WHAT SHOULD PRESIDENT OBAMA DO?

A decision maker with a Problem: President Obama!
Freedom to know, versus Life, values and democracy.
Where is the Balance?

President Obama came to the people of the United States with his palms open, voicing a new type of OPENNESS, and yet, he has suppressed hundreds of photos showing the abuse and torture of Iraq and Afghanistan prisoners in Abu Ghraib, on the ground they would become a sensation, and endanger American Citizens in America and around the world. The new pictures, the president voiced, would act as a catalyst, and it is in the National Interest that they are best kept unpublished.

The American Court Ordered the Pentagon to expose hundreds of photographs, which show the abuse and torture by American service personnel, and were used in the investigation from 2001 to 2006 into the criminal activity of some staff, when prisoners were held in captivity.

Obama, in the first month of his office, declared torture must not be used against international terrorism, there were to be no exceptions, and he even signed a law to ban torture as a method of interrogation with terrorist suspects. Also, he upheld a decision to publish classified documents that the US Justice Department signed under the Bush administration. But now, he does not consider it necessary to expose these pictures to public scrutiny, and he instructed his lawyers to appeal against the court ruling.

The US President, while admitting the public have a right to know, reluctantly made the decision after talks with Gen. Ray Odierno, the commander of US troops in Iraq. Pentagon spokesperson, Geoff Morrell advised publication of the pictures would inflame the situation in Afghanistan, especially now, as battles become increasingly fierce as winter subsides.

Obama stating, that the interest of American Servicemen and people must be paramount, and on this occasion, he felt his decision was justified. Service personnel in Afghanistan are fighting in a complicated environment in the war-torn country, and anything, which increases that risk, should overrule public interest for information.

Despite the fact, that the decision overpoweringly conflicts with his promise of transparency and open government, which was a main plank in his election campaign. This decision has angered the American Civil Liberties Union, which angrily stated, that the decision to block the publication of the unpublished photographs totally conflicts with Obama's promise, which he made regarding transparency and accountability before he was elected.

The anger is understandable, since Obama, has now clearly stated he is to revive military trials for some Guantanamo Bay detainees, whereby, he denounced the Bush Judicial System, but citing in his defence, that new safeguards would be strictly adhered to, and insists suspects would get a fairer hearing than was previously the case. One of Obama’s first acts in taking office was to halt the controversial military commissions in January, stating that American had entered a new era of human rights.

On his campaign trail, Obama branded the military commissions, "an enormous failure.” But in a recent statement, he said he had supported their use as one avenue to try detainees, and in 2006, he cites in his defence, had voted in favour of them.

He said he had opposed the tribunals used by George W Bush's administration because they had failed to establish a legitimate legal framework, and further, they undermined swift and certain justice. The extra safeguards for detainees will include a ban on evidence obtained by harsh interrogation; restrictions on hearsay intelligence; and to give them more power to choose their own lawyers.

But is that enough, and what constitutes harsh interrogation?

Indeed, Kenneth Roth, from the Human Rights Watch is adamant about what has happened, and stated.

"By resurrecting this failed Bush administration idea, President Obama is backtracking dangerously on his reform agenda."

I think this U-turn by Obama is summed up succinctly by Salon's Glenn Greenwald, who stated.

“President Obama, and the country at large, is finding out that George W. Bush's most controversial policies were not born of ideological delusion, American arrogance, or missionary zeal. They were imperfect but sound responses to complicated threats... And it would be helpful if the American public finally dropped moral outrage as the preferred mode of political argumentation.”

Now, the main question:

Is Obama correct on those two issues?

It was once posed to me, if my children were in the Twin Towers, and the criminal disaster could have been prevented by using torture to obtain intelligence information from terrorists, would I use it on detainees as a means of protecting my children?

A question I have given a lot of thought to, it has now become personal to me!

I think I would try to obtain the information, irrespective, but, but... my conscience tells me it’s wrong, very wrong indeed, but my love for my children bites me the other way like an angry dog, and I am torn.

It is a decision I hope I will never have to make, but someone must, and I think Obama is the right man to trust.

James Coomarasamy writes from the BBC in Washington.

“That although some are disappointed, for others it is further evidence of Mr Obama's pragmatic style of leadership, one that recognises the need to balance the change he has promised with the reality he has inherited.”

What are you views?