AP Files FOIA Request For Bin Laden Photos 518
Hugh Pickens writes "The Atlantic reports that President Obama's decision to withhold the visual evidence of Osama bin Laden's death has created a fundamental disagreement between the White House and the Associated Press, one of the largest journalism organizations in the world, prompting the news organization to file a Freedom of Information Act request for the bin Laden photos. 'This information is important for the historical record,' says Michael Oreskes, senior managing editor at The Associated Press. 'That's our view.' AP's FOIA request includes a reminder of the president's campaign pledge and a plea to be more transparent than his predecessor. 'The Obama White House pledged to be the most transparent government in US history,' writes the AP, 'and to comply much more closely with the Freedom of Information Act than the Bush administration did.' The AP isn't alone in wanting more insight on the specifics of the raid. When it eventually surfaced that bin Laden was not killed in a firefight, his wife wasn't used as a human shield, there was no live footage of the event and the 'mansion' where he lived was only worth between $250,000 and $480,000, many became skeptical of the White House's narrative. Other organizations that have filed FOIAs include Politico, Fox News, Judicial Watch and Citizens United. Oreskes sympathizes with the president. 'This is obviously one of his most difficult decisions and we understand that.'"
stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
No good will come of releasing the pix.
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
National security exception (Score:5, Insightful)
Per Obama's original statement, the photos are not being released because the administration felt that they could be used to incite acts of revenge (terrorism) against the USA.
Sounds like a simple: "Request denied for national security reasons" answer is to be expected.
Transparent... (Score:3, Insightful)
This administration has been at least as opaque if not worse than the last administration.
The Obama White House cuts off access to news agencies that are critical of the Administration, the Press Secretary mocks questions and there are as many off the book meetings as the Bush administration was criticized for.
Altruistic Press (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, it's Classified. (Score:2, Insightful)
that didnt stop his staff from leaking (Score:4, Insightful)
every other damn detail about the damn mission including
1. the fact that a courier led them to his house
2. the CIA ahd been watching him
3. the helicopters are specially modified
4. they use hyperspectral imagers
5. the seal team was navy seal team six
6. they have given away the identities of some of the team member
7. they gave away the identity of the dog that was involved?????
8. they gave away details about NSA involvement in SIGINT
etc etc etc
Obama's staff is the "senior officials on condition of anonymity".
none of them gave a shit about national security when it made their man look good on TV.
but Obama has several whistleblowers &c. under prosecution right now for violation Espionage law (Drake, Sterling, Kim) for information far less important.
it makes no goddamn sense, at all. Obama needs to comply with FOIA law and stop pretending he is the fucking emperor who can decide willy nilly about state security
Re:that didnt stop his staff from leaking (Score:5, Insightful)
None of the things you listed can be put onto a poster and waved around during an angry protest. You can't martyr specially modified helicopters or the dog. At least try understand that much.
On the other hand, releasing the photo(s) will do nothing to stop the people who insist it's all a fraud from insisting it's a fraud. It will not convince anyone who isn't already satisfied with the reports.
If you can think of any positive result that can come from releasing them at this time, please share because I'm at a loss.
=Smidge=
Re:stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:that didnt stop his staff from leaking (Score:4, Insightful)
If you can think of any positive result that can come from releasing them at this time, please share because I'm at a loss.
Satisfaction at seeing the hated person bloodied up, I guess? Let's call it a Colosseum-Complex.
Re:Freedom of Information Act is defective (Score:5, Insightful)
This Freedom of Information Act is defective in my opinion because the burden of proof for harm [if any] is on the entity from which information is sought but not the party seeking the information.
In fact, the party that seeks information does not even have to say why or what they are going to use the information for. Absurd, isn't it?
Not at all. All government information is public information, unless there is a reason for it not to be. I don't need to say why I want public information, because it is public information. When asked, the government must say why it is withholding the information.
That is pretty simple.
Not too difficult (Score:4, Insightful)
"pledged to be the most transparent government in US history"
Failing this is just like losing a game on the tutorial level
Government should randomly hide information? (Score:2, Insightful)
You're essentially saying the government should hide information about news events for whimsical reasons.
If there's no national security secrets in the photos, they should be released. Then the people will decide whether any good has or hasn't come from releasing them. (And if there are secrets in the photos, crop the secrets out and release the rest.)
Not releasing the photos is yet another example of the paternalistic, elitist attitude of the Obama Administration. This time, they think they should decide what we see and don't see.
Re:National security exception (Score:5, Insightful)
And sometimes, those requests are denied for a good reason. This is one of them. As others pointed out, the benefit of releasing them is exactly zero. Tinfoil hatters will still cook up a hoax. Besides, Al Quaeda confirmed bin laden is dead.
What would the pictures tell you that you don't already know? That he was killed by three bullets, instead of two? That the bullets used were NATO spec, not US MIL spec? That he prefers his clothes in hot pink? That he bleeds red?
I still don't understand why everyone wants to see the pictures. No, "Because I want to" is not a good reason.
Re:Government should randomly hide information? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:hmm.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, I agree with laxguy's statement about partying in the streets. When the ragheads - AHEM - Muslims danced in the streets after 9/11, we frowned on them, and named them animals, or worse. Then we take out one of theirs, and we behave in the same manner.
Me? I feel satisfaction that one of our enemies has been put down - but singing and dancing? Crap - I don't have time for that childishness.
Re:Government should randomly hide information? (Score:1, Insightful)
If there's no national security secrets in the photos
You mean like the fact that the release of those pictures is almost certainly going to incite violence against the US and its citizens? Kind of the definition of 'risk to national security' don'tcha think?
I can see the argument that maybe the families of those who died should be allowed to view them, for closure but thats probably not good psychologically for them long term.
The reality of it is however nothing good will come from people viewing very disturbing pictures of the man with his head blown off. Anyone who 'must' see them needs psychological help rather a viewing of a guy missing half his skull. Its not like what you see on CSI with a nice pretty little round hole with a trickle of blood coming out of it. The only reason pretty much everyone making a stink about seeing these photos has to see them is just morbid curiosity.
An FOIA request will be denied for obvious reasons, its rather silly that AP even would consider pushing the issue.
Re:stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
No, I'm pretty sure this is a matter of "pics or it didn't happen".
And that's a very fair viewpoint, all things considered. The White House calls a press conference, says they did something they've been trying to do for nearly a decade, and provides no evidence whatsoever that they actually did. I'm inherently distrustful of anything the government says or does, but you don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to be skeptical on this one. Hell, at least with the moon landing, people saw a rocket go up.
Props to the AP.
Re:Government should randomly hide information? (Score:0, Insightful)
You guys really are a terrorized nation, aren't you?
Re:its not about positive, its about the law (Score:5, Insightful)
if the FOIA says they have to be released then they have to be released; the president does not have a choice. . . nobody is above the law.
Except that's not what the FOIA says. In fact, the FOIA has all kinds of exceptions that can be used to deny a FOIA request - all part of "the law."
personally i dont want to see the photos.
I don't want to see the photos either and I think a government decision to release them now would just be trophy waving of the lowest order. But I do fully support the AP's argument that they are of enormous historical significance. I'd be fine with them being declassified in ~10 years from now, preferably sooner if al qaeda's irrelevance continues to accelerate.
Re:stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that if you're skeptical of the government on this one, then a picture of a corpse won't help your skepticism one little bit, or at least it shouldn't. Thanks to Photoshop, the days of photos being reliable evidence are long gone. Really, anyone who seriously suspects that the government just made up the whole story to look good will be satisfied by nothing less than the opportunity to do their own DNA tests on the body, which according to the government isn't possible.
Ultimately, the proof will be if OBL shows up alive and well in the future or not. If he's not dead, I'm sure he'll be more than willing to announce the fact. If he doesn't pull a Mark Twain then he's obviously indisposed somewhere and in that case Occam's Razor kind of leads us to believe that it went down more or less the way the government says it did, rather than looking for crazy conspiracy theories.
Re:stupid (Score:2, Insightful)
I do not trust the government to tell the truth on matters this large. While I doubt bin Laden is alive, I doubt the official version of his death even more.
Re:Government should randomly hide information? (Score:5, Insightful)
You guys really are a terrorized nation, aren't you?
No. This is politics. The same 'national security' argument escaped these people when it came to Abu Ghraib photos, gitmo photos, civilian casualty photos, etc. They wanted everything exposed on the front page immediately and without exception. Any hesitation was an impeachable criminal act.
I'm watching Jon Stewart make bin Laden head shot jokes every night. Who are the cowboys now? It will be funny when these freshly minted chicken-hawks eventually see exactly what they're flaunting; a head blown apart with assault rifle rounds.
On that day there will be no memory of their joy at the AP.
Re:National security exception (Score:4, Insightful)
I still don't understand why everyone wants to see the pictures. No, "Because I want to" is not a good reason.
because they should be part of the public record of the event.
No, "Because I want to" is not a good reason.
neither is you being squeamish a reason to censor the truth of what happens in war from those whom a war is being fought in their name.
Re:stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it was entirely reasonable to doubt his citizen ship,
For certain values of 'reasonable'.
Re:Government should randomly hide information? (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean like the fact that the release of those pictures is almost certainly going to incite violence against the US and its citizens?
I think the assassination itself is what's going to do that, photos won't really make any difference.
Re:hmm.. (Score:5, Insightful)
When the ragheads - AHEM - Muslims danced in the streets after 9/11, we frowned on them, and named them animals, or worse. Then we take out one of theirs, and we behave in the same manner.
People who danced in the streets after 9/11, cheered the deaths of several thousand civilians.
People who danced in the streets after 5/2, cheered the death of a single self-proclaimed militant who has likely killed people personally, and on whose orders thousands of innocent people have died - which he never denied.
Feel the difference.
Re:stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
Put on trial for what, exactly? US law doesn't apply in Pakistan or Afghanistan or whatever fuckistan he happened to be in 10 years ago.
I think you've got it. There have been suggestions that the US had no court anywhere that ObL could have been tried. The obvious place is the ICJ/World Court in the Hague. But it's not clear what the charges might have been. It's likely that the US "had nothing on the guy" for the WTC attack, other than his publicly praising the people who did it, and that's not exactly a criminal act. (If it were, the US would've tried Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson for their infamous remarks on the topic. ;-) His other purported crimes were likely committed while he was outside the jurisdiction of the US, and probably outside of UN jurisdiction. So they had to "try him in the press", and then use extralegal means to punish him.
Of course, even if you believe that some sort of "justice" was done by sending in a gang of armed men to gun down the guy in his sleep, you might consider the obvious long-term effect of this. The US has been openly and loudly calling this "justice". This isn't being missed by people with similar desires in the rest of the world. Since the US government has effectively announced that killing someone without any sort of trial is "justice", we can expect that many others in the world are planning to bring the US to "justice" in a similar fashion. The US Government clearly approves of this method, so it can't logically complain if others follow its example, right?
This is not at all a hypothetical prospect. It would have been better for our future safety if he had been brought to trial and at least a pretense of a legal process had been made.
It was an execution (Score:3, Insightful)
The seals went in, took him unarmed, knelt him down in front of his family and shot him execution style in the head.
The reports from both the administration and the family members after the fact pretty much confirm this but the press have gone so far out of their way to dilute the facts it's almost silly.
If they release the photos, forensic analysts will look at them and immediately say: "That was at point blank range with a pistol from an elevated position" and the idea that somehow democrats are less evil than republicans will be ruined. This is what our government does. Accept it or stop voting for the 2 party system. They aren't even trying very hard to cover this up and it seems the majority of the country is just going right along with it.
I didn't want the guy to get away... but we are a nation of laws. We could have easily taken him alive and tried him and eventually executed him. It would have been a legal nightmare, it would have likely ended up in front of the supreme court. But it's what's just and what's right.
Re:that didnt stop his staff from leaking (Score:2, Insightful)
because each issue is different. this is where we have come? someone who sees that different problems require different solutions ;oscillate wildly' between issues.
How sad for you, being the bitch of a polarized media.
Re:stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
It's really a question of morals versus convenience isn't it? Yeah, capturing OBL would have been much more difficult than killing him, and I'm sure killing him wasn't an easy task. But isn't there a great quote somewhere about doing what is right instead of what is easy?
In killing OBL America has moved further away from the moral high ground that it once prided itself on.
Re:stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
I do not trust the government to tell the truth on matters this large. While I doubt bin Laden is alive, I doubt the official version of his death even more.
Let's see..... the US Government announces he is dead:
Obama Announces Death of Osama bin Laden [voanews.com]
The terrorist organization he headed announces he is dead:
Text: Al Qaeda statement confirming bin Laden's death [reuters.com]
The regional troublemaker with a strong intelligence agency and an avowed enemy of the US announces he was dead before the operation:
Iran's intelligence chief says bin Laden died long before the 'alleged raid' [usatoday.com]
Family members denounce his death:
My father's death was criminal and I may sue the U.S.: Bin Laden's son slams Al Qaeda leader's killing [dailymail.co.uk]
The locals are protesting his death:
Pakistani tribesmen protest [upi.com]
At this point, I think anyone doubting Bin Laden's death is about ready to star in their own personal Truman Show [imdb.com], and doesn't really need more news or photographs.... maybe a shrink or philosopher. Cogito ergo Bin Laden moritur. [suite101.com]
The looney bin [wsj.com] is getting crowded. Sanity: step 1 [popularmechanics.com], step 2 [nist.gov]....
Re:Government should randomly hide information? (Score:4, Insightful)
coward. we're supposed to cower in fear of these people?
That's the beauty of the Internet, isn't? It allows you to sit in your parent's basement (or whatever safe location you are in) and demand that other peoples' lives should be put at risk so that you can feel good. Meanwhile, the people who actually have to make these decisions are required to factor in other concerns besides their egos -- details like the safety of Americans living abroad, who might well be lynched if there is a backlash in response to their actions. They have to act like adults, not like children playing superhero. Remember the ~20 innocent UN workers who got lynched [latimes.com] in Afghanistan after Terry Jones made his oh-so-brave political statement by burning a Koran in Florida? What would you say to the next 20 innocents whose lives you could have spared but chose not to? "Sorry, your life is less important than my sense of justice"?
Re:stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
Well Al Quaeda said he's dead. Why would they admit this if they weren't certain it was true? The conspiracy theorists argue that they're hiding him, but a figurehead faking his death is no better than a dead figurehead to them, and if they had the chance to out the US government's lie with a dramatic demonstration of Bin Laden being alive, why wouldn't they? It would be like a hundred terrorist Christmases for Al Quaeda to release a video of Bin Laden holding today's newspaper, saying reports of his demise have been greatly exaggerated.
At this point those who deny Bin Laden's death are as nutty as climate change deniers, thinking there's a big cover-up in the face of a massive incentive to disprove the current theory.
Re:stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd be a more concerned if we actually collectively wrung our hands over the death of a madman who deliberately plotted and succeeded in smashing passenger airplanes into skyscrapers
I'm not bothered by his death. I'm bothered by the fact that his death was not carried out in accordance with the law that we supposedly hold as our highest principle. If OBL was a criminal, he should have been tried and executed. If he was an enemy combatant, he should have been treated according to the rules of war, and tried as a war criminal, and executed.
However, given how often we ignore our own laws, even when it's not particularly important, I'm not at all surprised that we ignored them in this case. I'm not even arguing that we shouldn't have ignored them. I'm just saying I wish we were a country that truly cared about the Rule of Law enough to at least be a little bothered by subverting it.
Re:It was an execution (Score:2, Insightful)
put your tinfoil back on. Just because he wasn't armed doesn't mean he didn't have a garage door opener wired to a lot of C-4 ... if I were him, I would have. However, being on the other end of the spectrum, yeah, if he reached for anything, I've got to assume it's a detonator and shoot. You'd be a fool to assume that Bin Ladin hadn't rehearsed for a raid.
Re:stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
So, in summary: It's not believable that Bin Laden was alive before, but everyone who says he is dead now is lying or wrong.
I'm forced to conclude either:
QED ... or you've discovered the paradox of "Quantum Bin Laden", the terrorist analog of Schrödinger's cat [wikipedia.org]
Christian Church statement... (Score:4, Insightful)
I suppose the Vatican's statement [catholicnewsagency.com] regarding Bin Laden's death is the only thing I liked from them in the past 10 years:
Faced with the death of a man, a Christian never rejoices [...]
Re:stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
It would have also shown Bin Laden to be the pathetic hateful little man he really is and probably convinced some of the more marginal extremist people in the world they are heading down the wrong path. Instead this event will harden those same people because they will see it as proof Americans are hypocrites that, when it suits them, just do whatever the hell they want
He may have been hateful, and maybe even pathetic, but little he was not (actually and figuratively). I urge you to find a good English translation of some of the tapes OBL released (you know the ones the news agencies wouldn't play?). While it may be fairly easy to ignore his message, what I think you will discover is that OBL could speak clearly, and his messages weren't the ramblings of a madman. Frankly, compared with the "they hate us for our way of life" BS coming from some of our politicians, I have to wonder if our politicians even watched the tapes.
That said, your right, the fact that we violated a half dozen international laws to assassinate someone who was the leader of a criminal organization rather than just arrest him, will reinforce the viewpoints held by a growing minority of people in the world. Especially, as more and more hard evidence comes out that he was actually unarmed, in bed with his wife.
The obvious danger of putting him on trial, is that the proceedings end up on live CNN and a significant number of people in the US discover the impedance mismatch between what he says, and what our politicians have been saying. Or it becomes a historical record like the Colin Powell speech. With him dead, the historical record can be easily controlled.