Video and Transcript: Obama Speech at Notre Dame Graduation

On Sunday President Obama delivered a speech notable for domestic politics rather than foreign policy. Notre Dame is the most famous Catholic university in the United States. In the run-up to the address, protestors and some in the media tried to label the President as an unacceptable speaker because of the abortion issue and, more broadly, the idea of "culture wars".

Obama's response drew from established sources, including his books, and the standard of an exceptional "America". Still, as a statement of values --- in the context of not only domestic issues but also his recent decisions on issue from war to torture --- I found it well worth consideration.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

OBAMA: Thank you, Father Jenkins for that generous introduction. You are doing an outstanding job as president of this fine institution, and your continued and courageous commitment to honest, thoughtful dialogue is an inspiration to us all. Good afternoon Father Hesburgh, Notre Dame trustees, faculty, family, friends, and the class of 2009. I am honored to be here today, and grateful to all of you for allowing me to be part of your graduation.

I want to thank you for this honorary degree. I know it has not been without controversy. I don’t know if you’re aware of this, but these honorary degrees are apparently pretty hard to come by. So far I’m only 1 for 2 as President. Father Hesburgh is 150 for 150. I guess that’s better. Father Ted, after the ceremony, maybe you can give me some pointers on how to boost my average.

I also want to congratulate the class of 2009 for all your accomplishments. And since this is Notre Dame, I mean both in the classroom and in the competitive arena. We all know about this university’s proud and storied football team, but I also hear that Notre Dame holds the largest outdoor 5-on-5 basketball tournament in the world - Bookstore Basketball.

Now this excites me. I want to congratulate the winners of this year’s tournament, a team by the name of “Hallelujah Holla Back.” Well done. Though I have to say, I am personally disappointed that the “Barack O’Ballers” didn’t pull it out. Next year, if you need a 6’2” forward with a decent jumper, you know where I live.

Every one of you should be proud of what you have achieved at this institution. One hundred and sixty three classes of Notre Dame graduates have sat where you are today. Some were here during years that simply rolled into the next without much notice or fanfare - periods of relative peace and prosperity that required little by way of sacrifice or struggle.

You, however, are not getting off that easy. Your class has come of age at a moment of great consequence for our nation and the world - a rare inflection point in history where the size and scope of the challenges before us require that we remake our world to renew its promise; that we align our deepest values and commitments to the demands of a new age. It is a privilege and a responsibility afforded to few generations - and a task that you are now called to fulfill.

This is the generation that must find a path back to prosperity and decide how we respond to a global economy that left millions behind even before this crisis hit - an economy where greed and short- term thinking were too often rewarded at the expense of fairness, and diligence, and an honest day’s work.

We must decide how to save God’s creation from a changing climate that threatens to destroy it. We must seek peace at a time when there are those who will stop at nothing to do us harm, and when weapons in the hands of a few can destroy the many. And we must find a way to reconcile our ever-shrinking world with its ever-growing diversity - diversity of thought, of culture, and of belief.

In short, we must find a way to live together as one human family. It is this last challenge that I’d like to talk about today. For the major threats we face in the 21st century - whether it’s global recession or violent extremism; the spread of nuclear weapons or pandemic disease - do not discriminate. They do not recognize borders. They do not see color. They do not target specific ethnic groups.

Moreover, no one person, or religion, or nation can meet these challenges alone. Our very survival has never required greater cooperation and understanding among all people from all places than at this moment in history.

Unfortunately, finding that common ground - recognizing that our fates are tied up, as Dr. King said, in a “single garment of destiny” - is not easy. Part of the problem, of course, lies in the imperfections of man - our selfishness, our pride, our stubbornness, our acquisitiveness, our insecurities, our egos; all the cruelties large and small that those of us in the Christian tradition understand to be rooted in original sin. We too often seek advantage over others. We cling to outworn prejudice and fear those who are unfamiliar. Too many of us view life only through the lens of immediate self-interest and crass materialism; in which the world is necessarily a zero-sum game. The strong too often dominate the weak, and too many of those with wealth and with power find all manner of justification for their own privilege in the face of poverty and injustice. And so, for all our technology and scientific advances, we see around the globe violence and want and strife that would seem sadly familiar to those in ancient times.

We know these things; and hopefully one of the benefits of the wonderful education you have received is that you have had time to consider these wrongs in the world, and grown determined, each in your own way, to right them. And yet, one of the vexing things for those of us interested in promoting greater understanding and cooperation among people is the discovery that even bringing together persons of good will, men and women of principle and purpose, can be difficult.

The soldier and the lawyer may both love this country with equal passion, and yet reach very different conclusions on the specific steps needed to protect us from harm. The gay activist and the evangelical pastor may both deplore the ravages of HIV/AIDS, but find themselves unable to bridge the cultural divide that might unite their efforts. Those who speak out against stem cell research may be rooted in admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son’s or daughter’s hardships can be relieved.

The question, then, is how do we work through these conflicts? Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort? As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?

Nowhere do these questions come up more powerfully than on the issue of abortion. As I considered the controversy surrounding my visit here, I was reminded of an encounter I had during my Senate campaign, one that I describe in a book I wrote called The Audacity of Hope. A few days after I won the Democratic nomination, I received an email from a doctor who told me that while he voted for me in the primary, he had a serious concern that might prevent him from voting for me in the general election. He described himself as a Christian who was strongly pro-life, but that’s not what was preventing him from voting for me.

What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had posted on my website - an entry that said I would fight “right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman’s right to choose.” The doctor said that he had assumed I was a reasonable person, but that if I truly believed that every pro-life individual was simply an ideologue who wanted to inflict suffering on women, then I was not very reasonable. He wrote, “I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words.”

Fair-minded words.

After I read the doctor’s letter, I wrote back to him and thanked him. I didn’t change my position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website. And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me. Because when we do that - when we open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do - that’s when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.

That’s when we begin to say, “Maybe we won’t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions.

So let’s work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women.”

Understand - I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it - indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory - the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.

Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words.

It’s a way of life that has always been the Notre Dame tradition. Father Hesburgh has long spoken of this institution as both a lighthouse and a crossroads. The lighthouse that stands apart, shining with the wisdom of the Catholic tradition, while the crossroads is where “...differences of culture and religion and conviction can co-exist with friendship, civility, hospitality, and especially love.” And I want to join him and Father Jenkins in saying how inspired I am by the maturity and responsibility with which this class has approached the debate surrounding today’s ceremony.

This tradition of cooperation and understanding is one that I learned in my own life many years ago - also with the help of the Catholic Church.

I was not raised in a particularly religious household, but my mother instilled in me a sense of service and empathy that eventually led me to become a community organizer after I graduated college. A group of Catholic churches in Chicago helped fund an organization known as the Developing Communities Project, and we worked to lift up South Side neighborhoods that had been devastated when the local steel plant closed.

It was quite an eclectic crew. Catholic and Protestant churches. Jewish and African-American organizers. Working-class black and white and Hispanic residents. All of us with different experiences. All of us with different beliefs. But all of us learned to work side by side because all of us saw in these neighborhoods other human beings who needed our help - to find jobs and improve schools. We were bound together in the service of others.

And something else happened during the time I spent in those neighborhoods. Perhaps because the church folks I worked with were so welcoming and understanding; perhaps because they invited me to their services and sang with me from their hymnals; perhaps because I witnessed all of the good works their faith inspired them to perform, I found myself drawn - not just to work with the church, but to be in the church. It was through this service that I was brought to Christ.

At the time, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin was the Archbishop of Chicago. For those of you too young to have known him, he was a kind and good and wise man. A saintly man. I can still remember him speaking at one of the first organizing meetings I attended on the South Side. He stood as both a lighthouse and a crossroads - unafraid to speak his mind on moral issues ranging from poverty, AIDS, and abortion to the death penalty and nuclear war. And yet, he was congenial and gentle in his persuasion, always trying to bring people together; always trying to find common ground. Just before he died, a reporter asked Cardinal Bernardin about this approach to his ministry. And he said, “You can’t really get on with preaching the Gospel until you’ve touched minds and hearts.”

My heart and mind were touched by the words and deeds of the men and women I worked alongside with in Chicago. And I’d like to think that we touched the hearts and minds of the neighborhood families whose lives we helped change. For this, I believe, is our highest calling.

You are about to enter the next phase of your life at a time of great uncertainty. You will be called upon to help restore a free market that is also fair to all who are willing to work; to seek new sources of energy that can save our planet; to give future generations the same chance that you had to receive an extraordinary education. And whether as a person drawn to public service, or someone who simply insists on being an active citizen, you will be exposed to more opinions and ideas broadcast through more means of communications than have ever existed before. You will hear talking heads scream on cable, read blogs that claim definitive knowledge, and watch politicians pretend to know what they’re talking about. Occasionally, you may also have the great fortune of seeing important issues debated by well-intentioned, brilliant minds. In fact, I suspect that many of you will be among those bright stars.

In this world of competing claims about what is right and what is true, have confidence in the values with which you’ve been raised and educated. Be unafraid to speak your mind when those values are at stake. Hold firm to your faith and allow it to guide you on your journey. Stand as a lighthouse.

But remember too that the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It is the belief in things not seen. It is beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what He asks of us, and those of us who believe must trust that His wisdom is greater than our own.

This doubt should not push us away from our faith. But it should humble us. It should temper our passions, and cause us to be wary of self-righteousness. It should compel us to remain open, and curious, and eager to continue the moral and spiritual debate that began for so many of you within the walls of Notre Dame. And within our vast democracy, this doubt should remind us to persuade through reason, through an appeal whenever we can to universal rather than parochial principles, and most of all through an abiding example of good works, charity, kindness, and service that moves hearts and minds.

For if there is one law that we can be most certain of, it is the law that binds people of all faiths and no faith together. It is no coincidence that it exists in Christianity and Judaism; in Islam and Hinduism; in Buddhism and humanism. It is, of course, the Golden Rule - the call to treat one another as we wish to be treated. The call to love. To serve. To do what we can to make a difference in the lives of those with whom we share the same brief moment on this Earth.

So many of you at Notre Dame - by the last count, upwards of 80% -- have lived this law of love through the service you’ve performed at schools and hospitals; international relief agencies and local charities. That is incredibly impressive, and a powerful testament to this institution. Now you must carry the tradition forward. Make it a way of life. Because when you serve, it doesn’t just improve your community, it makes you a part of your community. It breaks down walls. It fosters cooperation. And when that happens - when people set aside their differences to work in common effort toward a common good; when they struggle together, and sacrifice together, and learn from one another - all things are possible.

After all, I stand here today, as President and as an African- American, on the 55th anniversary of the day that the Supreme Court handed down the decision in Brown v. the Board of Education. Brown was of course the first major step in dismantling the “separate but equal” doctrine, but it would take a number of years and a nationwide movement to fully realize the dream of civil rights for all of God’s children. There were freedom rides and lunch counters and Billy clubs, and there was also a Civil Rights Commission appointed by President Eisenhower. It was the twelve resolutions recommended by this commission that would ultimately become law in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

There were six members of the commission. It included five whites and one African-American; Democrats and Republicans; two Southern governors, the dean of a Southern law school, a Midwestern university president, and your own Father Ted Hesburgh, President of Notre Dame. They worked for two years, and at times, President Eisenhower had to intervene personally since no hotel or restaurant in the South would serve the black and white members of the commission together. Finally, when they reached an impasse in Louisiana, Father Ted flew them all to Notre Dame’s retreat in Land O’Lakes, Wisconsin, where they eventually overcame their differences and hammered out a final deal.

Years later, President Eisenhower asked Father Ted how on Earth he was able to broker an agreement between men of such different backgrounds and beliefs. And Father Ted simply said that during their first dinner in Wisconsin, they discovered that they were all fishermen. And so he quickly readied a boat for a twilight trip out on the lake. They fished, and they talked, and they changed the course of history.

I will not pretend that the challenges we face will be easy, or that the answers will come quickly, or that all our differences and divisions will fade happily away. Life is not that simple. It never has been.

But as you leave here today, remember the lessons of Cardinal Bernardin, of Father Hesburgh, of movements for change both large and small. Remember that each of us, endowed with the dignity possessed by all children of God, has the grace to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we all seek the same love of family and the same fulfillment of a life well-lived. Remember that in the end, we are all fishermen.

If nothing else, that knowledge should give us faith that through our collective labor, and God’s providence, and our willingness to shoulder each other’s burdens, America will continue on its precious journey towards that more perfect union. Congratulations on your graduation, may God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.

Torture: The Pelosi "Controversy" in One Sentence

Related Post: Torture - The Hidden Photos Emerge

I have consciously avoided all comment on the furour --- whipped up by former Bush Administration officials and their supporters --- over how much Nancy Pelosi (pictured), the Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives, knew about the torture programme from 2002. I have done so not out of political bias or a lack of academic interest (for example, the limits on Congress' oversight of illegal activity when an exclusive group of 4 or 8 legislators are given some information --- and thus sworn to secrecy --- over that activity). I have done so because this is a blatant attempt by those who served Bush to deflect attention from their actions.

I will break silence, however, to post this question which I put to Mr Karl Rove, a Bush advisor, when he wrote that Pelosi was an "accomplice to 'torture'" (I received no reply):

If Nancy Pelosi is an accomplice to a felony.....

Who are the felons?

War on Terror Newsflash: Guantanamo Stays Open, Military Tribunals Resume

A day after President Obama's reversal on the release of photographs of detainee abuse, his Administration made another concession to critics in Congress and the media. Three administration officials spread the word that Guantanamo Bay military tribunals will be resumed for some detainees.

Obama had suspended the tribunals in January, days after he promised the closure of Guantanamo within a year. The two issues are linked: Obama's intention was to put some detainees through the American criminal courts. This in turn meant imprisoning them in the US, rather than on the edge of Cuba. (Other detainees would not be tried but would be sent to "third countries".)



As soon as Obama issued the announcement, critics --- especially former Bush officials and legislators, "experts", and media who had backed the Bush Administration --- lined up to blast the softness of the President. From within the Administration, some military and civilian officials in the Pentagon leaked tales of detainees who would return to terrorism. In the last two weeks, accompanying the even louder blast against the claims of Bush-era torture, the criticism escalated, with Republican Congressmen declaring that no Guantanamo detainee would step foot on US soil. Yesterday, Attorney General Eric Holder effectively surrendered to a Senate committee, when he said about cases in which a detainee was acquitted:

We are not going to do anything that will endanger the American people. If there were a sufficient basis to conclude they pose a danger to the United States, we would not release them.

The immediate effrect of the decision is to rule out any possibility of due process. The military commissions were a belated "quick fix" when the Bush Administration, which had not intended to do anything with detainees except interrogate them and hold them in perpetuity, had to give some appearance of justice. By the time they put this in practice, however, detainee's files were lost or in a state beyond recovery, lawyers had been denied (and, in some cases, would continue to be denied) access to their clients, and evidence against the accused had been obtained in some cases through "enhanced interrogation".

The Obama officials said that there will be "expanded due-process rights", but this may be a case of putting the genie back in the bottle. Evidence has already been tainted, either because it has not been collected and maintained properly or because it has been obtained under duress. Unless all of that is thrown out by the tribunals (which in some instances means the collapse of the cases), then this is just a nicer face on a dubious system.

However, for the vast majority of the detainees (only a few have been brought before the tribunals), the significance is that they stay in Guantanamo. Difficulties had already stalled the plan to send at least 60 of the 240 to countries in Europe, and the whipped-up outcry about terrorists being let loose in the US has blocked that option. There may be individual releases back to home countries (Canada is now under a court order to take Omar Khadr, imprisoned seven years ago when he was 15), but that will be the extent of the grand intention announced by the President in January.

But maybe the most significance effect of the second  Administration "shift" in two days --- if you put emphasis on domestic politics rather than justice --- is the exposed weakness of the White House. While Obama had (impressively) won political victories in his first months on the economy and on some foreign policy issues like Iran, his critics will now take away the lesson that, if you hit this President with the "national security" club, he will buckle.

That has repercussions not only for the legacy issues of the Bush War on Terror but on Obama's new conflicts. He has another running battle on his hands with some US military leaders, who will keep poking at policy on Afghanistan and Pakistan to shape it to their vision of counter-insurgency rather than the President's. Expect their allies in media, if not the commanders themselves, to ramp up a public vigilance on any perceived Obama mis-steps in the new American wars.

I may be mistaken, for there could be an Administration cunning plan here to put a few high-profile detainees before the tribunals, get the required convictions and sentences, and then --- having bought time --- return to the original scheme to place most of the not-so-dangerous detainees in other countries, if not the US. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be the first showcase: the planner of 9-11 and four others pled guilty in December, and most Americans won't care about due process in his trial.

At best, however, this means that Guantanamo stays open indefinitely and those detainees who aren't KSM are kept in the limbo that they have enjoyed for seven years. More likely, the Administration hasn't even thought this far ahead and is simply scrambling for time. And time means little unless you can find the strength to hold your line when you come under pressure.

The Torture Photos: Obama's Six-Step Sidestep

The always excellent Dan Froomkin, blogging for The Washington Post, captures a lot of what I was trying to say --- but finding it difficult because of anger and sadness --- this morning. Drawing on other analysts as well as Obama's own words, he takes apart the six excuses for refusing the court order to release the photographs of detainee abuse:

Deconstructing Obama's Excuses

In trying to explain his startling decision to oppose the public release of more photos depicting detainee abuse, President Obama and his aides yesterday put forth six excuses for his about-face, one more flawed than the next.

First, there was the nothing-to-see-here excuse. In his remarks yesterday afternoon, Obama said the "photos that were requested in this case are not particularly sensational, especially when compared to the painful images that we remember from Abu Ghraib."

But as the Washington Post reports: "[O]ne congressional staff member, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the photos, said the pictures are more graphic than those that have been made public from Abu Ghraib. 'When they are released, there will be a major outcry for an investigation by a commission or some other vehicle,' the staff member said."

The New York Times reports: "Many of the photos may recall those taken at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, which showed prisoners naked or in degrading positions, sometimes with Americans posing smugly nearby, and caused an uproar in the Arab world and elsewhere when they came to light in 2004."

And if they really aren't that sensational, then what's the big deal?

Then there was the the-bad-apples-have-been-dealt-with excuse. This one, to me, is the most troubling.

Obama said the incidents pictured in the photographs "were investigated -- and, I might add, investigated long before I took office -- and, where appropriate, sanctions have been applied....[T]his is not a situation in which the Pentagon has concealed or sought to justify inappropriate action. Rather, it has gone through the appropriate and regular processes. And the individuals who were involved have been identified, and appropriate actions have been taken."

But this suggests that Obama has bought into the false Bush-administration narrative that the abuses of detainees were isolated acts, rather than part of an endemic system of abuse implicitly sanctioned at the highest levels of government. The Bushian view has been widely discredited -- and for Obama to endorse it suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the past.

The notion that responsibility for the sorts of actions depicted in those photos lies at the highest -- not lowest -- levels of government is not exactly a radical view. No less an authority than the Senate Armed Services Committee concluded in a bipartisan report: "The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of 'a few bad apples' acting on their own....The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees."

But as The Washington Post notes: "[N]o commanding officers or Defense Department officials were jailed or fired in connection with the abuse, which the Bush administration dismissed as the misbehavior of low-ranking soldiers." And the "appropriate actions," as Obama put it, have certainly not yet been taken. The architects of the system in which the abuse took place have yet to be held to account.

Then there was the no-good-would-come-of-this excuse.

Obama said it was his "belief that the publication of these photos would not add any additional benefit to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals."

But the photos would add a lot. It was, after all, the photographs from the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq that forced the nation to acknowledge what had happened there. There is something visceral and undeniable about photographic evidence which makes it almost uniquely capable of cutting through the disinformation and denial that surrounds the issue of detainee abuse.

These photos are said to show that the kind of treatment chronicled in Abu Ghraib was in fact not limited to that one prison or one country. They would, as I wrote yesterday, serve as a powerful refutation to former vice president Cheney's so far mostly successful attempt to cast the public debate about government-sanctioned torture as a narrow one limited to the CIA's secret prisons.

Then there was the "protect-the-troops" excuse.

Said Obama: "In fact, the most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger."

But the concern about the consequences of the release, while laudable on one level, is no excuse for a cover-up.

Glenn Greenwald blogs for Salon: "Think about what Obama's rationale would justify. Obama's claim...means we should conceal or even outright lie about all the bad things we do that might reflect poorly on us. For instance, if an Obama bombing raid slaughters civilians in Afghanistan..., then, by this reasoning, we ought to lie about what happened and conceal the evidence depicting what was done -- as the Bush administration did -- because release of such evidence would 'would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger.' Indeed, evidence of our killing civilians in Afghanistan inflames anti-American sentiment far more than these photographs would. Isn't it better to hide the evidence showing the bad things we do?...

"How can anyone who supports what Obama is doing here complain about the CIA's destruction of their torture videos? The torture videos, like the torture photos, would, if released, generate anti-American sentiment and make us look bad. By Obama's reasoning, didn't the CIA do exactly the right thing by destroying them?"

Then there was the chilling-effect excuse.

Said Obama: "Moreover, I fear the publication of these photos may only have a chilling effect on future investigations of detainee abuse."

But how so? Under questioning, press secretary Robert Gibbs failed miserably to explain that particular rationale at yesterday's press briefing.

"[I]f in each of these instances somebody looking into detainee abuse takes evidentiary photos in a case that's eventually concluded, this could provide a tremendous disincentive to take those photos and investigate that abuse," Gibbs said.

Q. "Wait, try that once again. I don't follow you. Where's the disincentive?"

Gibbs: "The disincentive is in the notion that every time one of these photos is taken, that it's going to be released. Nothing is added by the release of the photo, right? The existence of the investigation is not increased because of the release of the photo; it's just to provide, in some ways, a sensationalistic portion of that investigation.

"These are all investigations that were undertaken by the Pentagon and have been concluded. I think if every time somebody took a picture of detainee abuse, if every time that -- if any time any of those pictures were mandatorily going to be necessarily released, despite the fact that they were being investigated, I think that would provide a disincentive to take those pictures and investigate."

Get that? Yeah, me neither.

And finally, there was the new-argument excuse.

Gibbs said "the President isn't going back to remake the argument that has been made. The President is going -- has asked his legal team to go back and make a new argument based on national security."

But as the Los Angeles Times reports, the argument that releasing the photographs could create a backlash "was raised and rejected by a federal district court judge and the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, which called the warnings of a backlash 'clearly speculative' and insufficient to warrant blocking disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

"'There's no legal basis for withholding the photographs,' said Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's National Security Project, 'so this must be a political decision.'"

Margaret Talev and Jonathan S. Landay write for McClatchy Newspapers: "The request for what's effectively a legal do-over is an unlikely step for a president who is trained as a constitutional lawyer, advocated greater government transparency and ran for election as a critic of his predecessor's secretive approach toward the handling of terrorism detainees.

"Eric Glitzenstein, a lawyer with expertise in Freedom of Information Act requests, said he thought that Obama faced an uphill legal battle. 'They should not be able to go back time and again and concoct new rationales' for withholding what have been deemed public records, he said.

"The timing of the president's decision suggests that a key factor behind his switch of position could have been a desire to prevent the release of the photos before a speech that he's to give June 4 in Egypt aimed at convincing the world's Muslims that the United States isn't at war with them. The pictures' release shortly before the speech could have negated its goal and proved highly embarrassing. Even if courts ultimately reject Obama's new position, the time needed for their consideration could delay the photos' release until long after the speech."

Peter Wallsten and Janet Hook write in the Los Angeles Times: "President Obama's decision Wednesday to try to block the court-ordered release of photographs depicting alleged abuse of detainees by U.S. soldiers sets him on a confrontational course with his liberal base. But it is a showdown he is willing to risk -- and may even view as politically necessary...

"Obama now can tell critics on the right that he did his best to protect the nation's troops, even if the courts eventually force the disclosure.

"Obama has been facing intense criticism from former Vice President Dick Cheney and other conservatives, who have argued that the new administration's efforts to roll back Bush-era interrogation policies have made the country less safe.

"The praise for Obama that came Wednesday from Republicans such as House Minority Leader John A. Boehner of Ohio and Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina can only help undercut those arguments."

But, Wallsten and Hook write: "Obama's dilemma is that he risks undermining one of the core principles he claimed for his presidency: transparency."

The Washington political-media establishment seems to approve of Obama's decision.

Rick Klein writes in ABC News's The Note: "In the broader context, it's cast as a sign of political maturation, maybe even classic Obama pragmatism. This is what it's like to be commander-in-chief -- one of those tough choices where there's no easy answer, and no shame in reversing yourself."

Ben Smith and Josh Gerstein write in Politico that Obama's reversal "marks the next phase in the education of the new president on the complicated, combustible issue of torture."

Washington Post opinion columnist David Ignatius blogs: "Is this a 'Sister Soulja' moment on national security, like Bill Clinton's famous criticism of a controversial rap singer during the 1992 presidential campaign -- which upset some liberal supporters but polished his credentials as a centrist?"

But anti-torture bloggers reject the comparison.

Andrew Sullivan blogs: "The MSM cannot see the question of torture and violation of the Geneva Conventions as a matter of right and wrong, of law and lawlessness. They see it as a matter of right and left. And so an attempt to hold Bush administration officials accountable for the war crimes they proudly admit to committing is 'left-wing.' And those of us who actually want to uphold the rule of law ... are now the equivalent of rappers urging the murder of white people."

In a separate post, Sullivan writes: "Slowly but surely, Obama is owning the cover-up of his predcessors' war crimes. But covering up war crimes, refusing to proscute them, promoting those associated with them, and suppressing evidence of them are themselves violations of Geneva and the UN Convention. So Cheney begins to successfully coopt his successor."

Mr President, Torture Still Matters: Obama Puts Away The Abuse Photographs

Related Post: Video - Obama Decides Not to Release Photographs of Detainee Abuse
Related Post: Bush Official Zelikow Condemns Torture Programmes
Related Post: FBI Agent Ali Soufan Testifies on Torture

This may be one of the most difficult articles I have ever written. For when I heard last night that President Obama had decided to withdraw White House consent for the release of photographs of the abuse of detainees, my reaction was dismay and, yes, revulsion. Having declared in his Inaugural Speech that the US would never again separate security from values, having signed an Executive Order "banning" torture, having promised to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, here was Obama --- faced with the recognition of the past --- refusing to allow that acknowledgement.

And he was doing so, ironically, horribly, with the same rationale that the Bush Administration used for eight years whenever it did not want the political inconvenience of knowledge, let alone debate, of its actions: because "national security" demanded that we did not hear or see.

But first, to keep this post on an analytic rather than emotional level and to provide essential context, this is not a case of the White House volunteering the photographs and then retracting. The release of the pictures has been ordered by a United States District Court hearing a case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union.

So there is an Alice-in-Wonderland quality about Obama's opening words, "These photos are associated with closed investigations of alleged abuse of detainees". The President invokes the legal process to say that his Administration has to defy...the legal process.

(What's more, Obama's assertion is either a lie or a misstatement. Later, he indicated that the photographs related to an investigation, started "long before" he took office, which has always been completed by the Pentagon with "appropriate actions taken". So there is no "ongoing" legal investigation within the military.

Obama did refer to the "chilling effect" that these photographs might have on future investigations of detainee abuse. Even if such investigations are being contemplated, and there is no indication that this is case, this is a red herring. The photographs in question pertain to past enquiries and would have no standing in any prosecution of unrelated incidents.)

The second Obama rationalisation was that "these photos are not particularly sensational. especially when compared to the painful images we remember from Abu Ghraib". If this was an issue of whether the release of the photos is to satisfy voyeurs of torture, this might be relevant --- nothing to see here, folks, move along.

But that is not the issue. Abuse is abuse, irrespective of its "sensational" appearance (indeed abuse such as extended sleep deprivation is quite banal). A person does not have to be hooded and standing on a box in a crucifix position for the act to qualify as torture.

But Obama was saving his headline rationale for last: releasing the photographs would "inflame anti-American opinion and put our troops in danger". No need for subtle readings here: if you make me accept the court decision, our boys will be killed.

I'll give the President the benefit of the doubt, as Juan Cole does, that he has been persuaded of this by the US military and that this isn't an emotional fig leaf. But let's be clear: any insurgent or "extremist" who wants to shoot at or blow up American troops already has more than enough pretext from the last eight years: he/she can invoke what is already known or suspected about the torture and abuse in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, and secret CIA "black sites" around the world.

So instead you have to presume that Obama believes that others who are not currently fighting US forces will be prompted to do so by these photographs. Yet, if the pictures in question are not "sensational", if they do not match up to the horrors of Abu Ghraib, why would they provoke such a decision?

That logic leads to one of two conclusions: either the photographs are innocuous, and Obama is blowing smoke about "anti-American" reaction, or they are so horrific that they will provoke previously non-violent individuals to a murderous response. (For the sake of humanity, I hope it is the former.)

To be blunt, if not yet emotional, Obama's reasons are flimsy and at times illogical. So, since the President is normally quite intelligent and logical, the statement is more of a cover-up than the actual reason behind his decision.

So what did happen? Obama gave in to pressure.

In part, the pressure came from the public bubble of Washington politics. The Dick Cheney roadshow may be a distortion, even a fabrication, of what actually happened in the Bush years, but his banging away --- assisted by an array of broadcasters and newspapers --- at the risk to "national security" of the torture investigations finally put a dent in the White House. It is no coincidence that, 24 hours before Obama's statement, the former Vice President's first attack in an interview with Fox was on the release of the photos.

That, however, is only one pressure --- and probably a less important pressure --- that buckled Obama.

The ultimate "winners" in this sordid battle are US military commanders, supported by top officials at the Central Intelligence Agency. CIA Director Leon Panetta had already let it be known that he objected to any more disclosure of photographs, and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates fired his own volley on Wednesday. While generals kept their mutterings private, the gist of their opposition came out in suitably-placed media pieces.

While those commanders did put out the word that their troops would be endangered by the publicity over the photos, they had other considerations. The US military is still detaining insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. The CIA and military are still working with allied countries, such as Pakistan, who have their own methods of interrogation.

Public exposure of what occurred in the past could conceivably limit, apart from Obama's necessary reference at the end of his statement that "the abuse of detainees...will not be tolerated", what measures could be taken in future. Inquiry and investigation raises that the prospect that military and intelligence officials are, in theory at least, legally accountable.

In this continuing War on Terror, that's still not an acceptable risk. Instead, the story has to be maintained that torture was only, in Obama's words, "carried out in the past by a small number of individuals". The "chain of command", both political and military, has to be put beyond scrutiny.

This is not to say, of course, that the "enhanced interrogation" goes on, at least not in the form sanctioned by the Bush Administration from 2002 to 2005. It is to say that the risk of a system of oversight, prompted by a full recognition of what occurred in those years, must not be taken.