The Obama Administration Has Two Faces When It Comes to Exposing US Torture
There is too often a gap between the Obama administration's words and deeds when it comes to transparency on national security issues. Take, for example, whether the government should release information about the abuse of prisoners in U.S. custody.
In a decade-old Freedom of Information Lawsuit the ACLU is still fighting, the administration recently told the court that it can't release some 2,000 photos showing prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib and other military detention facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan. The reason, the government says, is because the pictures could be inflammatory and lead to attacks against U.S. interests abroad.
But in December, when asked about the possibility of violence in response to the release of the Senate report on the CIA's torture program, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest had this to say:
[W]e believe so strongly in the value of actually following through on the release of this report, that it says something critically important about our values as a country, and that even though it may pose some risk to the security situation at diplomatic facilities around the globe - we can take prudent steps to protect those facilities, and that it is critically important - again, consistent with the values of this country - for the declassified version of the summary of this report to be released.
The president himself took a similar stand when talking about Sony's decision to pull "The Interview" from theaters in the face of threats:
I think they made a mistake. . . We can't start changing our patterns of behavior any more than we stop going to a football game because there might be the possibility of a terrorist attack, any more than Boston didn't run its marathon this year because of the possibility that somebody might try to cause harm. So let's not get into that way of doing business.
In our FOIA lawsuit, the district court and the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals both held, in 2005 and 2008 respectively, that the photos must be released. In 2009, President Obama announced that his administration wouldn't appeal to the Supreme Court, but then Congress enacted a law that carved out an exception to the FOIA. It gave the secretary of defense the authority to withhold abuse photos for three years if he certified that their disclosure would jeopardize national security. Defense Secretary Robert Gates did just that in 2009, and his successor, Leon Panetta, issued a blanket recertification for the entire collection of photographs in 2012.
The ACLU challenged the mass recertification as insufficient, and last August U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein agreed with us, ruling that the defense secretary has to review each photo individually and give a reason for keeping it secret. The government pushed back, arguing that its process was in fact acceptable.
At a hearing last week, Judge Hellerstein told the government that his view had not changed, saying:
The government is not allowing itself to account. I think that's a mistake... [As] a judge of the court and the government, under laws I feel it's the obligation of the secretary of defense to certify each picture in terms of its likelihood or not to endanger American lives and why.
The judge asked the government how it would like to proceed, giving two options: The government could propose ways to comply with the August ruling, or it could say that the defense secretary does not want to certify the photos individually, in which case the judge would rule for the ACLU and the government could appeal. The government's response - coming in a letter to the court Wednesday - was to do neither of those things. Instead, it asked for clarification of what the government must do to comply with the judge's August ruling.
During last week's hearing, the judge warned the government about its use of delay tactics in this case:
[T]he consequence of what the government is doing is a sophisticated ability to obtain a very substantial delay. . . You appeal. By the time you get to the appeal, maybe two years go by - the issue is not easy - it may be longer. The downside for you is that you can always produce and disclose. And realistically, postponing the day of reckoning of something that is considered to be sensitive is itself a victory, because it postpones an unpleasant decision to a succeeding generation.
And yet now we have another delay tactic from the government (we made this point in a letter to the court today). The American public has a right to know what took place in the U.S. military detention centers, and the photos are essential to that right. Covering them up won't change what happened, and it certainly won't help stop more abuse from happening in the future.
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. In a few short weeks, US voters will have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
There is too often a gap between the Obama administration's words and deeds when it comes to transparency on national security issues. Take, for example, whether the government should release information about the abuse of prisoners in U.S. custody.
In a decade-old Freedom of Information Lawsuit the ACLU is still fighting, the administration recently told the court that it can't release some 2,000 photos showing prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib and other military detention facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan. The reason, the government says, is because the pictures could be inflammatory and lead to attacks against U.S. interests abroad.
But in December, when asked about the possibility of violence in response to the release of the Senate report on the CIA's torture program, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest had this to say:
[W]e believe so strongly in the value of actually following through on the release of this report, that it says something critically important about our values as a country, and that even though it may pose some risk to the security situation at diplomatic facilities around the globe - we can take prudent steps to protect those facilities, and that it is critically important - again, consistent with the values of this country - for the declassified version of the summary of this report to be released.
The president himself took a similar stand when talking about Sony's decision to pull "The Interview" from theaters in the face of threats:
I think they made a mistake. . . We can't start changing our patterns of behavior any more than we stop going to a football game because there might be the possibility of a terrorist attack, any more than Boston didn't run its marathon this year because of the possibility that somebody might try to cause harm. So let's not get into that way of doing business.
In our FOIA lawsuit, the district court and the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals both held, in 2005 and 2008 respectively, that the photos must be released. In 2009, President Obama announced that his administration wouldn't appeal to the Supreme Court, but then Congress enacted a law that carved out an exception to the FOIA. It gave the secretary of defense the authority to withhold abuse photos for three years if he certified that their disclosure would jeopardize national security. Defense Secretary Robert Gates did just that in 2009, and his successor, Leon Panetta, issued a blanket recertification for the entire collection of photographs in 2012.
The ACLU challenged the mass recertification as insufficient, and last August U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein agreed with us, ruling that the defense secretary has to review each photo individually and give a reason for keeping it secret. The government pushed back, arguing that its process was in fact acceptable.
At a hearing last week, Judge Hellerstein told the government that his view had not changed, saying:
The government is not allowing itself to account. I think that's a mistake... [As] a judge of the court and the government, under laws I feel it's the obligation of the secretary of defense to certify each picture in terms of its likelihood or not to endanger American lives and why.
The judge asked the government how it would like to proceed, giving two options: The government could propose ways to comply with the August ruling, or it could say that the defense secretary does not want to certify the photos individually, in which case the judge would rule for the ACLU and the government could appeal. The government's response - coming in a letter to the court Wednesday - was to do neither of those things. Instead, it asked for clarification of what the government must do to comply with the judge's August ruling.
During last week's hearing, the judge warned the government about its use of delay tactics in this case:
[T]he consequence of what the government is doing is a sophisticated ability to obtain a very substantial delay. . . You appeal. By the time you get to the appeal, maybe two years go by - the issue is not easy - it may be longer. The downside for you is that you can always produce and disclose. And realistically, postponing the day of reckoning of something that is considered to be sensitive is itself a victory, because it postpones an unpleasant decision to a succeeding generation.
And yet now we have another delay tactic from the government (we made this point in a letter to the court today). The American public has a right to know what took place in the U.S. military detention centers, and the photos are essential to that right. Covering them up won't change what happened, and it certainly won't help stop more abuse from happening in the future.
There is too often a gap between the Obama administration's words and deeds when it comes to transparency on national security issues. Take, for example, whether the government should release information about the abuse of prisoners in U.S. custody.
In a decade-old Freedom of Information Lawsuit the ACLU is still fighting, the administration recently told the court that it can't release some 2,000 photos showing prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib and other military detention facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan. The reason, the government says, is because the pictures could be inflammatory and lead to attacks against U.S. interests abroad.
But in December, when asked about the possibility of violence in response to the release of the Senate report on the CIA's torture program, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest had this to say:
[W]e believe so strongly in the value of actually following through on the release of this report, that it says something critically important about our values as a country, and that even though it may pose some risk to the security situation at diplomatic facilities around the globe - we can take prudent steps to protect those facilities, and that it is critically important - again, consistent with the values of this country - for the declassified version of the summary of this report to be released.
The president himself took a similar stand when talking about Sony's decision to pull "The Interview" from theaters in the face of threats:
I think they made a mistake. . . We can't start changing our patterns of behavior any more than we stop going to a football game because there might be the possibility of a terrorist attack, any more than Boston didn't run its marathon this year because of the possibility that somebody might try to cause harm. So let's not get into that way of doing business.
In our FOIA lawsuit, the district court and the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals both held, in 2005 and 2008 respectively, that the photos must be released. In 2009, President Obama announced that his administration wouldn't appeal to the Supreme Court, but then Congress enacted a law that carved out an exception to the FOIA. It gave the secretary of defense the authority to withhold abuse photos for three years if he certified that their disclosure would jeopardize national security. Defense Secretary Robert Gates did just that in 2009, and his successor, Leon Panetta, issued a blanket recertification for the entire collection of photographs in 2012.
The ACLU challenged the mass recertification as insufficient, and last August U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein agreed with us, ruling that the defense secretary has to review each photo individually and give a reason for keeping it secret. The government pushed back, arguing that its process was in fact acceptable.
At a hearing last week, Judge Hellerstein told the government that his view had not changed, saying:
The government is not allowing itself to account. I think that's a mistake... [As] a judge of the court and the government, under laws I feel it's the obligation of the secretary of defense to certify each picture in terms of its likelihood or not to endanger American lives and why.
The judge asked the government how it would like to proceed, giving two options: The government could propose ways to comply with the August ruling, or it could say that the defense secretary does not want to certify the photos individually, in which case the judge would rule for the ACLU and the government could appeal. The government's response - coming in a letter to the court Wednesday - was to do neither of those things. Instead, it asked for clarification of what the government must do to comply with the judge's August ruling.
During last week's hearing, the judge warned the government about its use of delay tactics in this case:
[T]he consequence of what the government is doing is a sophisticated ability to obtain a very substantial delay. . . You appeal. By the time you get to the appeal, maybe two years go by - the issue is not easy - it may be longer. The downside for you is that you can always produce and disclose. And realistically, postponing the day of reckoning of something that is considered to be sensitive is itself a victory, because it postpones an unpleasant decision to a succeeding generation.
And yet now we have another delay tactic from the government (we made this point in a letter to the court today). The American public has a right to know what took place in the U.S. military detention centers, and the photos are essential to that right. Covering them up won't change what happened, and it certainly won't help stop more abuse from happening in the future.