Running through the list of situations that we’ve been reporting on in which the Obama administration continues to conceal evidence of torture — from the efforts of British resident Binyam Mohamed to seek justice for his “extraordinary rendition” and torture; to the administration’s continued efforts to dismiss cases alleging government-sponsored torture and illegal wiretapping by raising the “state secrets” privilege; to President Obama’s continued insistence on hiding photos of brutal detainee abuse — The Times highlights how President Obama, despite his grand promises of openness and accountability in the early days of his administration, has caved to Republicans and some conservative Democrats who want to bury the evidence of criminal and moral wrongdoing by the United States government.

“We do not take seriously the government’s claim that it is trying to protect intelligence or avoid harm to national security,” The Times writes. And it shouldn’t. As we’ve pointed out repeatedly at TWI, the outlines of our government’s abusive and in some cases criminal conduct is already well-known and can hardly endanger us further. Only by unearthing, acknowledging and accounting completely for the past can the new administration finally move beyond it to focus, unencumbered, on making sure it does not happen in the future.

The court yesterday also put off deciding whether the U.S. government has to release photos of detainee abuse, as the American Civil Liberties Union is arguing in its Freedom of Information Act case against the Defense Department.  The court could decide whether to hear that case on Oct. 9.

SCOTUSblog has listed here all ten cases the court yesterday decided to review.

According to the Post story, and a document released to the American Civil Liberties Union that backs it up, Lt. Col. Allen B. West in 2003 admitted to letting three soldiers beat up an Iraqi police officer, and then threatened him with a knife and a gun, hoping to make the Iraqi think West would kill him if he didn’t provide information on a planned attack on the officer and his unit. He eventually provided the information.

Because the CIA inspector general in his 2004 report listed similar threats against detainees by a CIA interrogator among the most disturbing actions, writes Pincus, “CIA officials wonder whether a double standard is at play — one that penalizes intelligence officers more harshly than the military for the use of coercion in interrogating detainees.”

While this story could be read the way the CIA would like it to be — which would still require setting aside all the other brutal torture tactics they used on detainees — it could also be read to provide strong support for the view that a far broader investigation ought to take place to reveal what the United States government — both the CIA and the military — were doing to detainees in their custody, whether laws were broken, and if so, who should be held accountable.

Complaining that the Defense Department was as bad as the CIA is a lousy argument for burying our heads in the sand.

If, as the latest reports indicate, Attorney General Eric Holder is serious about prosecuting the worst torture and abuse of “war on terror” prisoners that occurred during the Bush administration, then there’s some key evidence he’s going to want to take a look at:  photographs. Although Bush Justice Department prosecutors claimed they didn’t have the facts to support prosecuting anyone for the mysterious deaths and disappearances of detainees hauled out of Bagram and Abu Ghraib in body bags, the photographs – which two courts have now ordered the Obama administration to turn over – would seem likely to provide some of the missing evidence.

The photos I’m talking about are the same ones that, back in April, President Obama promised to release to the public by May. Then, after consulting with Defense Department and CIA leaders, he changed his mind. After the American Civil Liberties Union filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit to obtain them, the photographs were ordered released by  a federal district court in New York in 2005 and then the court of appeals in 2008; both courts agreed that the photos are critical to the public debate over torture and the U.S. government’s counterterrorism tactics, and don’t fall under any exemption to the freedom of information law. Still, the Obama administration isn’t budging.

While the case was on appeal, lawyers from the same Washington law firm that Holder was then working at, Covington & Burling, wrote a powerful brief on behalf of 22 legal experts on the laws of war arguing for the photos’ release. These sorts of images are in part responsible for the regime of international humanitarian law that we have today, they argued.

The cornerstone of modern international humanitarian law — the Geneva Conventions of 1949 — was adopted after the release of vivid images of Nazi concentration camp survivors. And it was the United States and General Dwight D. Eisenhower himself who insisted on distributing huge volumes of these photos to the media. The images of corpses, prisoner remains and emaciated survivors helped persuade nations around the world to develop and adopt new universal humanitarian norms.

It’s because images can be so powerful and can motivate action that the Obama administration now wants to suppress them.

On Friday, the Justice Department filed a petition with the Supreme Court arguing that releasing the photos of detainee abuse would so inflame public opinion against the United States abroad that it would endanger the lives of U.S. soldiers stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

(Initially, the government refused to turn them over on the grounds that they would violate the privacy rights of the detainees. After the ACLU and the court agreed to have the photos redacted to conceal identifying information and protect personal privacy, the government came up with this second reason to object.)

On its face, the argument sounds pretty reasonable. I have to admit that when the administration first announced its change of heart, though Glenn Greenwald, Andrew Sullivan and many others were immediately outraged, I was somewhat sympathetic. After all, the Freedom of Information Act does include an exception to releasing information if it would reasonably be expected to “endanger the life or physical safety of any individual.” The photos of abuse at Abu Ghraib were certainly alarming. And who would want to endanger the lives of U.S. troops?

Meanwhile, the Justice Department had collected sworn statements from top military generals — including General Richard Myers, then the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Nation’s highest ranking military officer — saying that releasing the photos would do just that. Who are we to question the top brass?

Amrit Singh, an ACLU lawyer handling the case, answered that for me yesterday. “The argument the government has put forward is unacceptable because it would afford the greatest protection from disclosure to records that depict the worst kind of government misconduct. That is fundamentally inconsistent with FOIA. And it’s fundamentally inconsistent with democracy.”

It’s a good point. Though I want to protect our troops as much as anybody, it turns out the law wasn’t drafted to protect Americans from retaliation that might result because their country did something illegal, or even just really embarrassing. If it were, then evidence of any illegal or upsetting U.S. government conduct would be exempt from disclosure. And that would defeat the entire purpose of the Freedom of Information law.

According to the Supreme Court, the purpose of FOIA is “to ensure an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society, needed to check against corruption and to hold the governors accountable to the governed.” So you can see how that would be seriously compromised by the government’s interpretation of the law here.

It turns out that when you look at the language of FOIA, the government’s interpretation doesn’t make much sense either.

Exemption 7(f) allows an agency to withhold “records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information … could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual.”

But does “any individual” mean any conceivable individual out there, or some specific individual that the government can identify?

The appeals court ruled that because Congress said the release must endanger “any individual” rather than just “endanger life or physical safety” generally to be considered exempt, Congress must have meant some identifiable individual – a particular witness to a crime or subject of a law enforcement investigation, for example. If Congress had meant to include any member of a group of people who could possibly become the target of someone’s anger, it would have used the more general phrase, the court reasoned. So the court ruled the exemption doesn’t apply, and the Obama administration has to turn over the photographs.

Now, the administration faces a dilemma. When it released the Office of Legal Counsel memos written by the now-infamous John Yoo authorizing the administration to torture prisoners abroad, it wasn’t prepared for the media firestorm that erupted — and the growing public pressure to prosecute. Reluctant to face that again, Obama and senior officials in his administration are trying hard now not to stoke the fires. (Even if they can go along with a limited prosecution along the lines of what Holder has described, they certainly don’t want to face calls for prosecuting senior Bush officials.)

But it looks like they can’t legally stop this release.

Sill, they can delay it. Supreme Court review could delay the case months or even years, depending on what the court decides to do. In the meantime, other reports will be released about the Bush era anti-terror tactics. Those include the Senate Intelligence committee’s investigation led by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the report from the ethics division of the Justice Department, the Office of Professional Responsibility, on the work of the Justice Department lawyers who crafted the memos, and, of course, the 2004 CIA inspector general report I wrote about earlier that’s supposed to be released by Aug. 24.

Which raises the question whether the government will invoke Exemption 7(f) of FOIA to try to withhold that report. After all, couldn’t the government make the exact same argument about the CIA report that it’s making about the photos? You see the slippery slope we’re on.

The CIA report apparently describes cases of murder and abuse so horrific that Holder was moved to consider initiating prosecutions. And that’s despite the fact that the Justice Department under President George W. Bush investigated those cases, but decided not to prosecute them. That report must be pretty upsetting.

So don’t be surprised if we start hearing that we shouldn’t be allowed to see that one either, because someone somewhere might get hurt.

The administration could, of course, try to distinguish the report from the photographs, arguing that, essentially, a picture is worth a thousand words. The photos may be just too powerful.

When faced with the atrocities of the Nazi concentration camps at the close of World War II, Eisenhower found that words failed him:

I have never felt able to describe my emotional reactions when I first came face to face with indisputable evidence of Nazi brutality and ruthless disregard of every shred of decency. Up to that time I had known about it only generally or through secondary sources. I am certain, however that I have never at any other time experienced an equal sense of shock . . . as soon as I returned to Patton’s headquarters that evening I sent communications to both Washington and London, urging the two governments to send instantly to Germany a random group of newspaper editors and representative groups from the national legislatures. I felt that the evidence should be immediately placed before the American and British publics in a fashion that would leave no room for cynical doubt.

-Dwight D. Eisenhower, Crusade in Europe (1977), at 408-09.

One can only conclude that the Obama administration is taking refuge in that doubt, or is not prepared to face the consequences in this country once the veil of doubt is lifted.

On one hand, Sullivan’s right that prosecuting only the individual interrogators who went beyond the torture that was actually authorized by the Bush administration — such as waterboarding, which Holder himself has admitted is torture — might suggest that what the Bush lawyers approved was legal, despite the egregiously flawed legal reasoning that backed it up.

On the other, at this point, it’s important that the attorney general start somewhere, particularly since Congress so far doesn’t seem to have the stomach to follow through with its earlier ideas of investigatory commissions that would reveal exactly how the torture policies were developed and why.

A criminal investigation of even low-level CIA interrogators who exceeded the guidelines they were given should, if done thoroughly and honestly, inevitably lead to questions about how those guidelines were communicated down the chain of command, and whether higher-ups approved the more extreme conduct. And that may be the best hope for raising the ultimate questions of how the rules were developed and whether their authors knew they were stretching the limits of the law even as they crafted them.

In recent months, reports from Amnesty International USA, the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights, the National Immigration Law Center, the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California and the law firm of Holland & Knight have found, following exhaustive studies, that while the number of immigrants in detention has tripled from 1996, detainees often don’t get hearings to determine if their detention is warranted; detention conditions violate “basic human rights and notions of dignity”, and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency in many cases doesn’t even follow its own rules governing detention centers and conditions.

The bills would require DHS to issue enforceable rules governing detention in 15 different areas, including access to medical care, telephones, the treatment of children and other particularly vulnerable populations, and the use of force against detainees. A Detention Commission would conduct investigations and report on compliance.

“Having met with dozens of detained immigrants across the United States, it is clear that the one consistency is the utter disregard for their humanity,” said Sarnata Reynolds, AIUSA’s policy and campaign director for refugee and migrant rights, in a statement released yesterday.  “These bills protect the dignity of those in the detention system by requiring that they be detained based on individual circumstances, not blanket policies that tear families apart without any consideration for the consequences.”

The Lieberman-Graham Amendment, also known as The Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act, is strongly supported by President Obama. It would amend the Freedom of Information Act — the same one Obama promised to construe liberally in favor of releasing information — to allow the president to conceal the photos of detainee abuse that the administration has already been ordered to produce in a pending lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Oddly, the Obama administration and Senate Democrats seem to have followed the advice of Andy McCarthy at National Review, who a few weeks ago specifically suggested that the administration need not follow the court order requiring release of the photos; Congress, with the White House’s support, could just amend FOIA or adopt a new law to allow Obama to conceal the photos, and avoid having to bother with the pesky federal court system, which so far hasn’t given the administration its way.

The only problem is, how is the Obama administration going to reconcile this move with the President’s eloquent promises on his first days in office?

Remember this Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government?

Government should be transparent.  Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use.

Or this statement by Attorney General Eric Holder during his confirmation process?

I firmly believe that transparency is a key to good government.  Openness allows the public to have faith that its government obeys the law.

So isn’t it strange that the government, rather than appealing a court order pursuant to its rights under the law, now wants to defy the court by asking Congress simply to change the law?

I agree with Glenn Greenwald on this one:

If, as Obama claims, there are legitimate reasons to suppress these photos under FOIA’s exemptions (including its very broad national security exemptions), then the Supreme Court can reverse the two lower court rulings ordering disclosure — as Obama is asking it to do.  But there is no good reason to vest the Obama administration with the unilateral power to simply waive FOIA requirements simply because it loses in court and decides it doesn’t want to comply with court rulings and with current transparency laws.

And Nick Baumann at Mother Jones, who calls the photo suppression bill “an abomination that is reminiscent of the worst Bush-era excesses.”

It gives the executive branch the power to withhold an entire category of information from public scrutiny without any review. This law is Example A of the theory of the Presidency that says citizens should just trust the benevolent executive to do the right thing. Even in you oppose releasing some of the photos, I don’t see why you would want to give the White House the power to unilaterally decide what’s best. It says a lot about the Congress that members are willing to give Obama this kind of power. It says a lot about Obama that he supports this bill. Thank God for Barney Frank.

Well, except that late last week, Frank switched his vote.

In his recent speech at the National Archives, Obama said:

I ran for President promising transparency, and I meant what I said. That is why, whenever possible, we will make information available to the American people so that they can make informed judgments and hold us accountable. But I have never argued – and never will – that our most sensitive national security matters should be an open book. I will never abandon – and I will vigorously defend – the necessity of classification to defend our troops at war; to protect sources and methods; and to safeguard confidential actions that keep the American people safe. And so, whenever we cannot release certain information to the public for valid national security reasons, I will insist that there is oversight of my actions – by Congress or by the courts.

Now that the court has refused to give the president what he wants, he’s hoping Congress will. He’s won in the Senate already. Let’s see if the House Democrats will stand their ground on this one.

The photos are supposed to be released on May 28 in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.

“The release of these old photographs of past behavior that has now been clearly prohibited will serve no public good, but will empower al-Qaeda propaganda operations, hurt our country’s image, and endanger our men and women in uniform,” the senators wrote in a May 6 letter. “We urge you in the strongest possible terms to fight the release of these old pictures of detainees in the war on terror, including appealing the decision of the Second Circuit in the ACLU lawsuit to the Supreme Court and pursuing all legal options to prevent the public disclosure of these pictures.”

The ACLU, meanwhile, is keeping the up fight for the photos:

“These photographs provide visual proof that prisoner abuse by U.S. personnel was not aberrational but widespread, reaching far beyond the walls of Abu Ghraib,” ACLU attorney Amrit Singh told Secrecy News. “Their disclosure is critical for helping the public understand the scope and scale of prisoner abuse as well as for holding senior officials accountable for authorizing or permitting such abuse.”

In an op-ed in the Holland [Mich.] Sentinel posted last night, Levin recaps the evidence detailed in the Senate Armed Services Committee Report released last week (Levin chairs the committee) and writes that it “represents a condemnation of both the Bush administration’s interrogation policies and of senior administration officials who attempted to shift the blame for abuse . . . to low ranking soldiers.”

In fact, writes Levin, “it was senior civilian leaders who set the tone,” including Vice President Dick Cheney, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and President George W. Bush himself, all of whom ridiculed or dismissed application of the relevant laws against torture and abuse.

As I wrote last week, Levin’s report does an excellent job of laying out not just the abuses that occurred, but how lawyers and policymakers “distorted the meaning and intent of anti-torture laws”, “ignored contradictory evidence” and “rationalized the abuse of detainees.”

As Levin puts it in his column:

The record established by the Committee’s investigation shows that senior officials sought out information on, were aware of training in, and authorized the use of abusive interrogation techniques.  Those senior officials bear significant responsibility for creating the legal and operational framework for the abuses.

Given that those abuses are illegal — they violate not only the Geneva Conventions, but the international treaty and corresponding domestic law that bans torture and other “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment” — Levin goes on to say that the United States has to determine whether high-level officials should be held responsible. “If we are to retain our status as the world’s leader . . . we must acknowledge and confront the abuse of detainees in our custody.”

Here’s what I interpret as a call for an independent prosecutor, though he carefully avoids the word:

I have recommended to Attorney General Holder that he select a distinguished individual or individuals — either inside or outside the Justice Department, such as retired federal judges, to look at the volumes of evidence relating to treatment of detainees, including evidence in the Senate Armed Services Committee’s report, and to recommend what steps, if any, should be taken to establish accountability of high-level officials, including lawyers.

–

TWI is on Twitter. Please follow us here.

Read the email here (PDF).