More housecleaning ahead! From the Brad Blog, via Politico.com:

President Barack Obama plans to replace a "batch" of U.S. Attorneys in the next few weeks and more prosecutors thereafter, according to Attorney General Eric Holder.

"I expect that we'll have an announcement in the next couple of weeks with regard to our first batch of U.S attorneys," Holder said Thursday during a House Judiciary Committee hearing which stretched out over most of the day due to breaks for members' votes. "One of the things that we didn't want to do was to disrupt the continuity of the offices and pull people out of positions where we thought there might be a danger that that might have on the continuity--the effectiveness of the offices. But...elections matter--it is our intention to have the U.S. Attorneys that are selected by President Obama in place as quickly as they can."
...
Holder's comments Thursday came in response to a question from Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) "Many jurisdictions are waiting desperately to see what is going to be done. As we understand it, the protocol has been that U.S. Attorneys would hand in their resignations and would give the new administration an opportunity to make new appointments, we don't see that happening quite fast enough," she said, pointing to complaints about prosecutors in Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama.

A few more bad apples? Highly recommended reading in the UK Independent:

A single American Special Forces group was behind at least three of Afghanistan's worst civilian casualty incidents, The Independent has learnt, raising fundamental questions about their ongoing role in the conflict.

Troops from the US Marines Corps' Special Operations Command, or MarSOC, were responsible for calling in air strikes in Bala Boluk, in Farah, last week - believed to have killed more than 140 men, women and children - as well as two other incidents in 2007 and 2008. News of MarSOC's involvement in the three incidents comes just days after a Special Forces expert, Lieutenant-General Stanley McChrystal, was named to take over as the top commander of US and Nato troops in Afghanistan. His surprise appointment has prompted speculation that commando counterinsurgency missions will increase in the battle to beat the Taliban.

MarSOC was created three years ago on the express orders of Donald Rumsfeld, US defence secretary at the time, despite opposition from within the Marine Corps and the wider Special Forces community. An article in the Marine Corps Times described the MarSOC troops as "cowboys" who brought shame on the corps.

You can read the entire article here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/rumsfelds-renegade-unit-blamed-for-afghan-deaths-1685704.html

Gerald F. Seib has a highly informative column, Obama's Decision to Keep Gates Looks Even Better up in the Wall Street Journal that details the central role Robert Gates has played in several of the recent policy decisions by the Obama administration. Primary among these are the decisions regarding the release of the torture memos:

The debate over harsh interrogation methods. First, Mr. Gates provided important political cover to the president by endorsing his decision to release the secret memos the Bush administration used to justify waterboarding and other interrogation tactics for terrorism suspects. That decision still was attacked by those who thought the disclosure harmed American intelligence efforts, but Mr. Gates's endorsement went a long way toward muting the criticism.

and the blocking of the release of detainee abuse photos:

Then, just this week, he helped keep the president out of hot water by tipping a second, related decision in the opposite direction. Mr. Gates successfully argued that the administration should try to block the court-ordered release of photos of prisoners under interrogation. He channeled into the White House military commanders' deep worries about a backlash against American soldiers in the Islamic world if the photos were released. That was enough to persuade key White House aides, and ultimately Mr. Obama, who reversed his previous position and decided to go to court to stop the release.

Changing course was politically embarrassing for the president, but that problem likely pales when compared with the attacks from critics and the military itself that likely would have followed unchallenged release of the photos.

Mr. Seib's column also goes into an interesting discussion of the role Gates played in helping Obama manuever through the pitfalls of replacing the commander in Afghanistan:

A change of commanders in Afghanistan. The decision to replace the head of allied forces in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan, had the potential to set off fireworks on both the right and left. On the right, there could have been a furor if a relatively new Obama appointee, rather than Mr. Gates, had decided to dump such a senior military officer in the midst of his tour. At the same time, there could have been an uproar on the left because he is being succeeded by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, a commander whose background is in the shadowy world of special operations, including seizing and handling terrorism suspects.

But because the switch was a joint Obama-Gates maneuver, criticism was muted on both sides, and largely drowned out by cheers over a decisive shift in approach in Afghanistan.

There's more, including Gates' deft handling of dealing with the Pentagon budget, and i recommend reading the whole article, but I think the above passages give important insight into how the members of Obama's cabinet are helping Obama navigate through a minefield of political issues.

Then from Tom Rick's Foreign Policy page we learn the following:

I am told that General Odierno's objections to the timing of the release of a new round of photos of detainees being abused in Iraq were decisive to President Obama's decision Wednesday to reverse himself and decide against the release of those photos.

I am surprised by Obama's reversal. I wasn't so taken aback in February when he went along with his generals and abandoned his campaign promise to withdraw a brigade a month from Iraq this year, and instead endorsed a plan that kept troop levels there pretty steady this year. But to get rolled twice -- well, he must think he is running up some pretty big chits with them. I know he is trying to do the right thing but at some point he is going to have to say, My way or the highway.

Considering that Obama is just four months into his administration, it's probably a good thing that Obama is taking advice from the people who have been on the job for a long time, and have valuable insight into what has actually been going on on the ground, as well as in the halls of the Pentagon. Obama appears to be on track in building a broad base of support in the military, something that is absolutley neccessary if he is going to be able to count on these same people to help get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Matt Iglesias, on whom's Think Progress page I found this link, makes an insightful comment:

I think you can probably put slow-walking change on Don't Ask Don't Tell in the same box. But is Obama really going to have to say something like that at some point? Realistically, the political damage to a Democratic President of off-the-record grousing by the brass could be large. With major health care and energy reforms live in congress, I think generals will be getting things "their way" for a while yet.

One point that I would like to add, that no else seems to be making, is that President Obama has completely stifled any possible criticism from the GOP that he isn't listening to his generals and working to provide the military with what it needs to function effectively. Some of Obama's most recent public statements on the issue were recorded in the May 13 New York Times article Obama Moves to Bar Release of Detainee Abuse Photos:

"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," Mr. Obama told reporters on the South Lawn. "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."

*****

Officials who have seen the photos describe them as falling into two categories: Abu Ghraib-style personal snapshots taken by soldiers; and photos taken by military criminal investigators documenting allegations of abuse, including autopsy photos of prisoners who died in custody.

*****

In his remarks at the White House, Mr. Obama spoke out forcefully against torture and said he had impressed upon military commanders "that the abuse of detainees in our custody is prohibited and will not be tolerated." But as commander in chief, he said, the well-being of American forces carrying out his strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq outweighed the call to release the images.

"Moreover," he said, "I fear the publication of these photos may only have a chilling effect on future investigations of detainee abuse." 

Well it looks like the Australian and British news outlets are doing what they can to rub Obama's nose in the torture photo scandal. The UK Telegraph is reporting that Australian news channel SBS has published "new" photos  of detainee abuse that it obtained in 2006:

The shocking images of inmates in Iraq and Afghanistan were published just a day after the US president announced plans for a legal battle stop them ever being seen. They risked provoking renewed hostility in the Middle East as Mr Obama attempts to build bridges with the Islamic world. He is scheduled to make a major speech in Cairo on June 4 when he will launch his version of a plan to bring peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

One picture showed a prisoner hung up upside down while another showed a naked man smeared in excrement standing in a corridor with a guard standing menacingly in front of him. Another prisoner is handcuffed to the window frame of his cell with underpants pulled over his head. Others yet to be released reportedly show military guards threatening to sexually assault a detainee with a broomstick and hooded prisoners on transport planes with Playboy magazines opened to pictures of nude women on their laps. The images emerged from Australia yesterday where they were originally obtained by the channel SBS in 2006 in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal. They were not distributed around the world at the time but are now believed to be among those the president is trying to block.

The Telegraph also includes a slideshow of 16 of the images. While the images are billed as "new", I can recall seeing a number of them before. I guess it is not surprising that the conservative Telegraph has titled its slideshow "New outrage over Iraq prison abuse photographs" as part of its attempt to sensationalize this story just as Obama is preparing for his next major appearance in Egypt.

This came out last night and I attached it to my previous post, but I think it bears some discussion in regards to the whole torture photo release issue. David Axelrod was interviewed by Jim Lehrer. Here is a partial transcript:

JIM LEHRER: Now to our interview with David Axelrod. I spoke with him earlier this evening from the White House Briefing Room.

David Axelrod, welcome.

DAVID AXELROD, senior adviser to President Obama: Thanks, Jim. Good to be with you.

JIM LEHRER: Thank you. On the detainee abuse photos, how does the president's opposition to releasing them, to making them public, square with his positions on transparency and public disclosure?

DAVID AXELROD: Well, Jim, his positions on transparency and public disclosure are strong and well known, but they don't -- they're not without limit.

When he believes that the release of materials may jeopardize the national security, then he's going to make that case. In this case, his concern is that the release of the photos from acts that happened years ago will serve to inflame the situation now and endanger our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. And that's something he's not inclined to do.

JIM LEHRER: And on what is that based? Why does he believe that it will inflame these folks in Iraq and Afghanistan?

DAVID AXELROD: Well, obviously, the photos are provocative. We've seen them, photos like them the past. They've had an inflammatory effect. They were used by our opponents and al-Qaida as propaganda tools and recruiting devices. And so we don't want to go back there again.

JIM LEHRER: Have you seen these photographs, as well as the president?

DAVID AXELROD: I've seen some of the photographs.

JIM LEHRER: You agree that they would be inflammatory?

DAVID AXELROD: Well, I think the president has made the right decision. And his first responsibility is to protect the safety of our troops and to protect the country. He's making the decision on that basis.

My fundamental understanding from the president is that he feels strongly that this would have a deleterious effect on our troops, that it would put them in jeopardy, and he wants to pursue all legal avenues to prevent their release at this time...

JIM LEHRER: Did Vice President Cheney's criticism of President Obama and saying that he's jeopardizing the safety of the country have any influence on this decision of President Obama?

DAVID AXELROD: Absolutely not. Believe me, I've been with the president as he speaks about these issues, and he's got one thing on his mind, which is to make the right decision for the troops, for the country, for our national security. I don't think he's worried about comments from the sidelines by anybody.

JIM LEHRER: For the record, there's no concern among the president and his advisers such as you about what Vice President Cheney's been saying about President Obama?

DAVID AXELROD: I don't have any concerns at all. I mean, the vice president has his own motivations, whatever they may be. He is free to offer his opinions.

But the president has responsibilities, and he's going to discharge those responsibilities through his best judgment, regardless of what the vice president has to say.

JIM LEHRER: On the photos, is the president prepared to take this all the way -- it's now in a federal appeals court. If he loses in that case, is he going to go to the Supreme Court with it?

DAVID AXELROD: Well, let's see what happens, Jim. But my fundamental understanding from the president is that he feels strongly that this would have a deleterious effect on our troops, that it would put them in jeopardy, and he wants to pursue all legal avenues to prevent their release at this time, which is a sensitive time in both Iraq and Afghanistan. So, you know, I expect that he will pursue all legal avenues.

One of the key comments made by Axelrod is his qualifier about releasing the photos "at this time", a statement he makes twice in the interview. The second instance being "to prevent their release at this time, which is a sensitive time in both Iraq and Afghanistan."

Considering the rapidly deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, and the recent suicide bombings in Irag after what seemed like a period of quiet, is it difficult to imagine that the release of more torture photos right now could contribute to inflaming an already tenuous situation? Is it not Obama's job to take these things into consideration?

I have a hard to believing that the release of more graphic torture images would not be sensationalized by the world media, that they wouldn't be used to ramp up a new wave of Anti-American sentiment, and that our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan wouldn't be the frontline targets for a new backlash.

It seems that there are many here at TPM that just can't imagine the situation, or the anti-American feelings shared by some (or many) in the Muslim world as possibly getting worse. But you know what? It can always get worse.

We are on our way out of Iraq, why add fuel to a fire that has died down. Afghanistan is unraveling, the Taliban is threatening Pakistan, and we are trying to keep the whole the whole thing from disintegrating into complete chaos. Is now the best time to hand out a fresh round of anti-American recruitment posters to the people who are shooting at our troops every day over there right now as you are reading this?

Maybe you're not worried about putting the troops in greater danger, but it is, after all, Obama's job as Comander-in-Chief to be concerned about such things. Is your judgement, based on the information available to you, superior to his, based on the information available to him? 

So what's the problem with not releasing those photos "at this time"? Aren't the photos we've seen enough evidence of widespread corruption and abuse? Aren't 100 photos of torture and a mountain of evidence enough? Does one need to see 1,000 more to really be convinced of the evil and crimes committed under Bush/Cheney?

"But, but, but," you argue, "these photos will be the final push that leads to prosecutions. The others weren't good enough. These are the photos that will really make Americans mad and then they will scream for the heads of Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld. But of course, they won't make anyone else mad, and the notion that this could present a real and present danger to the troops, well, that's just nonsense, the same old cover-up excuse."

Yeah...right.

Update:

Attorney General Eric Holder appeared before Congress yesterday and reiterated the same position:

The United States' attorney general has said he is prepared to go to court to prevent the release of scores of photos reportedly documenting prisoner abuse by US troops. Eric Holder's remarks to US congress on Thursday came a day after Barack Obama, the US president, said he would move to block the court-ordered release of the photos.

Holder told the US house judiciary committee that Obama's reversal of his original decision not to oppose their release was because he feared a backlash against US troops serving in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan. "The president consulted with the generals on the ground and made the determination that the release of those photos would endanger our troops," he said.

"The concern was the release of those photos could have a negative impact on the situation both in Iraq and in Afghanistan and I think the president as commander in chief ... thought that the posture he has now put us in was the better one."

update x2

Jim Lehrer interviewed Obama Advisor David Axelrod earlier tonight, below is a partial transcript. We obviously don't know what photos Gibbs is referring to, and we have no idea if the videotape/photos that Seymor Hersh and others decribed of child abuse even survive. My original post below is an argument for witholding some material from public view, due to the danger it would present to our troops overseas, and the unnecessary backlash it would create. There is no reason that torture prosecutions can't take place while at the same time keeping the safety of our soldiers in mind. I find no problem with Obama's reasoning regarding this:

JIM LEHRER: Now to our interview with David Axelrod. I spoke with him earlier this evening from the White House Briefing Room.

David Axelrod, welcome.

DAVID AXELROD, senior adviser to President Obama: Thanks, Jim. Good to be with you.

JIM LEHRER: Thank you. On the detainee abuse photos, how does the president's opposition to releasing them, to making them public, square with his positions on transparency and public disclosure?

DAVID AXELROD: Well, Jim, his positions on transparency and public disclosure are strong and well known, but they don't -- they're not without limit.

When he believes that the release of materials may jeopardize the national security, then he's going to make that case. In this case, his concern is that the release of the photos from acts that happened years ago will serve to inflame the situation now and endanger our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. And that's something he's not inclined to do.

JIM LEHRER: And on what is that based? Why does he believe that it will inflame these folks in Iraq and Afghanistan?

DAVID AXELROD: Well, obviously, the photos are provocative. We've seen them, photos like them the past. They've had an inflammatory effect. They were used by our opponents and al-Qaida as propaganda tools and recruiting devices. And so we don't want to go back there again.

JIM LEHRER: Have you seen these photographs, as well as the president?

DAVID AXELROD: I've seen some of the photographs.

JIM LEHRER: You agree that they would be inflammatory?

DAVID AXELROD: Well, I think the president has made the right decision. And his first responsibility is to protect the safety of our troops and to protect the country. He's making the decision on that basis.

My fundamental understanding from the president is that he feels strongly that this would have a deleterious effect on our troops, that it would put them in jeopardy, and he wants to pursue all legal avenues to prevent their release at this time...

 

 

update: I thought it was implicit in my post below that I agree that as much of the torture documention as is possible to release should be released. I also can see that Obama is walking a fine line between his desire for transparency, and in his role as Commander-in-Chief. Tough decisions are being made, and it's plain to see that Obama has realized that there is a real risk of putting the US military, as well as Americans abroad, and in greater danger than they already face if certain image were dispersed around the globe. My post below was meant to question where that fine line exists, and how far  we are willing to cross it in regards to diminishing returns.

Original post:

Back in 2004, this is what Seymour Hersh had to say:

"Debating about it, ummm ... Some of the worst things that happened you don't know about, okay? Videos, um, there are women there. Some of you may have read that they were passing letters out, communications out to their men. This is at Abu Ghraib ... The women were passing messages out saying 'Please come and kill me, because of what's happened' and basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys, children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. And the worst above all of that is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror. It's going to come out."

So this is what some of you think should be made public? I don't think so. What better recruiting tool could we hand to radical militants around the world than these videos or still photos of the United States government raping children in front of their mothers, as a form of "harsh interrogation technique"?

These really are the darkest days of our country. Investigate and prosecute, yes, but the public has absolutely no need to see these images. Torture, murder, child rape...are there any worse war crimes imaginable?

I am completely disgusted with all of those that still defend the Bush/Cheney regime. I am completely disgusted that these crimes were committed by the Republican party in the name of all Americans. Just as the German people were complicit in what happened at the concentration camps during World War II, so too are the American people complicit in this stain on our history, and we must demand that those who authorized these actions are held accountable, and that it never happen again.

postscript:

I'm beginning to get a clearer picture of a very pathetic argument being made here in the comments below in regard to the release of images of child torture, if they even exist. I would sum it up thusly:

"All photos, no matter how abhorent, must be released. This is the only way that the American public will be so outraged as to take action. At the same time, no one outside our borders will be outraged, because they are our friends and allies and they want to see us do the right thing."

A you freakin' kidding me? This is such a ridiculous and laughable line of logic that I can hardly fathom the inability of some of these commenters to realize the contradictions of their own statements.

People lets be clear about this, there is no way that whatever images are released will anger only Americans, and not serve as next week's recruiting poster for those that hate the US the most abroad. This so so completely stupid, that I can't believe I have to spell it out to you. If the material is so offensive as to finally prod the most thick-skulled among us that torture and war crimes were committed, and that our former administration should finally be held accountable, but on the other hand, we will receive nothing but roses strewn in our path in by the Muslim populations of the world...well, if you can't figure it out may the gods help you.

And in case you forgot, we're trying to get out of Iraq, not reignite another firestorm there. Get a clue, people! Maybe we need to look at some photos of what 150 people blow to bits by a suicide bomber look like. Maybe we need to look back at the mayhem that ensued after the release of the first round of Abu Ghraib photos, and recall the body count, both American and Iraqi, that ensued. Do we really need anymore dead bodies, or is there a better way to deal with this? Don't you think that Obama has already taken all of this into consideration?

Of course, there are those making the case that it's impossible to further inflame anti-American sentiment, in light of the recent deaths of civilians in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Glen Greenwald has this piece up on Salon.com:

 We wouldn't want to inflame anti-American sentiment

It's a well thought out piece, but I'm unconvinced by his argument. I guess there are many out there who think anything is acceptable in order to pursue prosecution. I don't think that publishing images that will inspire a suicide bomber to strap on a backpack full of explosives and blow up themselves along with a marketplace full of people somewhere in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else, is acceptable.

Isn't it enough that we have multiple reports of these abuses? The Salon piece from 2004 mentioned above concludes with the following:

A reader brought to our attention that the rape of boys at Abu Ghraib has been mentioned in some news accounts of the prisoner abuse evidence. The Telegraph and other news organizations described "a videotape, apparently made by US personnel, is said to show Iraqi guards raping young boys." The Guardian reported "formal statements by inmates published yesterday describe horrific treatment at the hands of guards, including the rape of a teenage Iraqi boy by an army translator."

Isn't this evidence enough, do you really need to see the photos to grasp the enormity of the crime?