Obama takes risk with reversal on detainee photos

[snowdays]

Source: LA Times


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-interrogate-photos14-2009may14,0,2416893.story


Obama takes risk with reversal on detainee photos

In trying to block their release, he is angering liberal groups who usually support him -- and drawing praise from Republicans. Even if he loses in court, he can argue that he tried to protect troops.

By Peter Wallsten and Janet Hook
May 14, 2009
Reporting f



.............It was unclear Wednesday how officials would proceed, but it appeared likely that the matter would be decided in the Supreme Court, because two lower federal courts have ordered that the pictures be released.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that the national security argument the administration intended to make in court -- that releasing the photographs could create a backlash -- was "one that hasn't been made before."

But, in fact, that issue was raised and rejected by a federal district court judge and the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, which called the warnings of a backlash "clearly speculative" and insufficient to warrant blocking disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

"There's no legal basis for withholding the photographs," said Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's National Security Project, "so this must be a political decision."

Liberal groups said Wednesday that they intended to keep up the pressure on Obama. The ACLU is seeking many more documents, including memos laying out Bush-era tactics and transcripts of destroyed videotapes depicting harsh interrogation techniques.

Obama's dilemma is that he risks undermining one of the core principles he claimed for his presidency: transparency.

Lucy Dalglish, director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, which joined the ACLU in seeking release of the photos, said she was "astonished" that Obama's lawyers would "find themselves in front of the Supreme Court fighting a FOIA request as one of the first major tasks they go to litigate." She said FOIA cases are rare at that level, and risky because "they don't often go well."

One senior Democratic aide, who requested anonymity when discussing White House decisions, assessed Obama's dilemma this way: "He's always trying to straddle these difficult questions. You make promises because that's what the public wants. But it's a lot different to promise than do it."

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-interrogate-photos14-2009may14,0,2416893.story

---

One of the things that bothers me about this issue is that the WH only a few weeks ago said yes. Why did he not have the military review them prior to saying yes?? Now we have the flip flop issue. These photos will haunt the Obama presidency. IMHO--lets get them out, deal with it and move on.

[NJmaverick]

1. Not sure what the risk is

liberal groups have shown little in the way of loyalty or support for Obama. So many liberal groups have successfully adopted the mountain out of mole hill and faux outrage that has been a conerstone of right wing tactics. So a week doesn't go by that they are not attacking our President.

[Mari333]

2. healthy critique is the cornerstone of patriotism

had I critiqued Clinton more heartily back in the day, maybe he wouldnt have gotten away with DADT, NAFTA, and DOMA. every president works for the people. if the people are unhappy, they should speak up. they arent kings. they are public servants.

[tridim]

3. Absolutely, but claiming Obama is just like Cheney and Bush is not healthy critique

That's what I'm seeing on DU lately, and it's just INSANE.

[Mari333]

5. Liz and Dick applaud Obama's decision today

that speaks volumes.

[JonLP24]

6. So did nearly every republican and Lieberman

This is a legal issue where I feel Obama is wrong on. Nothing knee-jerk about that.

[Mari333]

7. exactly. nt

[snowdays]

9. ah, good company............NOT

[Mari333]

14. ?

[tridim]

10. I must have missed the applause session.

Is there a link?

[NJmaverick]

4. I wouldn't describe most of the critique as healthy

more like self destructive, short sighted, knee jerk and often just an unwillingness to compromise or accept political realities.


As for Clinton, I am pretty sure your criticism would not have changed his positions. Beyond that, I am not sure you want to undo 8 years of relative peace, economic prosperity and a paying down of the national debt. Although one could argue that the never ending stream of criticism and attacks hindered Clinton's war with Bin Ladin and Al Qaeda.

[EFerrari]

11. It's widely known that free speech helps al Qaida.

lol

[NJmaverick]

13. Do I educate you about the history of Clinton and his counter terrorist efforts

and the GOP's efforts to thwart them by claiming they were just deliberate distrations or do I just shrug my shoulders and move on?


:shrug:

:yoiks:

[EFerrari]

15. Your time would be better spent doing some reading.

Free speech didn't help al Qaida. CIA and FBI bumbling did.

[Mari333]

8. a number of issues besides this one

the bank bailouts, the FISA bill, his stance on gay marriage, the surge in afghanistan, and now this. I gave him kudos when he said he would raise taxes on the corporations who do business overseas and stop their cayman island accounts. but when I disagree with him, I will.

[ixion]

12. "But it's a lot different to promise than do it." ONLY in the lying world of politics is this true

the rest of us, if we promise to do something and don't do it, it reflects poorly on us as responsible individuals, or worse.

Promising something and not doing it is a LIE.

[Bluenorthwest]

16. Yep. A lie

and it is nothing more than a lie.