Today’s Qs for O’s WH – 5/13/2009
EmailA rambunctious press briefing today, with many questions about President Obama’s change of mind regarding the release of photos detailing alleged detainee abuse. Also: lots of interruptions by reporters apparently unfamiliar with the "vibrate" function on their cell phones. What follows is some of the exchange, with cell phone silliness edited out.
GIBBS (answering previous question): The president doesn’t believe the release of a photo surrounding that investigation does the anything to illuminate the existence of that investigation, only to provide some portion of sensationality.
TAPPER: Robert, is that really his role to decide whether or not it illuminates? That’s not the president of the United States’ role to decide, well, this is information will illuminate for the people, and this information isn’t…
GIBBS: No, the — the — the role of the president in this situation is as commander-in-chief. And if he determines that, through the release of these photos, that they pose a threat to those that serve to protect our freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan through the illumination of whatever, he can make a determination to ask his legal team to go back to court and make a legal argument that he doesn’t believe was made and provides the most salient case and most important points for not releasing these photos. Those determinations are, indeed, made by this president and — and — and are being made…
TAPPER: The Bush administration has obviously made the argument that releasing these specific photographs will endanger troops, and they did so in the way that you described, with — with seeking the FOIA exemption for law enforcement personnel.
GIBBS: Right.
TAPPER: The second circuit court ruled against that, saying that — that it’s not meant — that exemption is not intended, quote, "as all-purpose damper on global controversy." What is this new argument that the president wants his team to present?…
GIBBS: The president believes that the specific case surrounding the damage that would be done to our troops and our national security has not fully been developed and put in front of the court to make. That’s the — the case that the legal team will now make. The Department of Justice will seek to look for different avenues, as I said earlier, likely seek a stay…
TAPPER: With the Supreme Court?
GIBBS: Well, you can seek a stay with an additional judge. Then the June 8 deadline also is for — for an appeal to the Supreme Court…
TAPPER: The specific avenue that your — that your legal team’s going to go, you’re not sure if it’s going to be going back to the district court or…
GIBBS: I don’t know the — I’ll check with — put that — we’ll check with — with those guys specifically. I think, in some ways, they’re looking at whether it is to go to a lower court or to go to the Supreme Court.
TAPPER: And then just to follow up on the new argument, so are there specific — is there specific case law arguments that the president knows that exist that were not used? Because it’s — I find it hard to believe that the Bush administration didn’t turn under every rock to try to find an argument to do this.
GIBBS: Well, the president doesn’t believe that was the case. And the president, after reviewing the case, believes that — that we have a compelling argument.
TAPPER: Could you let us know what those new arguments are?
GIBBS: Yes.
TAPPER: Thank you.
- jpt
Can Mitt Romney Win Conservatives Back? 
Possible Contraception Compromise in D.C.
Does this close further close the door on International Law (Hague or some sort of tribunals) who would like to have input on Americans at war within NATO or UN theatres??
I’m a little confused about the underlying rationale of disclosures and FOIA and prosecuting our own (free of foreign interference).
Or.. is this more about protecting administration(s) past and present..
???
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | May 13, 2009, 3:36 pm 3:36 pm
You’ve got give our Smartest Clueless Leader credit for learning new tricks – correcting boneheaded mistakes before letting it out.
Posted by: two cats | May 13, 2009, 3:52 pm 3:52 pm
DontGet818OnMeNow:”Or.. is this more about protecting administration(s) past and present..”
This is most likely more about Obama seeing a disproportionately large outcry on both sides of the fence about these pictures and deciding it’s not worth the fight. This is a sideshow when there are three acts playing on the main stage we should be working over.
He’ll let the courts chew on this some more, and if he gets lucky the Supremes will require the release and take the heat.
Posted by: jhw539 | May 13, 2009, 4:30 pm 4:30 pm
This was hard to read because I was torn– I love to ‘watch’ Mr. Tapper tear into Mr. Gibbs and expose him for the clueless creature that he is. I love to watch him demolish Gibbsy’s statements. This exchange, at that level, was a thing of beauty.
However, I am so relieved that the president has reversed himself and chosen to resist releasing the photos, which I think serve no useful purpose and which I believe will inflame people who would do harm to our country and especially to our soldiers, that I hated to see Tapper get the best of the argument. Okay, it makes no sense that he is doing what he is doing, but it is the right thing to do, so I applaud the president for doing it. I hope that the administration continues to follow in the previous administration’s footsteps on this particular matter and continues to fight the release of these photos. If only they had done the same with the enhanced interrogation memos.
Posted by: moderate | May 13, 2009, 4:36 pm 4:36 pm
===He’ll let the courts chew on this some more, and if he gets lucky the Supremes will require the release and take the heat.
Posted by: jhw539 | May 13, 2009 4:30:35 PM===
In other words, Obama gets to vote present.
Posted by: Axey | May 13, 2009, 4:47 pm 4:47 pm
Agreed moderate.
This ranks up there as worst Gibbsy reamings ever.
Obama reversed his nascent “change” to the Bush Admin policy of no releasing and appeal everythin bc of threats to us troops….so obama and gibbsy are running for cover to claim that they are doing some “new argument”, not agreeing with all the arguments of conservatives raised since Gibbsy first announced the pics woudl be released.
At that time, last month, tapper reamed gibbsy as well for the very reasons Obama now says he wont release the pics.
Hilarious rookie in charge…….God willing he’s learning something and wont be so loosey goosey with national security again.
Posted by: the Truth | May 13, 2009, 4:51 pm 4:51 pm
President Cheney still has the Midas touch!
Posted by: Ben | May 13, 2009, 4:56 pm 4:56 pm
If you remember, the president did not want to release them from the beginning. The reason he is changing his mind has nothing to do with Cheney but the fact that his military advisors feel that it could be detremental to the soldiers if any one of them is caught. He has made the right decision and I don’t care if he changed his mind. He is doing what is best for our men overseas.
Posted by: talmag | May 13, 2009, 4:57 pm 4:57 pm
Axey:”In other words, Obama gets to vote present.”
It’s a lot closer to the time-honored pocket veto.
Our country has real issues to deal with. These pictures are not one of them. If the far left and far right wingers are going to fight over a toy, take it away until they do their homework (economic policy, health care, Afghanistan).
Posted by: jhw539 | May 13, 2009, 4:59 pm 4:59 pm
It’s good to see Obama changed his mind and took the advice of Liz Cheney and her dad to not show the detainee photos.
Posted by: Sigmonde | May 13, 2009, 5:00 pm 5:00 pm
If the judge’s words were that the law wasn’t intended to “put a damper on global controversy” then indeed the court wasn’t given the full scope of the likely outcome.
There would be a ripple effect of unintended consequences far beyond “global controversy”. It would have put lives at risk, of Americans, and Afghans and Iraqis allied with western forces.
Coming just as Obama’s launching a new strategy that depends on relationships between the populace and American teams, soldiers and civilians, it could have led to blocking U.S. goals in both countries.
Posted by: jordan | May 13, 2009, 5:16 pm 5:16 pm
“He’ll let the courts chew on this some more, and if he gets lucky the Supremes will require the release and take the heat. ”
Can Obama ever make a decision and stick to it?
And why would he be afraid to take the heat… that is his job… to be commander in chief, make decisions and to stand by them.
You only get so many mulligan’s
Posted by: what the? | May 13, 2009, 5:20 pm 5:20 pm
jhw- so do you completely dismiss Obama’s contention that he is concerned about the well being of our troops if the photos are released?
You think he’d rather release the photos now, but because he is so busy he instead will tell his justice department to continue fighting the ACLU?
Posted by: MayBee | May 13, 2009, 5:22 pm 5:22 pm
The press conference was like a high school locker room today! Time to ban all cell phones and Jake why are you always texting? No wonder MSM are held in such low esteem!
Posted by: anderson n carolina | May 13, 2009, 5:30 pm 5:30 pm
Cheney wins!
Posted by: mesquito | May 13, 2009, 5:48 pm 5:48 pm
What’s the expiration date of Obama’s decision to not release the photos?
Posted by: max | May 13, 2009, 5:52 pm 5:52 pm
Vindication for VP Cheney.
Liz Cheney 2012
Posted by: nick | May 13, 2009, 5:53 pm 5:53 pm
===Our country has real issues to deal with. These pictures are not one of them. If the far left and far right wingers are going to fight over a toy, take it away until they do their homework (economic policy, health care, Afghanistan).
Posted by: jhw539 | May 13, 2009 4:59:41 PM===
Take away their toy? OMG. I am speechless. If I didn’t know better, I would swear you were a parody.
Posted by: Axey | May 13, 2009, 5:54 pm 5:54 pm
So, the White House Press Secretary is now confiscating cell phones from the press. And, the press laughs, assumes the position and hands him their phones! Unbelievable.
And, yes, Cheney wins!
Did we ever find out who was on board that Air Force One plane that reminded New Yorkers of 9-11?
What?
Aren’t there more questions to be asked? Why doesn’t the press do a little more digging on this? Maybe, throw a call in to the office of the Air Force that grants publicity photos?
Oh, wait. Gibbs took their phones.
Posted by: Mondo | May 13, 2009, 5:55 pm 5:55 pm
Mr. Obama is the most BS President of our time.
Posted by: young_voter | May 13, 2009, 6:02 pm 6:02 pm
Gates Thoughts on this -
“Perhaps what’s motivated my own change of heart on this and perhaps influenced the president, is that our commanders, both Gen. McKiernan and Gen. Odierno, have expressed very serious reservations about this and their very very great worry that release of the photographs will cost American lives. That was all it took for me,” Gates said at a House Armed Services Committee hearing.
We place more weight with this our experts.
Posted by: Ruth | May 13, 2009, 6:09 pm 6:09 pm
Look at the chaos Obama caused by releasing the interrogation memos–damage to his own party!
He not only stabbed the CIA in the back but he also outed Pelosi and other Democrats who knew about waterboarding.
Not that Pelosi was ever credible to begin with.
I think he was afraid to release the pictures. He knew Cheney was right.
Posted by: millie | May 13, 2009, 6:24 pm 6:24 pm
Why was it so difficult for our POTUS and CIC to understand that publicly showing photos of abused detainees would only damage the morale of our military as they are preparing for battle.?
Let’s hope Obama listens to Liz Cheney and her dad more in the future, so he can avoid these embarrassing flip flops.
Posted by: Sigmonde | May 13, 2009, 6:26 pm 6:26 pm
Oh the good old days when Obama could just vote “present”.
Now he actually has to make a decision.
If he could only stick to them.
Posted by: lester | May 13, 2009, 6:27 pm 6:27 pm
Cheneys da man!
Posted by: jon | May 13, 2009, 6:31 pm 6:31 pm
Liz Cheney and her dad are helping Obama to become a better and stronger President. Bipartisanship is back.
Posted by: Sigmonde | May 13, 2009, 6:35 pm 6:35 pm
He has available to him an option that, so far as I am aware, has not been discussed.
The 2nd Circuit decision was not based upon some generalized right of the ACLU or anyone else to see these photos. It was based on a statute, the FOIA. The president and congress could, if they wanted, amend the statute overnight to exempt these particular documents.
A preferable way to proceed would be for the president to avail himself of a procedure provided for in the FOIA statute but not yet used in this dispute. He could issue an executive order, based upon his own finding, specifying that disclosure of these documents would pose a danger to national security. That would be the end of the matter.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | May 13, 2009, 6:41 pm 6:41 pm
I think it is important to keep in mind that the materials Cheney is talking about and the photos at issue here are entirely unrelated.
Cheney is talking about memoranda regarding the DoJ and the CIA; specifically, the legal opinions stating what is and is not lawful (those have been disclosed) and memoranda describing the results of the use of various techniques by the CIA on a limited number of high-value terrorist suspects.
The photos sought by the ACLU depict unlawful actions taken by soldiers–not trained CIA interrogators–who have been tried and punished for what they did. No one that I know of contends that the soldiers’ acts were lawful.
The president needs to wake up on this matter and get rid of it.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | May 13, 2009, 6:46 pm 6:46 pm
The photos sought by the ACLU depict unlawful actions taken by soldiers–not trained CIA interrogators–who have been tried and punished for what they did. No one that I know of contends that the soldiers’ acts were lawful.
=============
Yes. What the ACLU wants are akin to crime scene photos. They were taken to document abuse for Pentagon investigations and prosecutions.
They want them released because they believe the number of them will (ahem) prove this abuse was due to policy coming from the very top. They want Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush prosecuted for prisoner abuse. Prosecuting the people who actually did the abuse in the photos is not enough for the ACLU.
Posted by: MayBee | May 13, 2009, 6:57 pm 6:57 pm
The FOIA exemption I’m talking about is the one concerning information
“specifically authorized under criteria established by an executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy.” Title 5 U.S. Cose Section 552.
It hasn’t been applied here yet, but it could be applied in very short order.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | May 13, 2009, 7:02 pm 7:02 pm
“They want them released because they believe the number of them will (ahem) prove this abuse was due to policy coming from the very top.”
Of course. And they know full well that the photos would prove no such thing. They also know, like trial lawyers everywhere, that the inflammatory and prejudicial effects of the photos would preclude rational discussion of the issue.
There is a well-known rule of evidence that material is not admissible if its prejudicial effect would outweigh its probative value. That’s plainly the case here, but the ACLU knows we’re not dealing with any rules of evidence, and they want them not for a court of law but to inflame public opinion.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | May 13, 2009, 7:07 pm 7:07 pm
I detest the abuses shown in these photos. However, we need to weigh the potential increase in danger to U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan against the public’s right to information. A pentagon study after the release of the first Abu Ghraib photos suggested the increased number of U.S. servicemen deaths might exceed the number of lives lost on 9/11. I’m willing to delay seeing these photos for a reasonable time if it protects American soldiers
Posted by: B. Bear | May 13, 2009, 7:42 pm 7:42 pm
MayBee:”do you completely dismiss Obama’s contention that he is concerned about the well being of our troops if the photos are released?
You think he’d rather release the photos now, but because he is so busy he instead will tell his justice department to continue fighting the ACLU?”
That’s not exactly it, but pretty close. I don’t think he honestly buys that releasing these photos will put our troops in greater jeopardy – indeed, that argument is akin to the silly claim that Al Quaida attacked us because of our support of the House of Saud or something. What, they’re going to try to kill us twice as dead if they see the photos? Worst case a few embassies in Europe get egged and front row seats for the monthly riot in France.
This was becoming a distraction, taking time that the public and politicians should be spending beating on the budget and real issues with real implications. Now, overnight, it’s not. And he didn’t sacrafice any significant portion of his agenda by ceding this battle.
So, leave it in the courts, status quo for now, and go ahead and throw the opposition a bone by accepting their argument. Obama doesn’t have to single handedly solve all the problems, let the court keep chewing this one over and score a point for being willing to change course. Just like he had the National Mall renovation removed from the stimulus and the birth control money – if a truly minor issue is being blown out of proportion, it doesn’t hurt to drop it.
Posted by: jhw539 | May 13, 2009, 8:05 pm 8:05 pm
So, leave it in the courts, status quo for now, and go ahead and throw the opposition a bone by accepting their argument…
What, they’re going to try to kill us twice as dead if they see the photos? Worst case a few embassies in Europe get egged and front row seats for the monthly riot in France.
============
Actually, the status quo was going to be to release them. This is a *reversal* of Obama’s position. He could have released them and had the whole debate over with. The idea that keeping this alive in the courts is somehow the way to have the issue end is the opposite of reality.
I know you know embassies don’t get egged when the jihadists have a new piece of propaganda to use.
You know real riots ensue, and real people die.
Posted by: MayBee | May 13, 2009, 8:25 pm 8:25 pm
“I don’t think he honestly buys that releasing these photos will put our troops in greater jeopardy …”
Only a naive person would believe that releasing those abuse photos would not damage the morale of our military or not put them in greater jeopardy. Obama is not that naive to believe that – he is political and measures the wind and goes with it.
Posted by: Sigmonde | May 13, 2009, 8:35 pm 8:35 pm
He originally intended to release the photos. Over 40 of them. Yet he will releae only one of the hundreds of photos that must have been taken of the NY Flyover. Why is that? For a photo op that cost $300,000, we deserve to see every photo, and there can be no logical reason for them not to be released.
Posted by: Caroline Miniscule | May 13, 2009, 9:07 pm 9:07 pm
What does Gibbs have on the blessed one to keep this job? I have never heard such an inept spokesperson in my life!
Posted by: CG | May 13, 2009, 9:29 pm 9:29 pm
“I don’t think he honestly buys that releasing these photos will put our troops in greater jeopardy – indeed, that argument is akin to the silly claim that Al Quaida attacked us because of our support of the House of Saud or something.”
First: So he’s being dishonest in his unequivocal statement?
Second: Wasn’t it accepted as indisputable fact that news of Abu Ghraib was Al Qaeda’s number one recruiting tool? If in fact that is true, is it possible for any sentient being to contend that these photos will not serve the same purpose many times over?
Third: Why on earth is the argument that the release would further endanger our troops in any way “akin to” the argument concerning the House of Saud? The claim that these two arguments are even remotely comparable seems astonishingly far-fetched. Far-fetched to the point of incoherence.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | May 13, 2009, 9:31 pm 9:31 pm
“I don’t think he honestly buys that releasing these photos will put our troops in greater jeopardy – indeed, that argument is akin to the silly claim that Al Quaida attacked us because of our support of the House of Saud or something.”
First: So he’s being dishonest in his unequivocal statement?
==================================
Wouldn’t be the first time would it but it doesn’t matter as far as the cult of personality goes.
Consider the gay marriage position shared by Miss Cal and POTUS. She gets ripped for it. He continues to get a pass. Why? One theory is that they think he is actually pro-gay marriage but has to lie about it for political reasons and they are perfectly ok with that.
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | May 13, 2009, 10:05 pm 10:05 pm
What is the Constitutional basis for Obama to be cutting Chrysler’s ad budget?
Posted by: drjohn | May 14, 2009, 12:25 am 12:25 am
I’ll tell you what.. that Constitution must be the most abused document in the D.C. archives (glad that so many peeps go over there to assure it’s still there).. both parties are quick to pull it out.. if a passage in it can be easily used to beat someone over the head with it.. otherwise, it just an old piece of paper (a popular piece).
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | May 14, 2009, 8:57 am 8:57 am
Very interesting question, DrJohn. I don’t know the answer off the top of my head. I hope we’ll see some discussion of it in the coming weeks.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | May 14, 2009, 10:07 am 10:07 am
Foggy
re; Ms Cal & ‘the gay’
maybe if she hadn’t blamed Satan, while hangin’ out with James Dobson’s crowd, her statements would carry more cred.
Posted by: Mr. Tony | May 14, 2009, 12:59 pm 12:59 pm