Realizing that this is a hot topic and that there are other diaries out there on this, Obama today moved from a DISHONORABLE ("let's look forward not backward") to an ILLEGAL position today by opposing the release of photos depicting torture. Remember that the Obama administration had agreed in March of this year with the ACLU (whose lawsuit that forms the basis for this began years ago under the Bush Administration) in a filed document with the court hearing the issue to the release of the photos. Hence, Obama has breached this agreement with the ACLU. Moreover, Obama's actions on this appear to be in violation of the spirit and the letter of the Torture Convention which the US is a party to (and the Torture Convention is law under provisions of our Constitution). Further, it is ironic that the Obama administration took this position the day after Obama's UN Ambassador told the UN that the UN's Human Rights Council Council has been "a flawed body that has not lived up to its potential... ." Source: http://www.democracynow.org/...
First, let's look at the now breaking news on Obama shifting his position (as he has done in the past on FISA, on single payer health care, on ending the war quickly in Iraq, on ending permanent detention in Gitmo, on ending tax breaks for those making over $250,000; on bringing change to Washington) on the release of photos that show torture by US troops.
From the L.A. Times:
"In a dramatic reversal, President Obama said today that he would seek to block the release of dozens of photographs depicting alleged abuse of detainees by U.S. soldiers, arguing that the disclosures would "further inflame anti-American opinion" and "put our troops in greater danger."
The decision -- coming just three weeks after the administration agreed to release the images -- set the stage for a confrontation with liberal advocacy groups that had been seeking to have the pictures made public. They accused Obama of violating his promises of openness and parroting the Bush administration's past justifications for secrecy that were rejected by courts.
"This is profoundly inconsistent with the promises of transparency that President Obama had made over and over and over," said Jameel Jaffer, director of the national security project at the American Civil Liberties Union, which had sued for release of the images under the Freedom of Information Act. "There's no legal basis for withholding the photographs, so this must be a political decision."
Sen. Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis.) said that the White House reversal was tantamount to "keeping the American people in the dark for no other reason than to shield misconduct, avoid embarrassment or other reasons not pertaining to national security."
Civil liberties groups, arguing for the White House and Congress to back investigations into the Bush administration's interrogation techniques and broader anti-terrorism policies, have said that the photos would prove that abuse of detainees was systemic and not just the work of a few rogue soldiers, as Bush officials have said.
But ... Obama directly refuted that argument.
"The publication of these photos would not add any additional benefit to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals," he said. "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." Obama added that publishing the pictures, which come from case files of abuse investigations, could also have a "chilling effect" on future military inquiries into allegations of detainee abuse.
...Forty-four photos that the ACLU was seeking in a court case, plus a "substantial number" of other images, were to be released by May 28 under an agreement reached with the administration. The photos ...are reportedly less disturbing than the 2004 Abu Ghraib images that stoked anti-American sentiment around the world.
...
Although officials declined to describe the photos in detail, some show soldiers pointing guns at the heads of hooded prisoners...
...
The decision to tear up the agreement between the Justice Department and the ACLU was made Friday. ...
SOURCE: : http://www.latimes.com/...
Interestingly, the same story indicates that Obama has seen the photos and described them as "not particularly sensational." Which raises the question, of course, why flip-flop on yet another position?
The answer seems to be that Obama has caved in from pressure from Robert Gates and at least three generals, according to a report from CNN. CNN reports that Gen. Petraeus and the general tapped to be the new commander in Afghanistan--Stanley McChrystal--all had told Obama not to publish the photos. Andrew Sullivan has written of McChrystal "There is solid evidence that McChrystal played an active part in enabling torture in Iraq, and his activities in charge of many secret special operations almost certainly involved condoning acts that might be illustrated by these photos."
Sources: (see CNN newsclip here) http://www.alternet.org/...
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/
It also appears that Dick Cheney's offensive against release of more information relating to torture has worked, as the President himself has bought into Cheney's line of thinking. Obama's change of heart on release of the photos may also jeopardize further congressional hearings on torture which ironically began the same day with the Whitehouse Hearings before Senator Whitehouse's Senate Judiciary Subcommittee. With the President himself arguing that further revelations on torture could inflame the situation against our troops, is Obama himself not putting the kibosch on further hearings? This raises the question: Is Obama digging in his heels against the investigation and prosecution of torture because some high ranking Democrats (like Harmon, Pelosi, Feinstein and Jay Rockefeller) might be caught up in the net of a special prosecutor?
Obama administration officials today are also raising the "national security" argument:
The president "believes their release would endanger our troops," a White House official says, adding that the president "believes that the national security implications of such a release have not been fully presented to the court."
SOURCE: http://www.alternet.org/...
By doing so, Obama risks people asking the further question: is Obama by asserting a "national security" interest on the photos taking essentially the same tack as Nixon did at Watergate and George W. Bush did with his "unitary executive" arguments? In short, has an Obama presidency brought any fundamental change whatsoever to the imperial presidency?
Finally, it appears that Obama's order to NOT RELEASE photographs showing US troops engaging in torture violates the Torture Convention which the US has ratified. The following in block quotes are text from the Torture Convention.
Article 2
Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
Source: http://www.hrweb.org/... (for full text of convention)
By not acting to release information on torture, is not Obama violating Article 2 of the Convention, printed above? Is he really taking "effective...administrative...measures to prevent acts of torture..." as required?
Article 9
States Parties shall afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with civil proceedings brought in respect of any of the offences referred to in article 4, including the supply of all evidence at their disposal necessary for the proceedings.
Is not President Obama violating Article 9 of the Torture convention (since there is an investigation of torture under Bush going on in Spain) by not affording one another (here Spain) the greatest measure of assistance ...including "evidence at their disposal" (the photos) necessary for the proceedings"? Surely, the photos are evidence of torture and the President is blocking their release. This appears to be a violation of Article 9.
Article 10
Each State Party shall ensure that education and information regarding the prohibition against torture are fully included in the training of law enforcement personnel, civil or military, medical personnel, public officials and other persons who may be involved in the custody, interrogation or treatment of any individual subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment.
Is not President Obama violating Article 10 by holding back the photos? Wouldn't these photos be excellent examples of "education and information" as to what constitutes torture?
Article 12
Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committee in any territory under its jurisdiction.
Is not Obama violating Article 12 of the Torture Convention? Are his actions to block release of photos and to stymie any investigation and prosecution of torture complying with the Article 12 duty to "ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation"?
Article 13
Each State Party shall ensure that any individual who alleges he has been subjected to torture in any territory under its jurisdiction has the right to complain to and to have his case promptly and impartially examined its competent authorities. Steps shall be taken to ensure that the complainant and witnesses are protected against all ill-treatment or intimidation as a consequence of his complaint or any evidence given.
Is not Obama obstructing justice and violating Article 13 by preventing those who have been the victims of torture from getting clear evidence from the photos as to torture?
Article 14
Each State Party shall ensure in its legal system that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress and has an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible. In the event of the death of the victim as a result of an act of torture, his dependents shall be entitled to compensation.
Nothing in this article shall affect any right of the victim or other person to compensation which may exist under national law.
Again, is Obama not blocking victims from presenting their cases by blocking access to pictures showing torture? This is an Article 14 violation.
Article 19
The States Parties shall submit to the Committee, through the Secretary-General of the United Nations, reports on the measures they have taken to give effect to their undertakings under this Convention, within one year after the entry into force of this Convention for the State Party concerned. Thereafter the States Parties shall submit supplementary reports every four years on any new measures taken, and such other reports as the Committee may request.
The Secretary-General shall transmit the reports to all States Parties.
[Each report shall be considered by the Committee which may make such comments or suggestions on the report as it considers appropriate, and shall forward these to the State Party concerned. That State Party may respond with any observations it chooses to the Committee.
The Committee may, at its discretion, decide to include any comments or suggestions made by it in accordance with paragraph 3, together with the observations thereon received from the State Party concerned, in its annual report made in accordance with article 24. If so requested by the State Party concerned, the Committee may also include a copy of the report submitted under paragraph 1.]
If the Obama administration is blocking photos showing its troops taking part in torture, is this administration and the past one really reporting everthing to the oversight UN Agency? Where are these reports, by the way?
Article 21
A State Party to this Convention may at any time declare under this article 3 that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.
Should not the Obama administration's wilful suppression of torture through the photos not be evidence to other states signatory to the Torture Convention that the US is not fulfilling its obligations? And should there not be an investigation?
Article 24
The Committee shall submit an annual report on its activities under this Convention to the States Parties and to the General Assembly of the United Nations.
Has this been done at any time under the Bush administration? Will it be done under the Obama administration?
I've edited this diary to include the following section. Some posters have complained that Obama is doing nothing illegal (while they refuse to address the arguments about possible violations of the Torture Convention) and that the photos are really not necessary--we already know torture was committed. Nonsense to both points. Glenn Greenwald (who also quotes Andrew Sullivan) makes hash of these arguments by pointing out how like Bush our current president has become and how THEY CONSTITUTE A CONTINUING SERIES OF ACTS of obstruction:
It's difficult to react much to Obama's complete reversal today of his own prior decision to release photographs depicting extreme detainee abuse by the United States. He's left no doubt that this is what he does: ever since he was inaugurated, Obama has taken one extreme step after the next to keep concealed both the details and the evidence of Bush's crimes, including rendition, torture and warrantless eavesdropping. The ACLU's Amrit Singh -- who litigated the thus-far-successful FOIA lawsuit to compel disclosure of these photographs -- is exactly right:
The reversal is another indication of a continuance of the Bush administration policies under the Obama administration. President Obama's promise of accountability is meaningless, this is inconsistent with his promise of transparency, it violates the government's commitment to the court. People need to examine these abusive photographs, but also the government officials need to be held accountable.
Andrew Sullivan, one of Obama's earliest and most enthusiastic supporters, wrote of today's photograph-concealment decision and yesterday's story of Obama's pressuring Britain to conceal evidence of Binyam Mohamed's torture:
Slowly but surely, Obama is owning the cover-up of his predecessors' war crimes. But covering up war crimes, refusing to prosecute them, promoting those associated with them, and suppressing evidence of them are themselves violations of Geneva and the UN Convention. So Cheney begins to successfully coopt his successor. . .
From extending and deepening the war in Afghanistan, to suppressing evidence of rampant and widespread abuse and torture of prisoners under Bush, to thuggishly threatening the British with intelligence cut-off if they reveal the brutal torture inflicted on Binyam Mohamed, Obama now has new cheer-leaders: Bill Kristol, Michael Goldfarb and Max Boot. . . .
Those of us who held out hope that the Obama administration would not be actively covering up the brutal torture of a Gitmo prisoner who was subject to abuse in several countries must now concede the obvious. They're covering it up - in such a crude and obvious fashion that it is actually a crime in Britain.
SOURCE: (emphasis in original)
http://www.salon.com/...
Today, the Obama administration showed its true stripes with regard to torture. In the past, Obama has attempted to dodge the issue by his ahistorical and unjudicial "looking forward not backwards." But is not precedent at the heart of the law? Is not precedent by its very nature looking back? Do they not follow precedent in teaching the law at the University of Chicago? Today, it should be apparent to all that Gates and the generals are calling the shots here just as Goldman is calling the shots on the economy. Thanks a lot Mr. President for essentially taking the Bush-Cheney approach on torture. In fact, news reports indicate that Obama is taking the same line as that great progressive Democrat, Joe Lieberman and that forward thinking Republican, Lindsey Graham. Is that the company you really represent, Mr. President?
Howard Zinn, the famous historian, was correct when he told Amy Goodman this recently:
"I think we ought to hold Obama to his promise to be different and
bold and to make change. So far, he hasn’t come through on that promise."
SOURCE: http://www.democracynow.org/...