Was Obama right to withhold the release of photos?

omej · May 22, 2009

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said Thursday the administration would defend in court a decision by President Barack Obama to withhold the release of detainee abuse photos.
?I think the president has made a decision that is consistent with the best interest of our troops,? Holder told the House Judiciary Committee.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/45052062.html

What do you guys think about the administrations decision to withhold the release of photos? Obama, the congressional leadership and the AG don't seem interested in any investigations. Do you guys think there is any purpose to release the photos on principal or does our troop safety override all of that?

The Parakeet · May 22, 2009

I really don't see what releasing the photos would ultimately do. They aren't withholding the information of what happened. It's not like its a coverup. They are just worried that this will become propaganda fodder for the extremists, especially in a time when we are gaining headway.

The big consideration in his mind is probably Pakistan. The Taliban and the extremists in general are starting to see the tide turn against them. If we can hold on a bit longer, then Pakistan can completely secure itself against them (and hopefully avoid another military temp government). No need to give them anti-American ammo now.

Plus, isn't a big chunk of the "release the photos" side also part of the "treat them as POWs" side. If so...then we'd be breaking the Geneva Convention by showing pictures of POWs in humiliating positions. The only reason the first grouping of pictures came out was because the Post got ahold of them independent of the army.

deanhills · May 25, 2009

The Parakeet said:
I really don't see what releasing the photos would ultimately do. They aren't withholding the information of what happened. It's not like its a coverup. They are just worried that this will become propaganda fodder for the extremists, especially in a time when we are gaining headway.

The big consideration in his mind is probably Pakistan. The Taliban and the extremists in general are starting to see the tide turn against them. If we can hold on a bit longer, then Pakistan can completely secure itself against them (and hopefully avoid another military temp government). No need to give them anti-American ammo now.

Plus, isn't a big chunk of the "release the photos" side also part of the "treat them as POWs" side. If so...then we'd be breaking the Geneva Convention by showing pictures of POWs in humiliating positions. The only reason the first grouping of pictures came out was because the Post got ahold of them independent of the army.

I'm so happy he did that. I think it is so barbaric to have those circulated and also sometimes misquoted by the media. It may also not be in the interest of security as this would be news to terrorist organisations too. I would imagine that Obama had a tough decision to make, so the reasons for withholding would be more than legitimate ones.

Dirk · May 25, 2009

deanhills said:
I'm so happy he did that. I think it is so barbaric to have those circulated and also sometimes misquoted by the media. It may also not be in the interest of security as this would be news to terrorist organisations too. I would imagine that Obama had a tough decision to make, so the reasons for withholding would be more than legitimate ones.

On the other hand, it is still withholding a form of information from the public.

Parakeet, by extremists, who precisely do you mean?

The Parakeet · May 25, 2009

Take your pick of radical Islamic groups. They always have a field day when we release any pictures they can use.

It is withholding information...but so is not releasing accident photos, pictures of dead soldiers, etc. If these were released, then the media would run with them. I don't see how the actual release of the pictures would give the public any more information. Just another shocking picture. Now...if he was withholding the information of what happened (which he still could be doing...I guess...we'd never know until the next president is in) it would be another story.

Dirk · May 26, 2009

The Parakeet said:
Take your pick of radical Islamic groups. They always have a field day when we release any pictures they can use.

Oh, well, just making sure you didn't mean my lot.

deanhills · May 26, 2009

The Parakeet said:
I don't see how the actual release of the pictures would give the public any more information. Just another shocking picture. Now...if he was withholding the information of what happened (which he still could be doing...I guess...we'd never know until the next president is in) it would be another story.

Wouldn't it give information of which detainees are held, when perhaps this would be counter to security interests to be revealed?

The Parakeet · May 26, 2009

I doubt they would have ever released photos that revealed any identities. Plus, we haven't been too secretive about the makeup of the prisoners (I know that we know most of their nationalities at least...plus I think a lot of the names got out...not sure though).

Dirk - Well your lot would use them too. I would just view the use as tasteless though, not necessarily dangerous. Like I said, it also serves to humiliate prisoners of war, which is something that "your lot" would normally be against...just kinda seems hypocritical. Enough thinking aloud though

.

deanhills · May 31, 2009

The Parakeet said:
...just kinda seems hypocritical. Enough thinking aloud though .

Right on! History can testify to that in most of its e-colonies in the world

Was Obama right to withhold the release of photos?

Similar threads