The Changing Sides of Obama

Would you justify torturing terrorists if it prevented greater evils for your nation?

What would you think if the publication of a photograph documenting the torture of a prisoner suspected of terrorist activities served as a pretext for a group of terrorists to justify the murder of innocent people?

How would you react if a terrorist suspect were liberated by a legitimate tribunal because all the evidence against him was obtained through torture?

What opinion does a presidential candidate who reneged on his campaign promises once elected deserve?

These questions, and without doubt many more, should have passed through the mind of President Barack Obama last week when the time came for him to decide if he would order the publication of a series of new photos showing American soldiers torturing prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan, and if he would reestablish military tribunals in Guantanamo.

In both cases, unfortunately, the president backed down.

Obama decided to appeal the federal court’s decision that he should order the publication of the photos. He also decided to reestablish the tribunals, although he placed limitations upon them and ordered the expansion of legal guarantees for the press.

Regrettably, the president’s decisions ignore inalienable constitutional principles; they are an outrage against due process; they violate democracy and do not resolve the problems they are supposed to.

Another problem, not least of all, is that they compromise the credibility of his convictions and his commitment to the defense of human rights.

During his campaign, Obama denounced the Bush administration for refusing to publish the photos. When elected, he promised to publish them. Now he is going back on his word, arguing that their publication could inflame anti-American sentiment in Afghanistan and Iraq and put U.S. troops in danger. He says that public distribution of such images “would not add any additional benefit to our understanding of what a small number of individuals did in the past.”

As regards the reestablishment of special tribunals, it is also necessary to remember that Obama had been opposed to them since 2006; he denounced them non-stop as “a defective system of military commissions that have not managed to convict any terrorist suspect since September 11 and which is being hounded by legal challenges.” He promised to bring an end to them once he was in power.

Last week, however, the president announced the reestablishment of the commissions to try some 20 high-value prisoners; among them are those suspected of having participated in the planning of the September 11 attacks. The rest of the prisoners will be moved to other countries to be tried or will be tried in regular U.S. courts, or set free.

In both cases, the weakness of the president’s arguments is evident. The established censorship surrounding the photographs violates the First Amendment of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression. At the same time, it calls into question the argument that the abuse of prisoners, coldly documented by American soldiers in Abu Ghraib, was an aberration that perhaps shows the imperfection of a few bad soldiers, because it reveals a possible systematic use of torture.

The existence of special tribunals contradicts the essence of the foundational principles of the country and disregards the fact that democracy is strengthened by public scrutiny of government abuses, because it demands accountability and forces reform.

The photos, as much as the special tribunals, show the perseverance of a corrupt system inspired by the complacency of President George W. Bush, his collaborators and his advisers, and in both cases, they are evidence of a culture of impunity that Obama must reject.