Why Obama Should Release Photos

Justifying his dramatic reversal of the decision to release photos
showing abuse of detainees by U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan,
President Obama argued publication would "further inflame anti-American
opinion and put our troops in greater danger."

In fact, world
opinion, particularly that of Muslims, would likely view the release of
these horror images as representing a rupture for the better in
American politics and foreign policy. America would be seen as
reclaiming its high moral compass and affirming its respect for human
dignity.

Taking ownership of and responsibility for the Bush
administration's actions, horrible and painful as they are, will
reinforce Obama's break with his predecessor and his new message to the
U.S. public and international community: The United States is a good
citizen of the world, a nation of laws that fully complies with the
laws of war. In the eyes of friends and foes, the president's new
message would gain more traction and credibility.

There is no
denying that in the short term the release of these horror images would
provide more ammunition to extremists like al Qaeda
and like-minded groups at war with the United States. Other hardliners
would use and abuse the detainee photos to portray the United States as
waging a war against Islam and Muslims. But there is little the United
States could do to appease al Qaeda and similar militants. Most are
beyond redemption.

The primary target audience is mainstream
Muslim public opinion. There is plenty of evidence indicating that
Obama's overtures to Muslims have begun to pay off. In polls and my own
interviews, more and more Arabs and Muslims say they think very highly
of the young president and believe he will have a positive impact on
the Middle East and relations between the United States and the region.

The findings of a recent McClatchy/Ipsos poll show a reservoir of good
will toward Obama, while negative attitudes towards American foreign
policy persist. In Jordan, 58 percent of citizens have a favorable
opinion of him, followed by 53 percent in Saudi Arabia, and 52 percent
in the United Arab Emirates. Obama's popularity dips to 47 percent in
Kuwait and 43 percent in Lebanon -- but in none of these countries, was
Obama's unfavorable rating higher than his favorable one.

In
contrast, only 38 percent of Saudis have a favorable view of the United
States, followed by 36 percent of Jordanians, 34 percent of UAE
residents, 31 percent of Lebanese and 22 percent of Egyptians.

The critical goodwill gap between Arabs' view of Obama and the United
States has to do with the credibility of the messenger, President
Obama. While former President Bush is loathed and mistrusted in the
greater Middle East, Obama is seen as a breath of fresh air reflecting
what they see as America's new humane face. The credibility of the
messenger is critical and any decision, like blocking the release of
the abuse photos, that undermines trust could easily shatter the
reservoir of international good will built by Obama so far.

The
argument that the publication of the photos would inflame anti-American
opinion does not carry much weight because these contested photos are
reportedly less disturbing than the 2004 Abu Ghraib images that stoked anti-American sentiment worldwide.

In fact, Obama said the photos in this case are not "particularly
sensational, especially when compared to the painful images that we
remember from Abu Ghraib." Fair enough, why not then comply with the
appeals court decision, and release the images?

There is a danger that Obama's
new decision to oppose release of the photos could have the opposite of
its intended effect by spreading rumors and conspiracy theories about
what the photos reveal -- causing more harm than good. In the age of
the new media, transparency is a powerful weapon in domestic politics
and foreign policy as well.

"The government should not keep information confidential merely because
public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and
failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract
fears," according to Obama's own January 21 memorandum on honoring
Freedom of Information Act.

The 2008 ruling by the three-judge
appeals court panel, which rejected the Bush administration's major
assertion that release of the photos adds little of value to the public
understanding of the issue, was on the same page with Obama's. "This
contention disregards FOIA's central purpose of furthering governmental
accountability," concluded the appeals panel.

Yes, Mr.
President, you, as a former professor of constitutional law, and the
appeals court agree that open government, transparency and
accountability matter and matter greatly. U.S. citizens have the right
to know the full scale of horror perpetrated in their name.

There is an urgent need to come clean; to release not only these
disputed photos but also the few thousand others allegedly in the
Pentagon's possession. Defense Secretary Robert Gates was right when he
said he once held the view that it might be best to "go through the
pain once" and release a large batch of images now, since so many are
at issue in multiple lawsuits.

But he and the president changed
their minds when the top U.S. generals in Iraq and Afghanistan, and
Gen. David Petraeus, the senior commander for both wars, expressed
"very great worry that release of these photographs will cost American
lives," Gates told the House Armed Services Committee.

"That's all it took for me," Gates said.

The generals rightly fear releasing the photos could further undermine
the standing of the U.S. military at home and abroad, though it is
difficult to say that publication would cost American lives.

The commander in chief must seriously weigh the fears of his generals
against broader concerns of public and national interests and open
government. The latter are not a luxury but a necessity in light of
what transpired in the last eight years. Coming clean would go a long
way to repair any symbolic damage inflicted on the military and prevent
a repeat of those crimes in the future.

Fortunately, the courts
might save the Obama administration from itself. White House spokesman
Robert Gibbs said the president instructed administration lawyers to
challenge release of the photos on national security grounds. He said
the argument was not used before.

Well, the Bush administration
already argued against the release on national security implications --
and lost. The appeals court wrote in September, 2008: "It is plainly
insufficient to claim that releasing documents could reasonably be
expected to endanger some unspecified member of a group so vast as to
encompass all United States troops, coalition forces, and civilians in
Iraq and Afghanistan."

"Sunlight is said to be the best of
disinfectants," wrote the "people's lawyer," and later, U.S. Supreme
Court Justice, Louis Brandeis in a series of articles on the doctrine
of New Freedom. It is hoped the Obama administration will embrace
sunshine and transparency and lift the veil of secrecy that has, more
often than not, damaged U.S. national interests.