U.S. President Barack Obama reversed a significant decision this past week. He decided to go back on his promise to release photographs of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan that were taken a few years ago. The popular sentiment among the more conservative-minded might be that Obama is well within his right as Commander-in-Chief to do what he considers in the interest of national security. On the surface this does appear to be a sound argument for the reversed decision.
But dig a little deeper, and the logic that national security and our troops are being protected by thwarting the publication of said photos is actually a hairline crack in the foundation of free speech. And it’s the type of decision that can weaken a democracy.
In 1798, Thomas Jefferson said:
“One of the amendments to the Constitution… expressly declares that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,’ thereby guarding in the same sentence and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others.”
The freedom to think, speak, and believe freely is a great source of strength for Americans. But it can also be a great challenge. We are given explicit protection to be free, but no explicit instructions how to use that freedom. Therein lies the genius of the founding fathers’ conclusion in the Declaration of Independence that government must draw it’s “just powers from the consent of the governed”. A consenting citizenry must be an informed citizenry, otherwise it will always be at odds over what exactly it is consenting to.
Photos of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan, for this very reason, should be released. The world, not just Americans, learned in the worst way that what goes on overseas in dark prison cells in the name of the United States makes the citizens of the United States linked to those events by association. Abu Grahib. Guantanamo. Black sites in Europe. The world will never know the extent of suffering that has been inflicted, only the imagined possibilities based on pieces of the story.
During a press briefing in Washington on May 13, President Obama’s Press Secretary Robert Gibbs made the basic point in the President’s argument to a fiesty press corps confounded by Obama’s decision.
Gibbs’s response, in part:
“The President believes that the existence of the photos themselves doesn’t actually add to the understanding that detainee abuse happened, was investigated, that actions were taken by those that did indeed or might have undertaken potential abuse of detainees, and that those cases were all dating back to finishing in 2004. The President doesn’t believe the release of photos surrounding that investigation does anything to illuminate the existence of that investigation, only to provide some portion of sensationalism.”
One reporter responded with the essential rebuttal:
“But, Robert, is that really his role to decide whether or not it illuminates?”
Beyond the borders of the United States, there is an entire world that might also be interested in seeing these photographs. Whether they would try to use them for harm is impossible to know. Whether people within the borders of the U.S. might use them as political ammunition is also impossible to know.The media doesn’t always get it right, but fear of “sensationalism” is no excuse for the federal government to reach for a muzzle.
That reporter in the White House press briefing had it right–it is not President Obama’s role to decide whether or not the photographs illuminate the story. In fact, woe to the politician who treads on the public’s access to information. In a story like this, where the interests of how human beings were treated in the name of the United States is at stake, the photos will likely surface one way or another. The wise choice for politicians, president or otherwise, is to not stand in the way of that certainty and the public’s right to know.