Obama's Era of Openness Is Closed

An "era" used to last, but not so much anymore. We've already heard GOP
Chairman Michael Steele proclaim that "the era of apologizing for
Republican mistakes" was over (when many of us didn't know it had begun), and now it appears that Barack Obama's era of openness has closed, too.

That era began on the new President's first working day in office when
he rescinded some of George W. Bush's imperial edicts granting himself
and his family - along with other former presidents and vice presidents
- broad control over historical records.

On Jan. 21, President Obama spoke eloquently about "a new era of open
government," declaring that "a democracy requires accountability, and
accountability requires transparency."

Regarding whether to release documents under the Freedom of Information
Act, he added, "In the face of doubt, openness prevails. 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."

However, the Obama
administration is now moving aggressively to prevent federal courts
from ordering the release of photographic and other evidence of crimes
and misconduct committed by the CIA and U.S. military forces during
George W. Bush's "war on terror."

On Monday, Obama's lawyers submitted an affidavit signed by CIA
Director Leon Panetta claiming that a federal judge must not release
documents relating to the destruction of 92 CIA videotapes regarding
interrogations of terrorism suspects.

To do so, Panetta said, could "result in exceptionally grave danger to
the national security by informing our enemies of what we know about
them, and when, and in some instances, how we obtained the intelligence
we possessed."

Panetta
insisted that the continued secrecy regarding the documents about the
destroyed videotapes was "in no way driven by a desire to prevent
embarrassment for the U.S. government or the CIA, or to suppress
evidence of any unlawful conduct." Rather, he cited concerns about
revealing "sources and methods" and other potential harm to U.S.
national security.

The ACLU
has sought the documents in an attempt to ascertain who in the Bush
administration was responsible for torturing detainees and for
destroying the videotapes, which detailed the treatment of two
terrorism suspects.

The Obama administration's objection to the document release follows Obama's personal decision in May to withhold
photographs showing abuse of detainees at U.S. military prisons. Obama
said releasing the photos could enflame tensions in the Middle East and
endanger American soldiers. He also has reaffirmed the government's
right to kill court cases by asserting a "state secrets privilege."

What Obama apparently has realized is that a commitment to openness
requires courage and a readiness to take some political hits.
Republicans - and parts of the U.S. news media - attacked Obama in April for releasing the Bush administration's four legal memos justifying torture of detainees.

Stung by that criticism - and accusations from former Vice President
Dick Cheney that the disclosures had endangered national security -
Obama began his retreat on openness.

Disclosed Scandals

Yet, virtually every major disclosure of serious U.S. government
wrongdoing has entailed some risk of damaging the national image or
increasing risks faced by U.S. soldiers deployed around the globe.

For instance, the disclosure of the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam
War - including photos of women and children slaughtered in a drainage
ditch - surely reflected negatively on the U.S. military. So, too, did
the leaking of photos showing abuse of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib.

Indeed, in scandals as diverse as Richard Nixon's Watergate cover-up
and Ronald Reagan's Iran-Contra Affair, the government's reflex has
been to insist that any aggressive effort to get at the truth would
harm national security.

In
both Watergate and Iran-Contra, a refrain heard from Republicans and
even some Democrats was that full accountability for the abuses would
"not be good for the country." On a superficial level at least, it
always seems easier to sweep the scandals under the rug and move on.

But cover-ups carry risks as well - not only to the health of a
democracy but to the emotional issue of troop safety.

If the My Lai massacre had been successfully concealed from the public,
the Vietnam War might have dragged on longer causing more American and
Vietnamese casualties. If the Abu Ghraib abuses had been hidden, the
U.S. electorate - blissfully unaware of why the ungrateful Iraqis were
rebelling against American beneficence - might have elected a new
President like John McCain who was eager to extend Bush's war. Thus,
more U.S. soldiers might get killed.

Arguably, one of the reasons that Bush's desire to invade Iraq drew
initial American support was the decision of major U.S. news
organizations in 1991 to shield the American people from the worst
carnage of the first Persian Gulf War. News outlets spiked photos of
smoldering corpses and downplayed the civilian deaths from heavy U.S.
bombing raids in and around Baghdad.

The thinking of many U.S. editors was that such grisly photos and
unpleasant stories would dampen the national joy over a successful
military campaign - and might lead to complaints that the news outlets
were not behaving in a sufficiently patriotic manner.

Even
then, President George H.W. Bush saw the feel-good triumph over Iraq as
an important palliative for the lingering downer of Vietnam. As the
100-hour U.S. ground offensive ended, he exulted: "We've kicked the
Vietnam Syndrome once and for all."

With war made fun again - and with most of the complaints coming from
neoconservatives who wanted U.S. forces to march on to Baghdad - the
American people were primed for another adventure 12 years later when
President George W. Bush decided to finish the job that his dad hadn't.
The expectation was for another fun-filled "shock and awe" romp.

Reagan and Powell

As for Official Washington's unwillingness in the late 1980s to get to
the bottom of the Iran-Contra scandal, the consequences included
leaving the reputations of prominent icons, like Ronald Reagan and
Colin Powell, in place and thus a threat to the health of the American
Republic.

In the Iran-Contra
Affair, the idolized President Reagan essentially got away with
restoring the imperial presidency and its concept that the nation's
chief executive could ignore the law, setting the stage for George W.
Bush's abuse of those same theories.

Powell's important behind-the-scenes role in Iran-Contra escaped any
sustained scrutiny, protecting his status as a trusted national figure
who could be believed when he made the case for invading Iraq in
February 2003. [For details on Powell, see Neck Deep.]

In these cases and many more, the challenge to get at and to tell the
truth was daunting. It was always easier and far more comfortable to
acquiesce to the lies and the myths.

After all, Americans don't want to think about U.S. troops murdering
children and other civilians in My Lai or sexually humiliating Iraqi
detainees at Abu Ghraib. It's so much nicer to see the Vietnam War as a
noble undertaking or to feel good about the United States bringing
"democracy" to Iraq -- or to slide into the bathos that surrounds
Ronald Reagan's legacy or to admire Colin Powell as an exceptional role
model.

Like many Democrats
who preceded him, President Obama is finding it's politically more
popular to adopt a "patriotic" posture, keeping unpleasant photographs
secret to safeguard "the troops" and hiding documents about torture to
"protect sources and methods."

By doing so, however, Obama is keeping from the American people a full
understanding of the depravity that George W. Bush unleashed in their
name. That might make them feel better; some might even thank Obama for
sparing the United States more humiliation.

But Obama's cover-up of the Bush administration's crimes also enables
the Republicans to gloss over the abuses of the past eight years and
makes a GOP comeback more likely in the not-too-distant future. It's
also a sure bet that the Republicans will do Obama no reciprocal
favors, anymore than they did for Bill Clinton, who similarly concealed
Reagan-Bush-I abuses. [See Secrecy & Privilege.]

Obama also risks offending many of his supporters and other Americans
who simply want to know the truth. They will view him as just another
politician who talked big but then took a dive on the difficult work of
accountability, a guy who ended his promised "era of open government"
barely before it began.

Join Us: News for people demanding a better world


Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place.

We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference.

Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today!

© 2023 Consortium News