Why is it "thorny?" As other commenters have noted, the world did not end when the Abu Ghraib photos were released, revealing proof for the first time that the US was indeed torturing. Why the rush to assume that, in this case, the consequences would be so severe that we should change our laws?

The Abu Ghraib photos were essential because they exposed a specific administration's actions vis a vis torture.

We already now know that torture took place and we have had the accountability of our governors in both 2006 and more strongly in 2008.

The question is then what "information" do you think is being withheld here other than specifics?

What new piece of the puzzle do you really not know right now?

Do you get off on torture porn? Are you casting for Hostel III?

Obama has made a public statement as to these materials -- there is no hiding the thematic content of what is there. All that's being withheld is the visuals.

As the post states, the arguments for suppressing the photos are grounded in that same dangerous mindset: that our civil liberties were relics of a quaint, innocent "pre-9/11" world, and that we'll be in danger (or endangering The Troops) if we don't give the government more power to do things in secret.

Surely even you can see that.

Can't you?

No, because Obama has already outlawed everything that took place in the photos.

Surely you can see that. Can't you?

Obviously, doing Bad Policy A in secret and in violation of the law (as Bush did) is worse than doing Bad Policy A with the consent of Congress and out in the open (as Obama is doing), but they're both bad. Pointing that out -- and pointing out the similarities between Obama and Bush's policies -- is not to equate them. Someone who claims to disdain black-white reasoning shouldn't have difficulty understanding that.

Fair enough but this is not a minor distinction as it speaks to your core premises about the "rule of law."

Actions taken in the public sphere to legalize government procedure via the rule of law are so fundamentally different from the Bush approach that to even group them similarly, because both ultimately involve withholding information from the public, is ludicrous.

Regardless of outcome, you should celebrate Graham/Lieberman as the very "due process" you claim we lacked (rightly so) under Bush.

The Legislature is seeking to pass a law for the Executive Branch to act.

You, of all people, should see how far we've come in four short months, even if you abhor the law itself.

Actually, FOIA is fundamentally about accountability - it's how we the people find out about those violations of our laws! Do you really think that our government would appoint an independent prosecutor and hold trials without the pressure from the American people enabled by FOIA? How voracious would that government appointed prosecutor really be in pursuing justice?

But that's an inference, not a result. FOIA is about the release of information. That's it, from a legal perspective.

My point is that if we want accountability, we need an Independent Prosecutor. Releasing photos to "shame" the government, as Greenwald seems to want, is idiotic since we already know what's taken place due to the Abu Ghraib pictures, AND we've already had an election, to address the Supreme Court's point about FOIA.

So if Greenwald thinks FOIA is about "accountability" as per the 1978 Supreme Court comment on holding the governors accountable to the governed, then he has no argument.

The election was in November 2008, and the governors WERE held accountable.

It's like the difference between performing torture more or less as a rogue operation within a given administration, at the say-so of the President, and against operating law, and doing so with the explicit allowance of a law passed precisely to make the practice legal.

Which is the more damaging, and pernicious? I think there's an excellent argument that passing a law does infinitely more to normalize that which is deeply wrong.

This is a really strong point, frankly0, and well worth discussing. However, the fact the issues are being raised in public debate should at least mollify your concerns. Many odious laws have been "normalized," like Dredd-Scott, and subsequently changed after debate.

What is important to celebrate, and should be celebrated by the completely dispassionate and purely fact driven legal expert Glenn Greenwald, is that the discourse has moved from outright lying by our President to "protect us," with the implicit assumption that dark deeds were being done that we didn't want to know about, to a public debate about exactly how far the federal government can go.

This is to be applauded, whether or not Graham-Lieberman passes.

But to equate a public bill aimed at a specific tactic in the release of information with the Bush lies/coverups is nonsensical, and why Greenwald is a clown for drawing such inane and reductive false equivalencies.