City of Brass

City of Brass

release the prisoner abuse photos – but not right now

Earlier, I argued that President Obama was right to change his mind, regarding the release of new photos of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. My good friend Hussein Rashid took issue with my position, arguing that a notion of higher truth and transparency compels their release. In making his case, however, I believe he makes a common error of conflating the now-repudiated, oficial policy of waterboarding detainees with the unconscionable actions of barbaric cruelty inflicted by rogue military personnel.

Let us not mince words. Torture is morally wrong. It is essentially an evil act, which dehumanizes the tortured and the torturer like. On this point there is no disagreement. Even the staunchest defenders in the Bush Administration of waterboarding, most notably former vice-president Cheney, take pains to argue that waterboarding is not torture when making their case. President Obama made a clear declaration of his feelings regarding waterboarding, stating explicitly that “I believe waterboarding was torture, and it was a mistake” – and invoked Winston Churchill’s refusal to use the technique even at the height of the Blitz on London during World War II (a conflict which was far more existential a threat to Britain than the threat to America today from jihadists).


The photos of prisoner abuse in the Abu Ghraib prison were indeed torture – and far worse than “mere” waterboarding. The original photos, and a few more released by the Australian press a few years later, illustrate just how brutal and sadistic the guards at Abu Ghraib were – these are images that you expect from the regime of Saddam Hussein, not liberators. These images arguably did more to damage American self-interest and foreign policy goals than the actual invasion of Iraq itself.

However we must draw a clean and clear distinction between what happened at Abu Ghraib and the official, explicitly sanctioned policy of waterboarding of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. The former were criminal actions that were not sanctioned by any military or government official, though of course the sheer sadistic brutality of the abuse gave rise to typical conspiracy theories. Hussein falls prey to the fallacy of linking these two things when he writes,


The world knows we tortured. There is no secret kept on that point. There are photos from Iraq and Afghanistan that are already being used in anti-American propaganda. New pictures alter the calculus very little. In fact, one can argue that witholding them at this point further fuels the idea that we have done something so horrible that it cannot be seen. This notion is a far more powerful recruiting tool for terrorists.

Indeed, we (America) waterboarded our prisoners at Gitmo, and that factual knowledge is indeed a potential recruitment tool for jihadis against our troops. However there are no photos of this of which I am aware of. The truth is that the actual photos of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib did far more damage and were infinitely more powerful in rallying jihadis to the cause than merely the statement, “America tortures”. These images are the kind that get blood boiling and hatred flowing in a way that mere words can never match. And the irony is that these images depict actions far beyond the pale of what America does; we are paying a far heavier price for what we, as a nation, would never accept be done in our name. That’s a familiar dilemma to a muslim.


Over at Talk Islam, thabet noted with some irony that those who argue against the new photos’ release are “accepting a causal relationship between foreign policy and terrorism.” That’s a good point, but it also cuts both ways. Like thabet and Hussein, I have long argued that foreign policy is a causal factor in terrorism, which is exactly why I am concerned about the effect of these photos’ release. If we demand intellectual honesty from those who argue on one hand that terrorists simply “hate us for our freedoms” and then argue against releasing the photos, we must also do the same and acknowledge that there is a real cost associated with their release. As Hussein says, there surely is a higher notion of truth at play here, but to blindly follow that notion without regard for the consequences is a dogmatic, ideological course of action, the kind we have expressly criticized the neoconservatives for in the past.


As I said earlier, if the photos contained new allegations of abuse beyond what was known, such as child abuse (as alleged by Seymour Hersch) or rape, then I would believe that the need for justice would outweigh the cost, and would agree that the photos need to be released. But there is no way we, the public, can ascertain what the photos contain without making them public, and making them public carries a real threat to our troops and our national security, even if the photos contain nothing new at all. Even invoking the moral argument against torture at Guantanamo, when arguing for the photos’ release, does damage in terms of perpetuating the notion amongst muslims abroad that the abuses at Abu Ghraib were indeed official policy.


We must trust the assessment of President Obama, who has personally reviewed all the photos in question. After all, we elected him to make precisely these kinds of decisions in the first place, and if we are unwilling to extend him of all people that benefit of the doubt, then what does that say about our agenda? What is our true motivation in calling for these photos to be released at all cost?

Make no mistake about where I stand. These photos will need to be released someday, and there will indeed need to be a full accounting and formal congressional invetigation, backed by force of law, regarding American policy towards detainees during the Bush Administration. However, with the resurgent Taliban in Pakistan (incidentally increasing its nuclear stockpile), the utter helplessness of Mayor Karzai against the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the increasing power of Al Shabab in Somalia, total transparency can wait. To attempt to force the issue now, by drawing a false equivalence between torture policy and criminal abuse, is to undermine the very real war going on, one in which ordinary muslims are still the primary victims, at the hands of those who do far worse than anything we have done.


One final thought. I am glad President Obama recognizes the potential damage of releasing these photos, in terms of inflaming public opinion in the muslim world against America, inciting hatred and violence against our troops, and overall damage to our national security and self-interest. I hope he recognizes that the use of aerial bombardment against civilian targets causes even worse damage and hatred against us than the photos are. That is why I have argued that we should disavow the policy of collateral damage as a whole. It’s precisely the same argument, a fact that those who argue for and against the release of the photos alike would do well to recognize.


Related: Frank Rich makes a great case for why the photos need to be released – someday – along with a full investigation. He fails to make a case for immediate release today, however. Fawaz Gerges makes a similar argument, but also treats the issue as though there is no cost to releasing the photos whatsoever – he grudgingly concedes the photos might “undermine the standing of the US military” but then hand-waves, “it is difficult to say that publication would cost American lives.” To deny that possibility is to surrender credibility on the issue. Also, see ongoing debate at Talk Islam. Finally, my friend Steven den Beste has an old essay about the “fog of war”, an anecdote about the war in the Pacific after World War II, that is highly relevant reading.

  • Thomas Nephew

    I think your arguments prove too much, given how much they ignore.
    By these arguments — trust the President, we elected him to make these decisions, it might harm the troops — you would or should have agreed that Abu Ghraib photos shouldn’t have been released. The combat situation was far more explosive then than it is now, plus the photos revealed something qualitatively new. Neither is the case now; I therefore strongly dispute whether American soldiers would be additionally disadvantaged by their release.
    While the photos will probably not show qualitatively new information, they may well have a couple of effects on *domestic* debate. Since you are willing to imply less than upstanding motives to those advocating release (“What is our true motivation in calling for these photos to be released at all cost?”) I’ll fire back that Obama’s may not be all that pure either: much of the abuse may well have happened at bases under then Special Forces commander, now Afghanistan commander McChrystal. Also, the sheer volume of the photos will serve as a visual, gut-level proof that this wasn’t the work of “bad apples” — as Obama shamefully echoed Bush-era talking points — but of a systematic program, replicated at varied bases and under varied circumstances throughout US military operations in Iraq (and Afghanistan). I am more than halfway to believing preventing that is Obama’s chief aim — he’s all but dedicated to preventing a review of and accounting for what happened.
    A second point, however hard to believe, is that the US stature in the world is strengthened when we show we will not shrink from confronting our own excesses. I rather think Obama has hurt himself rather than helped himself with his upcoming Cairo speech. Muslim critics will be right to say “words are fine, but when push comes to shove, Obama lets his generals push him around — he won’t even keep his promises to his own supporters, let alone to us.”
    That simple fact — a promise made, both in the campaign and in court — is perhaps the simplest and best reason to demand Obama keep it. As citizens, you and I should not be in the business of dreaming up excuses for a president to break his word — they don’t need our help for that.
    As to unacknowledged motives, perhaps it’s time for die-hard Obama supporters — like yourself — to examine their own. Obama is not an infallible miracle-working paragon, he’s a American politician (however well spoken and photogenic) who is bending with winds he shouldn’t be bending with. Maybe this isn’t it for you, but you should think about some lines in the sand you believe Obama shouldn’t cross — and get used to expecting that he will. I don’t think he thinks in “line in the sand”, “this I will not do” terms, and I think that’s his failing. He swore an oath to faithfully execute the laws of the land and to uphold the Constitution. Withholding these photos is part of a pattern of trying to wiggle out of those obligations.

  • ruth

    I think the pictures of all torture should be released ..Beginning with the victims beheaded and tortured by muslims…Muslims not only tortured and killed many inncoents but they put it online to torture and terrorize everyone..
    Obama is a muslim and he is against America..

  • Gwen28YF

    Thank you, it’s very astonishing description it might be very helpful for students. For example last year when I had a difficult of time at the end of semester with a endless flow of academic assignments and job, I had a astonishing idea to buy it somewhere and than use check for plagiarism. I was so crippled that I did not care for what can crop up when my academic work was written by flipside person. To my adroitest surprise, research paper was divine the price I paid for it. I was so contented with the quality and now everytime i use this service.

  • wedding

    As to unacknowledged motives, perhaps it’s time for die-hard Obama supporters — like yourself — to examine their own. Obama is not an infallible miracle-working paragon,
    Read more:

  • Pingback: » Blog Archive » About those photos — Part II

Previous Posts

Deen and Mohabbat: There is no faith without love
This is a guest post by Yusuf Zakir. My religion--Islam--is discussed and portrayed in the media quite a lot these days, much to my chagrin. The American public is, generally, fearful of Muslims. Anti-Islamic sentiment is at an all-time ...

posted 10:10:30pm Oct. 07, 2015 | read full post »

nationwide hate rallies planned at mosques Oct 9-10, Homeland Security conf call
This weekend, there is a planned, armed protest "in every country, at every mosque" by a group called the "Global Rally for Humanity". So far, the protests are falling short of global, but they do have 21 mosques, community centers and ...

posted 1:40:08pm Oct. 06, 2015 | read full post »

why don't they condemn?
Ever since 9-11, and well before it, this is the litany of accusation that ordinary Muslim Americans have had to endure: Muslims do not condemn - there is no million Muslim march against terrorism. Islam is an inherently violent ...

posted 1:47:45pm Oct. 02, 2015 | read full post »

a Republican, Muslim Mayor of St Louis?
Umar Lee is many things - a native ...

posted 1:09:57am Sep. 30, 2015 | read full post »

Abrahamic Convergence - inspiration, forgiveness, and tragedy
This week is a truly portentous one for Muslims, Jews, and Catholics. In one week, we have Yom Kippur, the Day of Arafat and Eid ul Adha, and Pope Francis' first visit to the United States. I like the term "Abrahamic Convergence" for this sort ...

posted 3:08:38pm Sep. 24, 2015 | read full post »


Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.