The gain is people tend to remember when they actually see something like the photos from Abu Ghraib. Anyone who has seen them remembers them.
Originally Posted by SR_
It's the difference between being told about a car accident and actually seeing someone's head severed. One tends to remember the visual and that's what's needed.
It's needed because the average US citizen has to become so pissed off and outraged that it never, ever happens again. That's why Obama is concerned the pictures will cause anti US sentiment. That shows that just knowing is not the same as actually seeing.
If it was one isolated case, one sadistic prison guard, then I'd say they shouldn't be shown. But that's not the case. There was a policy of "enhanced interrogation". An acceptance of looking the other way.
Have you heard Cheney talk about water boarding during interviews? He had no problem with that, at all. It gives the impression he wouldn't have a problem with other things that most people would consider torture.
The things that happened and the frequency can not lead one to believe anything other than top people knew and either directed it or turned a blind eye to it. The people have to become outraged enough to ensure any successive government doesn't dare let that happen on their watch or they will be held responsible.
"May your reality be as pleasant as mine."