I’ve seen a surprising lack of newspaper commentary on President Obama’s decision to fight the release of photos from investigations of suspected abuses of U.S. captives.

After kicking the question around, we concluded that the release should be delayed for the safety of U.S. troops. We tend to be pretty sensitive about the military, especially our neighbors at Fort Lewis and McChord.

The New York Times editorial page, whose left knee (it doesn't have a right knee) usually twitches at a whisper of prisoner mistreatment, hasn’t yet said a word.

The Los Angeles Times, below, almost brushes off concerns about American personnel. The Washington Post (below below) seems tortured by the dilemma; it says the president’s argument is “compelling” yet concludes, almost in passing, that the photos “should be made public.”

Except for the “damn the torpedos” L.A. Times, the choice between troop safety and government transparency seems to have a lot of us tied up in knots.

Release the Torture Photos
The Los Angeles Times

The release of dozens of new, graphic images of detainees being abused by their American captors would almost certainly reignite international rage. It could lead to an angry backlash in the Middle East and to more jihadi recruits, as the Abu Ghraib photographs did in 2004. It could even lead to new outbursts of violence at a moment when the Obama administration was finally hoping to put the last eight ugly years behind us.

But the truth must come out. The Pentagon was right when it agreed last month to abide by a judge’s order and release the photos, in a case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union. And President Obama was wrong Wednesday when he reversed that position.

=> Read more!

A few comments on the “Electoral College Pact Bill” recently signed by Gov. Gregoire. In this statute, Washington state pledges its 11 Electoral College votes to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of how our state’s majority votes. The ebullient media have been quick to report that Washington now joins a “small but growing” compact of states including Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New Jersey that will allocate their 61 electoral votes this way. The backers aim to one day sign up an electoral majority (270 votes) to the "pact."

This process of getting states to pass statutes bolstering a democratic majority vote outcome is of course directly descended from Bush’s “stolen” 2000 Electoral College victory. 2000 was one of five (1800, 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000) elections where the majority vote winner did not win the Electoral College; no one is counting Kennedy’s 1960 popular vote “majority” or the five times (1860, 1912, 1948, 1968, 1992) the winner only got about 40 percent of the popular vote but won the Electoral College anyway.

Why try to eliminate the Electoral College by the complex and laborious process of individual state “pact” statutes? Because the only other way to do it is a constitutional amendment, and there is no way the required 75 percent of the states are going to approve such an amendment. The Electoral College is a mighty good deal for those states whose populations hover around 1 million to 2 million yet claim three to five electoral votes.

=> Read more!