So the White House has decided to oppose release of additional photos that reportedly show additional evidence of shocking practices.  President Obama:

“The publication of these photos would not add any additional benefit to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals,” Obama said yesterday. “In fact, the most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in danger.”

I am somewhat sympathetic to this argument — I don’t want the troops put in additional danger, and heaven knows we don’t need Iraq or the rest of the Middle East to blow up right now.  But I also thought about another set of photos, which also did not put the United States in the best light.

For those not familiar with the context, this is a shot of peaceful civil rights demonstrators in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963.  The Birmingham police used fire hoses and dogs against them, a response that provoked such great outrage that it led directly to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I want to acknowledge it’s not a perfect analogy.  But photos like the one above seriously damaged America’s reputation and credibility in the world, so much so that President Johnson acknowledged that America’s tarnished image was one of many reasons that the United States government had to do everything it could to reverse its racist legacy.

Back then, a small group of political leaders didn’t see it that way.  They continued to make the case, in any public forum available, that the President’s actions were contrary to American interests and put many Americans at risk.  Some even went on the tee vee to question Johnson’s patriotism.

Johnson chose not to listen to them, and thanks to his (and Congress’s) courage and leadership, their racist apologias did not carry the day.

The torture photos are probably shocking, though Obama himself says that they’re not as shocking as what we saw five years ago (which, as Spencer Ackerman notes, is not exactly consistent with his suggestion that it could endanger our troops).  They would, undoubtedly, inflame public opinion.

But isn’t that the point?  Isn’t the idea here to shine the light on these heinous practices so that America will never again put itself in a position to repeat its mistakes?

Sadly, unlike Johnson, Obama has chosen not to use this moment to issue a clarion call for justice.  He has decided to defer to torture apologists in the name of not inflaming world opinion.

It’s a mistake — and a tragedy.  Any short-term impact on world public opinion is nothing compared to the long-term impact of not telling the full truth about what the United States did — and then taking action to ensure that it never happens again.

That’s what Johnson did.  Sadly, Obama appears unwilling to do the same.  That’s not pragmatism.  It’s not change.  It’s just weak.

Image:  Wikipedia

Related posts

• Obama on Human Rights: We Must Practice What We Preach
• Here Come the Torture Memos: Ten Thoughts (UPDATED)
• Why SCOTUS Should Hear the Al-Marri Case
• Why Hillary Still Might Say No
• What’s Missing at DNC: Torture, Guantanamo. . .and Cheney