But, in this case, what he is doing may be wise. By forcing this seemingly unwinnable case to its final, irrefutable legal conclusion, Mr. Obama is, wittingly or unwittingly, doing more to destroy the Bushist legacy than he could by simple Presidential fiat.

Remember–this whole mess turns on the idea of an absolute, imperial Presidency and a law that is no more than what the President says it is.

If Mr. Obama simply brought the DoD to heal by exercising his power as commander-in-chief, the real issue would be obscured. The Republicans would try to make political hay of it and muddy the waters, as they have on Guantanamo funding. Then, later, when memories have dimmed, a future President could reverse Mr. Obama. The most pernicious claim of Bushism–the idea that the law is the simply the will of the President–would become established as a precedent. Obstruction of justice would become an inherent power of the Presidency, followed, no doubt, by torture.

But if an immensely popular President with a big Congressional majority makes a public spectacle of being dragged kicking and screaming into court, loses, and is forced to do something that he says he does not want to do, somethng that, he says, impinges on the inherent powers of his office, then a precedent is set. The President bows to the courts and the letter of the law. Not even the suspect wiggle room created by Gonzales et all remains. The linchpin of the whole shabby Bush structure is definitely judged to be so much smoke and mirrors.

This could be the beginning of something.

Your point about not conflating the groups of pictures is well taken, but your assumption that the rape and murder pictures are limited to just Abu Ghraib seems dubious. The overarching image that is emerging is not that this was a localized set of bad apples, but an overall approach to detention throughout the theater of operations.

If I had to bet, I’d bet on there being rape photos from beyond AG before I’d bet on them being limited to AG.

The rape and murder pictures AT Abu Ghraib that Taguba and Hersh and practically all of Congress knows about are NOT part of the ACLU FOIA release the White House now says it will fight.

It’s important not to conflate these sets of pictures in the public mind, because once the ACLU FOIA pictures are released (which I think we can reasonably expect to happen), and there’s no rape and no murder in them, the public will think, “Well that’s all there is, and that hysteria was about nothing.”

No one in an official capacity is mentioning the other Abu Ghraib pictures, but practically everyone on the internets is conflating those pictures with the ones the ACLU was suing for.

Not wise.

Keep the two sets of pictures separate.

As the Government has now determined that it will not seek certiorari of the Second Circuit’s decision, the Department of Defense is preparing to release the 21 photos at issue in the appeal and 23 other photos identified as responsive. In addition, the Government also is processing for release a substantial number of other images contained in Army CID reports that have been closed during the pendency of this case; these other images will be processed consistent with the Court’s previous rulings on responsive images in this case. The parties have reached an agreement that the Department of Defense will produce all the responsive images by May 28, 2009.

Emphasis added.

Shorter DOD: we’re giving up the 21 photos that were the specific subject of this legal action by the ACLU, as well as another 23 that are related. Also, there are lots of other photos that meet the same FOIA criteria, and we’ll work out what happens with them subject to the final judgment in this case.

Except, of course, that this letter was written before Obama decided to appeal the case to SCOTUS after all.

The rape photos exist, and by fighting the release of these 21+23 photos, the WH and DOD are trying to prevent the release of the “substantial number” of others — the ones the Telegraph quotes Taguba on.

When the Pentagon (and White House) “denies” the Telegraph report — as they will no doubt deny the Horton “confirmation” of the Telegraph report — they are denying that the pictures in question in the ACLU FOIA request that the Administration seeks to block release of show rape and murder.

They do not.

These are not the “other Abu Ghraib” pictures that Sy Hersh and others refer to. So far as I know, the Pentagon and Obama Administration aren’t saying anything about THOSE pictures, and I don’t know who has sued in Federal Court to obtain release of THOSE pictures.

When the ACLU requested pictures are released (as I’m fairly confident they will be) they will seem surprisingly tame. What’s in those pictures is described in this report:

http://www.pubrecord.org/tortu…..hheld.html

They show soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan holding guns to the heads of captives with bags over their heads, captives in “stress positions,” a dead native who is said to have launched a rocket propelled grenade at an observation tower, etc.

There are also apparently other pictures of similar forms of abuse taken elsewhere in Iraq and Afghanistan, and those other, similar, pictures may be part of the release that has been ordered by federal court.

But these are NOT the pictures of rape and murder from Abu Ghraib. And as far as I know, neither Obama nor the Pentagon has said anything about release of those pictures.