Welcome to Layalina Productions

The Layalina Review

VOL. V NO. 12, May 22-June 04, 2009

Obama Yet to Resolve Torture Issues

Photos of the United States' harsh interrogation techniques at Abu Ghraib prison surfaced in 2004 and again in 2006, but today the Obama Administration continues to deal with the consequential ethical issues of torture and military tribunals for prisoners detained abroad, reports Al-Jazeera.

Specifically, on the heels of President Obama's decision to close the Guantanamo Bay prison camp, both domestic and Arab media outlets question his motives, sincerity and future intentions, proving that the issue of torture is alive and well among bloggers and government officials alike.

Regarding his decision to close Gitmo, the news site conveys Obama's remarks that the camp "probably created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained." He rejects the assertion that such camps and their accompanying military tribunals for terrorists keep the country safe, arguing conversely that such systems alienate America in the world, "serve as a recruitment tool for terrorists, . . . risk the lives of our troops . . . and make it more likely our citizens will be mistreated if captured in battle."

Thus in the name of national security, President Obama is acting to reverse the very security policies put in place by the Bush Administration, thereby polarizing the political debates on torture, security and terrorist accountability.

Accordingly, the Pew Research Center Publications reports that online political commentary encompasses two main areas of debate, "Whether harsh interrogation techniques help keep the country safe; and whether President Obama should release photographs of [the] reported abuse of prisoners."

Currently the latter issue dominates social media, as Obama's decision not to release the photos of abused detainees provoked a backlash from both sides of the political blog aisle and showcased the disparity of opinion among democrats and republicans on the question of torture and security.

Many left-leaning bloggers were disappointed with his decision to withhold the photographs. The Pew Research Center noted that political commentator Poljunk criticized the Obama Administration on his blog as ". . . a sort of co-conspirator with the Bush Administration in an attempt to keep the truth in the dark."

At the same time, while conservative bloggers "felt the specific decision was the right one, . . . they criticized the White House for changing positions, or as it is often called, flip-flopping."

Rather than being guilty of hypocrisy, though, the Obama Administration appears to be trying to address the complexities of a national security policy that aims to maintain the moral high ground in the world at the same time that it supremely prioritizes US defense and safety.

Congress' stance on the issue only adds to the ironic position from which the White House is striving to distance itself when it comes to humanitarian standards and international cooperation with questionable governments.

Glenn Greenwald of Salon illuminates congressional incongruity in his discussion about Obama's civilian nuclear technology-sharing agreement between the US and the United Arab Emirates, which the Senate has yet to ratify.

In light of a recently disclosed video ". . . which shows a member of the UAE government's royal family torturing a man," Greenwald reports that senior US officials said that "lawmakers critical of the deal could use the video . . . to argue the United States should not have such nuclear cooperation with a country where the rule of law is not respected and human rights violations are tolerated."

Greenwald points out that in its reservations over cooperating with those tolerant of human rights violations (namely in situations of torture), the US Senate may finally be taking a stand on the issue of torture in general, choosing to maintain the moral high ground rather than relinquish it in the name of ultimate national security.

Judging from the media's coverage of the Obama Administration on this issue then, it appears that even with the White House taking steps to quell torture by its representatives abroad, it will have to proactively advertise its abjuration of harsh interrogation tactics through both word and deed.

Back to articles