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?