Civil Liberities vs. National Secuirty? Seems to be a Common Theme

This Wednesday the class will hear about torture in the War on Terror during our perilous presentation (torturing of Guantanamo Bay detainees). The article which I have attached, is about this topic. Only it is about pictures being taken of the torturing and whether they should be released or not.

A few weeks ago in class we talked about the gay rights petitions that were being signed, and whether the names should be released. They were worried that those who signed the petition could be in some sort of danger to those who opposed their opinion. However, it isn't really the names on the petition, or in this case the people in the picture the government is worried about. In this case, the US government, is worried whether releasing the pictures will endanger Americans. Those who were taking the pictures would understand that if the pictures got out it could cause controversy about what they are doing. Not that that topic isn't already controversial enough.

There are two sides to every story though. One side is saying that if we release the photos of the torturing of the detainees it could endanger US civilians and soldiers. The other side (also within the US government) says that if we release them it will be helpful in the long run. Perhaps because then there won't be rumors flying around now that the knowledge that there are pictures is out. Or to show that we have nothing to hide, and will do what we (the US) has to in order to protect national security.

This topic is very complex, but lets think back to the petition example. In class we said those who signed should be proud of their belief and shouldn't be ashamed to publically back up their opinion. However, could it potentially endanger those who signed it? Is it constitutional?

Now, bring that back to the pictures. Do you think it is a constitutional right that the pictures should be released or is national security more important in this case than civil liberties?