Release abuse photos to human rights groups, but not public

President Barack Obama’s recent decision to bar the release of additional images showing prisoner abuse has been met with fierce opposition by pro-democracy groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union.

Attorney Amrit Singh, who represents the ACLU, said to CNN that Obama’s decision “makes a mockery” of his campaign promise to provide greater transparency and accountability.

Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin said in a written statement, “I am generally opposed to keeping the American people in the dark for no other reason than to shield misconduct, avoid embarrassment or other reasons not pertaining to national security.”

I am all for government transparency. The general populace needs to be informed about the inner workings of the political system in order to participate in the democratic process. The public, after all, serves as a check to ensure that those in power do not misuse their authority for their own benefit and interest.

I am, however, advocating controlled transparency. Issues come to a point where the further disclosure of information would become redundant, even detrimental, to coming up with solutions and sound policy.

In these cases, the government has the responsibility to exercise restraint on what is released to the public. Transparency comes down to a question of what the public needs to know, and what it can do without.

While Feingold points out the innocuousness of the release, he fails to pinpoint a concrete reason as to why the images should be disseminated.

True, the images could provoke a public response that would pressure the government to keep in sync with the popular sentiment of righteousness.

For example, the images of prisoner abuse leaked in 2004 have sparked debate over U.S. treatment of detainees. The current administration’s effort to clamp down on the abuse of detainees comes, in no small part, from the public sentiment generated by these images.

However, the further release of images would be both superfluous and unnecessary. The American public knows about these abuses. Seeing more of these photographs would neither incite a response that would urge better governmental policy, nor would it raise new questions as to how our current system should be rectified. This additional release would be redundant and would in no way be conducive to the democratic process.

The ACLU demanded that the photographs be released because not doing so would make the Obama administration complicit in the Bush administration’s torture policies. Essentially, it is calling for Obama to admit to the mistakes of the previous administration.

This approach does not tackle the issue of internal abuse within the U.S. system head-on. It merely directs blame and does not promise to correct what is wrong with an abusive system.

What must be demanded is not the exposure of the photographs to the public but to third-party groups that can work with the government to keep the system current with international notions of human rights.

Through this selective transparency with third-party humanitarian groups, the government would take a proactive stand against the failings of the current system by providing an outside check to internal weaknesses.

Admission of fault does not have to result in absolute transparency to the public. What would be more positive would be an approach that deals with the issue in a tactful manner ““ one that eliminates the possibility of inflammatory sentiments against potentially heinous images.

Absolute transparency for its own sake is a fallacious concept surrounding democracy. It must come within the realm of purpose. Otherwise, this supposed public right must be withheld, in favor of more purposeful means.

A healthy democracy strikes the balance between transparency, to ensure that those in power act responsibly, and censorship, to assure that certain releases don’t complicate already sensitive issues.

While Obama’s decision might come as a breach of public trust, I think of it as a responsible exercise of authority to prevent the overzealous assertion of unnecessary democracy.

In this complicated world, democracy is never absolute: An ideal system strikes the balance between rights and compromises, unpopular as they may be, that maintain the general stability of a nation.

E-mail Ong at rong@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.

E-mail Ong at rong@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *