John Scalzi asks:
An Ethical Puzzler
By John Scalzi
Whatever 5/13/2009
First, the situation:
President Obama is seeking to block the release of photographs that depict American military personnel abusing captives in Iraq and Afghanistan, his spokesman said Wednesday, fearing the images could spark a hostile backlash against United States troops.
“The president reflected on this case and believes they have the potential to pose harm to our troops,” Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said Wednesday afternoon.
The president’s decision marks a sharp reversal from a decision made last month by the Pentagon, which agreed in a case with the American Civil Liberties Union to release photographs showing incidents at Abu Ghraib and a half-dozen other prisons. At the time, the president signed off on the decision, saying he agreed with releasing the photos.
Now, the question:
Is the president allowed to change his mind on something like this? Is he allowed to look at the information, hear the urgings of people familiar with the situation, and reverse himself, even if it’s at odds with his previous position — and the change in position has moral and ethical repercussions?
First of all, this is several questions.
1. Is a President allowed to change his mind and thus the policy direction of the Nation?
Yes. But…
There is, and should be, a political cost. Just as George H. W. Bush was politically punished for promising “Read my lips: No New Taxes” and then raising taxes, so too is Barck Obama politically accountable for his campaign promises.
2. Is a President allowed to take contrary advice?
Again, yes. But who has been offering the contrary advice? Is the decision a matter of policy and the interests of the Republic, or a matter of political calculation? I have seen nothing to indicate the former, and lots of evidence of the latter.
3. What about personal moral and ethical considerations?
What evidence is there that Barack Obama has any moral and ethical considerations in this matter?
My personal take on the question is that in a general sense a president can and should when he believes it is necessary…
Well, John, has he explained his reasoning to your satisfaction? He does, after all, work for you…
but that I seriously doubt this is one of those times.
I think it’s the right decision for all the wrong reasons.
The most recent set of photographs should never have been released in the first place. The intelligence services have been advising against this since Obama’s transition briefings. They have not changed their tune.
This strikes me as a political decision to limit damage vice a decision based on principle.
There are already more than enough pictures of American forces abusing prisoners out there to serve the task of recruitment for terrorists groups and to rile up anti-American sentiment; meanwhile, holding up the release of these photos simply makes it look like there’s something more to hide.
The Abu Ghraib incident was not authorized by higher authority, and was investigated and prosecuted as the series of crimes it was. The enhanced interrogation of three terrorist commanders was authorized by higher (including Congress), legal (both under U. S. Code as it then existed, and under the Customary Laws of Warfare), and appropriate. The details should NOT have been released. Full Stop, end of sentence, end of paragraph.
This is one of those “just rip off the Band-Aid” moments — it’s best if you do it fast, take the pain and move on.
Only because he failed to take the advice of his intelligence community up front.
So in this case I think Obama’s doing the wrong thing. This is based on what I know, which is, of course, different from what he knows, and perhaps in his position, knowing what he knows I’d do what he’s doing here. But from this end, it looks like a bad call.
Floor is open.
No, he’s belatedly doing the right thing for all the wrong reasons.
