I've been reading all the chest-beating about Obama's perfidy in not releasing the torture photos and wondering why I seemed so alone. Sullivan was one of his harshest critics.
At first blush, and certainly after Obama's stance on trying the Bush admin torturemeisters, it seemed insupportable that the photos not be released. But the more I read, the more I wondered: what good would it do? It's like showing a jury gory photos of a murder victim; it serves no purpose but to inflame and not very subtly signal to the jury to go crazy on the perp.
I'm with Obama in believing that releasing the photos would certainly heighten the danger for our troops. And, aside from re-proving that we had indeed become a nation of torturers, why should the world witness anymore of our brutality or more degradation of our victims? After the Abu Ghraib photos, what's to be learned? Yes, it would hold those responsible just that much more responsible, but if you don't believe the obvious by now, no more photos will help, while certainly making us just that much more hated around the world. Those of us who are not ashamed by now never will be and those of us who are don't need our prurient interests satiated. Admitting to ourselves and the world the heinous things we've done is all that decency requires. It would be irresponsible to publish the photos when nothing can be gained by doing so; humbly admitting their existence is enough, as long as they're retained for use by a Truth Commission. By no means should our torture policy's architects escape justice. There, Obama and I part company.
Sullivan, to his credit, has again admitted to a change of heart. Or, more precisely, that blogging often requires one to admit when they've been too hasty: