They're looking forward at NPR, not backwards, Glenn. The column was written in the past, like the enhanced interrogation techniques and the OLC memos from Yoo and Bybee that greenlighted them and the orders from the President, Vice President and their Cabinet level officers and Guantanamo and the writ of habeas corpus and the presumption of innocence and the doctrine of separation of powers and the Rule of Law. All in the past.

Let's not bicker and argue over 'oo killed 'oo. And certainly not over what to call it all.

But thanks for trying.

There is something to the argument that increasing the risk to American personnel by disclosing the existing torture photos is more important than disclosing them.

But that is only because those who advocate disclosing the photos believe they could have an impact upon American conduct and accountability. This belief is solidly grounded in the assumption -- eminently reasonable under the Rule of Law -- that disclosure of illegal acts should and can lead to legal consequence for those illegal acts.

The only way to avoid the tautological recognition of the importance, under the Rule of Law, of the disclosure of illegal acts would actually be definitively to remove the "consequences".

If Obama were to announce that, under his administation, neither he nor the United States Department of Justice would start or permit the prosecution of any person proven to be associated with the illegalities depicted in the sequestered photographs, then and only then would it make sense not to risk retribution or animosity against Americans "due to" the release of the photos to public view. Under such circumstances, it would not make sense to release the photos at all, since no good could come from it.

Is that what Obama actually means? Of course, if he were to state his reasoning this directly, you would have to move to the next step of deciding whether the risk of animosity/retribution would just shift its locus to the definitive announcement that the United States simply refuses to prosecute admitted torture. Maybe that's not so good, either.

What's really going on was plainly stated by Obama in his most unrehearsed line in the recent press conference, where he responded to a reporter's question with "You guys work on a 24 hour news cycle; I don't." The only thing driving Obama's efforts undercutting civil rights (including the photos fiasco) is trying to figure out how to keep the amount of media exposure to a minimum so he can "focus" on his "other" agenda items. The photos might generate lots of flack, but the "story" about not having the photos public is at best fleeting and there's nothing new to talk about, whereas making them public would result in media attention to the photos, American and global attention to what to do about what the photos show, and right wing attention to the question of how to ignore and/or affirmatively do nothing about what the photos show.

Keeping this "in" the "news cycle" is the only way these issues are going to get any traction; it isn't like Congress is growing a spine as we watch. And asking Obama whether he weighs "secrecy" as more appropriate than "disclosure" is because he expressly refuses to allow "disclosure" to be followed by "application of the Rule of Law" seems like the last way to flush this out publicly.

in Minneapolis?

Oh, you bloggers.

Thank you for everything you do; I'll be honored to get PayPal to work and chip in.

Obama is holding a press conference today. Somebody in attendance, please act responsibly enough to ask Obama why he is not only tolerating, but actively seeking to expand upon, policies of the Bush administration that are openly unconstitutional and repressive.

Obama has demonstrated, and is demonstrating, that in his Administration he will continue to support any repressive Bush policy so long as he and his advisors think they will be able to weather any public objection in the news cycle, and that they would rather have a few "civil rights nuts" whine in the wilderness than risk raising the hackles of the fearmongers of the Right. And so far, it has been working for them. So far, Congress continues to demonstrate the virtually complete absence of constitutional responsibility and a wholsale continuance of congressional abdication of its role as providing a legislative check on a power-hungry Executive.

What's left, really, is the press and the news cycle. And it is indeed heartening to see the public displays of media responsibility reflected in the articles summarized by Glenn here today (Glenn can't do this all by himself, though thanks for leading).

Now make it mean something, Press. Bring it to the attention of the President of the United States that he is articulating and advocating positions on power, secrecy and war that don't just continue horrific abuses of Bush, they actually would expand those horrific abuses to whole new levels that even Bush did not seek to assert.

Obama has done some good things, to be sure. But his record of supporting perverse expansions of unconstitutional power grabs cannot be morally or legally justified by "because I'm getting away with it so I won't expend the energy to act responsibly".

Ask him today, in the press conference, about this part of his agenda. Somebody. Please. Maybe some intrepid journalist who believes the Press has a responsibility and a role to play in the functioning of America's democracy.