall strategy.

[progressivegreg]

Too late, according to the Thom Hartmann show at 1:10 pm today (Thursday) EST the pictures have leaked at the Sydney morning Herald. Tried the site and didn't see them, but they're going to get around and I guarantee AlJazeera will show them. There goes the protect our troops theory. Regardless of party (I personally am a progressive) if you knew about this and signed off on it YOU allowed torture in the name of the PEOPLE. You do not deserve public office, you need to be investigated and if found guilty of allowing torture of fellow human beings (even if just by your silence) you need to be incarcerated. This is not about party, IT IS ABOUT OUR NATION.

[rbloom]

First, I think release of the photos would do little to advance the accountability process and, more importantly, withholding them does not slow that process.
Second, I think his decision was a gesture of support for a very important constituency for any president: the military. Obama, apparently popular with the rank and file, has been very assiduously courting the military leadership, as well he should. The support of the military has been a key for virtually every national leader for the past 5,000 years. This is a gesture that says “I’m looking out for you” without really retarding the legal process.
In fact, and third, it could advance the legal process by getting torture to the Supreme Court sooner. It’s going to end up there at some point, and getting a read on the court’s thinking on torture now can help shape the legal strategies going forward. A ruling that supports the photos' release could signal a readiness to hold torturers accountable and boost the efforts to bring them to justice. A contrary ruling could indicate how, in future cases, to work around the court’s initial objections.
Finally, the torture apologists were cranking up a hissy fit over the release of the photos, to distract from the real issues. Obama has pulled the rug from under that tactic, and in fact placed them in the position of agreeing with him. How will Hannity, et al, manage to spin withholding the photos as aiding the terrorists?

[Cassandra2]

"How will Hannity, et al, manage to spin withholding the photos as aiding the terrorists?"

By the oldest legal strategem in the book - tu quoque. I can hear the argument now: "You call these acts a crime, yet you want to conceal the evidence. One only conceals what one wants to hide. Why are you helping us hide these alleged crimes? Either they were not crimes, or you implicitly agree that these actions were necessary and justified. If our actions incited terrorism, so do yours; you're one of us."

That's the problem with hiding evidence - you become part of the act, whether you like it or not.