Grab bag
I’m looking forward to a particularly grueling day at the office tomorrow. I am therefore going to try to hit the sack early tonight.
More white supremacist craziness, this time in Arizona.
The mass confusion and protests continue in Iran. The grand Ayatollah seems to be stuck. He has supported President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It seems clear that the election was rigged.
Watch the video:
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Harriet Miers and Karl Rove seem to have a day in front of the House Judiciary Committee. Wow, could it be? Could the wheels of justice be turning? Nope, I must be dreaming.
I’m becoming more and more confused about the Obama White House. President Barack Obama seems to be following many of Bush’s policies on secrecy. Very disturbing.
Glenn Greenwald has more on this secrecy craziness:
On May 13, when Obama announced he would attempt to suppress prisoner abuse photos on the ground that their release would inflame anti-American sentiment, I wrote:
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 (as has happened several times already), 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?
Last Friday, when yet another dispute arose between local Afghan officials and the U.S. military over whether a U.S. airstrike caused a large number of civilian deaths, I wrote a post entitled ”Should the U.S. also suppress evidence of civilian deaths in Afghanistan?” and asked:
Using the standard that is now so accepted across the political spectrum in Washington — information that will inflame anti-American sentiment should be suppressed rather than disclosed so at to not endanger our troops — isn’t it better if we just cover-up, rather than learn the truth about, the civilian deaths we caused in Afghanistan? After all, news reports of dead Afghan women and children at the hands of American bombs obviously inflame anti-American sentiment and Endanger Our Troops at least as much as the disclosure of some additional torture photos would. By the prevailing reasoning of Washington, shouldn’t we want our government to hide the truth about what we did — lest anti-American anger and the risk of attack on Our Troops increase? Isn’t that the noble anti-transparency principle we’re now endorsing?
Here’s what McClatchy is reporting today (h/t Paul Tenny/GregMitchell):
Pentagon wavers on release of report on Afghan attack
WASHINGTON — Defense Department officials are debating whether to ignore an earlier promise and squelch the release of an investigation into a U.S. airstrike last month, out of fear that its findings would further enrage the Afghan public, Pentagon officials told McClatchy Monday.
The military promised to release the report shortly after the May 4 air attack, which killed dozens of Afghans, and the Pentagon reiterated that last week. U.S. officials also said they’d release a video that military officials said shows Taliban fighters attacking Afghan and U.S. forces and then running into a building. Shortly afterward, a U.S. aircraft dropped a bomb that destroyed the building.
However, a senior defense official told McClatchy Monday: “The decision (about what to release) is now in limbo.”
Pentagon leaders are divided about whether releasing the report would reflect a renewed push for openness and transparency about civilian casualties or whether it would only fan Afghan outrage and become a Taliban recruiting tool just as Army Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal takes command of U.S. forces in Afghanistan.
Two U.S. military officials told McClatchy that the video shows that no one checked to see whether any women or children were in the building before it was bombed. The report acknowledges that mistakes were made and that U.S. forces didn’t always follow proper procedures, but it does little to reassure Afghans that the U.S. has done enough to avoid repeating those mistakes.
It should be painfully obvious that those defending the Obama/Lieberman/Graham rationale for photo suppression — that evidence of wrongdoing should be suppressed when it will “inflame anti-American sentiment” — are endorsing a dangerous mentality that is certain to justify concealment of far more than these torture photos. Indeed, even before this week, that mindset had already begun to be applied to justify cover-up of government wrongdoing outside of the photo context, and is now — quite predictably — creeping into other areas. That development is as inevitable as it is disturbing.
