The National Security of Abuse (and Abuse of National Security)
President Obama's recent decision to try to continue to withhold from public view photographs of detainee abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan was based on the conclusion that the consequences of the release of the photos "would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger."
This is a classic "national security" rationale. We can't reveal the truth because it would put Americans in danger. And that is the same rationale that led the Bush administration to assert the "state secrets" doctrine in civil suits by detainees against officials of the United States for violations of human rights (see, for example, El-Masri v. Tenet, ___ F.3rd ___, No. 06-1667 (4th Cir. 3/2/2007)) and is one the rationales still used by former Bush officials to argue against the disclosure of further details of the "harsh interrogation" methods approved by the Bush administration.
But what is being kept secret? That detainees were abused has already been admitted, and those directly committing the abuses have been tried and convicted (but not those ordering the abuses). And the detainees who were abused know that they were abused, and how they were abused. So why try to keep a secret that everyone already knows?
During the Vietnam War, I remember reading about the "secret bombing" of Cambodia, and remember reading one commentator who asked from whom the bombing was a secret. The Cambodians obviously knew they were being bombed, and knew who was bombing them. The bombings were not being kept a "secret" from our enemy, but were being kept a secret from the American public and from world opinion. As long as our government called it a "secret," they could publicly pretend it wasn't happening.
The detainees obviously know that they were abused, and they are free to speak of their abuse, so they are free to "further inflame anti-American opinion." Under those circumstances, the only reason to withhold the photos is to deny the detainees some level of credibility. We can still pretend that it wasn't that bad, or that widespread, and we can still hope that the former detainees won't be believed or won't be listened to.
In short, we don't want anyone else to see the photos because we are still in denial.
It is said that confession is good for the soul of the confessor, and it is also said that victims of crimes can begin to heal and forgive the perpetrator when the victims can hear a confession of guilt and regret.
We abused detainees physically and, judging by the photos I've seen what was done at Abu Ghraib, we humiliated them and took away their dignity. Now we want to continue to withhold part of their dignity, because we want to deny them a public admission and public proof of what happened to them. We want to ignore the detainees and we want the world to ignore them as well.
The best way to reduce anti-American passions is through humility, not secrecy. We need to disclose, we need to be contrite, and we need to punish those who gave the orders. In other words, we need to show that we are really serious when we say that this will not happen again.
This is a classic "national security" rationale. We can't reveal the truth because it would put Americans in danger. And that is the same rationale that led the Bush administration to assert the "state secrets" doctrine in civil suits by detainees against officials of the United States for violations of human rights (see, for example, El-Masri v. Tenet, ___ F.3rd ___, No. 06-1667 (4th Cir. 3/2/2007)) and is one the rationales still used by former Bush officials to argue against the disclosure of further details of the "harsh interrogation" methods approved by the Bush administration.
But what is being kept secret? That detainees were abused has already been admitted, and those directly committing the abuses have been tried and convicted (but not those ordering the abuses). And the detainees who were abused know that they were abused, and how they were abused. So why try to keep a secret that everyone already knows?
During the Vietnam War, I remember reading about the "secret bombing" of Cambodia, and remember reading one commentator who asked from whom the bombing was a secret. The Cambodians obviously knew they were being bombed, and knew who was bombing them. The bombings were not being kept a "secret" from our enemy, but were being kept a secret from the American public and from world opinion. As long as our government called it a "secret," they could publicly pretend it wasn't happening.
The detainees obviously know that they were abused, and they are free to speak of their abuse, so they are free to "further inflame anti-American opinion." Under those circumstances, the only reason to withhold the photos is to deny the detainees some level of credibility. We can still pretend that it wasn't that bad, or that widespread, and we can still hope that the former detainees won't be believed or won't be listened to.
In short, we don't want anyone else to see the photos because we are still in denial.
It is said that confession is good for the soul of the confessor, and it is also said that victims of crimes can begin to heal and forgive the perpetrator when the victims can hear a confession of guilt and regret.
We abused detainees physically and, judging by the photos I've seen what was done at Abu Ghraib, we humiliated them and took away their dignity. Now we want to continue to withhold part of their dignity, because we want to deny them a public admission and public proof of what happened to them. We want to ignore the detainees and we want the world to ignore them as well.
The best way to reduce anti-American passions is through humility, not secrecy. We need to disclose, we need to be contrite, and we need to punish those who gave the orders. In other words, we need to show that we are really serious when we say that this will not happen again.
