http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/06/09-5
<snip>
Whether there is value in disclosing these specific torture
photographs is a secondary issue here, at most [though in light of the
ongoing debate in this country over torture and accountability, as
well as the irreplaceable value of photographic evidence in
documenting government abuses (see Abu Ghraib), the value of these
sorts of photographs seems self-evident]. A much more critical issue
here is whether the President should have the power to conceal
evidence about the Government's actions on the ground that what the
Government did was so bad, so wrong, so inflammatory, so lawless, that
to allow disclosure and transparency would reflect poorly on our
country, thereby increase anti-American sentiment, and thus jeopardize
The Troops. Once you accept that rationale -- the more extreme the
Government's abuses are, the more compelling is the need for
suppression -- then open government, one of the central planks of the
Obama campaign and the linchpin of a healthy democracy, becomes an
illusion.
But there's an even more vital issue at stake here. One of the
central objections to the Bush presidency was its claim that we could
only Stay Safe from the Terrorists if we fundamentally altered --
diluted and abandoned -- our long-standing political values and legal
frameworks. That argument was repeatedly ridiculed by Obama as a
"false choice." That we can adhere to our long-standing legal
institutions and simultaneously remain Safe was a principal prong of
his campaign.
Yet the Graham-Lieberman amendment -- which Obama supports -- is
nothing but a pure manifestation of the Bush mentality
</snip>
_______________________________________________
OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected]
http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters
List hosted at http://cat5.org/
