Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Obama: worse than the criminals?

Too damn busy yesterday and today -- sure am glad there's so much internet out there for y'all to look at.

I will however pause for this from Andrew Sullivan:
Those of us who held out hope that the Obama administration would not be actively covering up the brutal torture of a Gitmo prisoner who was subject to abuse in several countries must now concede the obvious.
Yes, I'm afraid we must.

If the cover-up is always worse than the crime, where does that leave Obama?


  1. While I'm disappointed by his decision, I have to wonder at all the hyperventilating going on.

    Does his decision not to reveal these photos make him worse than the torturers, or those who approved it? Seriously? And can we really call this a coverup, as they fight the release of photos concerning something we pretty much all know happened anyway? Sullivan even admits it's a pretty crappy coverup, but still chooses to treat it as a coverup.

    Here's another theory: Obama knows they'll lose in court, and wants that loss on the books for future cases. For the same reason the Bush DOJ withdrew the detention case before it could hit the Supreme Court, only backwards... *shrug* I dunno, but I can't help feeling we're moving past any actual "find out what happened" efforts and into feeding frenzy territory.

  2. I think the link is re: the Binyam Mohammed case in Britain.

    Re: the photos, I can concede a pragmatic argument vs. inflaming Islamic opinion further.

  3. Anderson, I agree completely with your "pragmatic argument vs. inflaming Islamic opinion further." There is no gain in releasing them. Razor