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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:stupid (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, you have something of a point there. From my point of view, Binny Boy needed killing, no matter what. If he had waved a white flag, and crawled out of the compound praising America, and kissed every Seal's ass in sight, he still needed killing. I don't care if it was an ordered assasination, or he went down fighting. It just makes no difference.
But, IF - and I stress IF - Binny was shot down like a rabid dog, then the US should have announced it in just those terms. There's no need to pull punches, gloss over the truth, or to sugar coat it. Just tell the world, "We killed the bastard, end of story!"
Re: (Score:3)
I agree.
Shooting him like a rabid dog would make the Pres look even better to me.
I'd rather assassinate every tin-horn dictator and violent religious zealot on the planet than blow the leg off one innocent child.
Re: (Score:2)
In case my post was unclear, innocent children die when a war rages in their neighborhood. I like surgical assassinations more than full-scale war.
Re:stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:stupid (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been thinking about his a lot. There is a lot of issues that need to be thought about.
1) If in custody, I would wager al quaida would make at least one attempt to get him back, and hen could mean taking a shit load of hostages.
2) In custody he becomes a rallying point.
3) He would be a global political nightmare.
4) and several other i probably don't need to list.
OTOH, isn't a free nation of laws suppose to hold the law above all risks?
I really don't know. I will be mulling over it for a long time. I mean, emotional I was glad. But we need rational at time like these.
" 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"
I think that is incredibly naive. He would be a rallying point.
Re: (Score:3)
OTOH, isn't a free nation of laws suppose to hold the law above all risks?
That would be nice, wouldn't it? But given that we often ignore inconvenient laws, it's not very surprising that in a case like this where following the law is risky, we decided to embrace expediency. I wish we were a country that would at least have agonized over it a little, and maybe felt obligated to come up with justifications. But we're not.
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: (Score:3)
OTOH, isn't a free nation of laws suppose to hold the law above all risks?
What law did we break? I'm not trying to be snarky (no tilde, see?). I'm just not sure any laws were broken, other than perhaps Pakistani law. And there are even stories circulating now that we had some backroom deals to handle this sort of issue with Pakistan.
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: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.
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing on him? He was a conspirator to murder of almost 3000 people. Conspiracy to Commit Murder is a crime. Now he was outside of New York when he did the conspiring but the murders still took place in the United States. I don't know that New York has jurisdiction but a Federal Court certainly would. IANAL but this seems pretty clear.
I think on problem is that Conspiracy to Murder is not a real sexy crime to charge someone with how has been elevated to the same level of infamy of many of histories gr
Re: (Score:3)
The US has a perfectly adequate legal system to handle the likes of Bin Laden.... right here [defense.gov]. fact sheet [defense.gov]
US GRAND JURY INDIC [fas.org]
Re: (Score:3)
> the US government has effectively announced that ... ... at least a pretense
> killing someone without any sort of trial is "justice"
>
> It would have been better... if
> of a legal process had been made.
First off, a pretense at justice is not better than no pretense. Making no pretense is at least honest. False pretenses are cynical and corrupt, and they inspire no trust.
The point of a trial is two-fold. It obliges the government to prove the guilt of the defendant, and it allows the defen
Re: (Score:3)
A snatch & grab "gone wrong" - especially on someone else's sovereign territory - is easier to justify diplomatically and legally, than a hit squad.
Re: (Score:3)
Odds are he would have had a trial and then been killed anyway. Even if he didn't resist (which he probably did knowing the most certain outcome), likely it did pass the execs minds that having a trial and drawing it out could just make it dangerous terroristwise. Best if he just got shot in the raid. Not saying that is what happened, but I bet orders official or not were probably leaning in that direction.
Personally I think (and have been disgusted with the media and governments over the years), not a big
Re: (Score:3)
A jury is made up of 12 people too dumb or too lazy to get out of jury duty...
... is still smarter than the people who don't understand the importance of jury trials.
Re: (Score:3)
a picture would incite those who don't believe he is dead to do violence beyond of which they were going to try to do anyways.
Nothing good can come of releasing the photos.
What happened to... (Score:2)
"...and the truth will set you free"?
I mean, besides being taken up and distorted into a sort of a motto by CIA. [yang.id.au]
Re: (Score:3)
Re:stupid (Score:4, Interesting)
I refuse to live in fear of nebulous enemies. Show the photos.
Re: (Score:3)
I refuse to live in fear as well. That's why when so many of my rights get taken away in this whole "lions, tigers, and bears, OH MY" bullshit that "terrorizers" caused I get hugely upset.
My view is really really really simple. Two Options:
1) You take away my Constitutional Rights because we leave in fear and need the Government to protect us. Government needs to bypass or abridge my rights to provide me the peace, prosperity, and protection that my fear makes me agree to quite unfavorable terms under th
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Accidental" misspeaks such as "he was armed" (he wasnt) "he used his wife as a human shield" (he didnt) and "he was shot while firing back" (he was executed while unarmed as the US had no intention of taking him alive, as actually convicting him of anything based on evidence gained through torture would be...tricky)
The way they carried this out is a dark stain on US claims to be a civilised country.
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 decid
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh god, I certainly hope so... (Score:2)
The idea that the photos can be used by those who hate us to drum up support (i.e., LOOK what they did to Bin Laden!) for additional attacks on innocent people is not whimsical. A picture is worth a thousand words. You may not wish to believe it, but it is so.
I mean, other Sesame Street characters need their 15 minutes in the political spotlight. Not just Bert [ucsb.edu] and Elmo. [wonkette.com]
My money is on Oscar.
Re: (Score:3)
An FOIA request will be denied for obvious reasons, its rather silly that AP even would consider pushing the issue.
That's bullshit. Just because they will probably lose doesn't mean they shouldn't try. Their point that the photos document an event of enormous historical significance is 100% on the mark. That doesn't mean there aren't other factors involved, but as far as a news reporting organization is concerned, historical significance trumps just about everything else. They wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't try every means at their disposal to acquire the photos for publication.
I just wish they were more
Re: (Score:3)
Their point that the photos document an event of enormous historical significance is 100% on the mark.
Then they can wait a bit. History will still be around. Give it a year or so when all of the dust has settled and the Middle East is upset about something else. Historical photographs don't have to be released on the same time line as editorial photographs and in fact are often delayed for years.
Re: (Score:3)
You mean like the fact that the release of those pictures is almost certainly going to incite violence against the US and its citizens?
you mean like how they march in the streets over there carrying signs with violent anti-US sentiments? how many videos exist of americans being decapitated?
Kind of the definition of 'risk to national security' don'tcha think?
coward. we're supposed to cower in fear of these people? the citizenry should be exposed to the results of war.. we shield them from it too much because it benefits politicians' careers to have a whitewashed presentation. why? because abstract violence is far less likely to cause a loss of support than the gritty details. people bitch about an ignorant
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: (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: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: (Score:3)
What *are* you talking about? A hate crime is committing a crime against someone because of *who they are*, not what they have done. I beat you up because you are Muslim or Jewish, for example.
The distinction between taking action based on evidence and taking action not based on evidence has *fuck all* to do with hate crime.
Re: (Score:3)
How do we even know he is dead? The proven liars have said they verified it themselves, then destroyed the body without allowing anyone else to access it. Would it have hurt to have MI-6 or others access to the body for
Re: (Score:3)
Why is it that paranoid conspiracy theorists ("conspiracies" obviously exist, they're just not likely as widespread and all-encompasing as the above group likes to think) always have to make such definitive statements they have little evidence for?
So you are saying that they had a very good reason for banning our allies from seeing the body? If not, then you are agreeing with me, but being an ass about it.
I'm not saying there is a conspiracy, I'm saying that the government is working very hard to make it look like there is one. Whether it's because there was one or because they are just incompetent, we'll never know. There are tons of things they could have done differently to not make it look like it was a conspiracy. But apparently pointing ou
Re: (Score:3)
Your words:
The only reason to deny them access is if you were lying about it.
Emphasis "only". That seems pretty definitive to me. And they didn't ban anyone from seeing the body exactly, just disposed of it once it was verified and had no more value except as a propaganda tool of dubious and likely backfiring usefulness (according to them- I personally believe it was taken to a secret base for the purposes of Project Zombie Jihad).
I actually do hope they rele
Re: (Score:3)
I do understand the government's side.
I assume photos exist, or it really doesn't matter.
If we do release the photos immediately...
Part of the American public will be happy.
Part will be outraged. By American law, he has the right to due process. That should not be ignored regardless of the crimes.
Part will think it's just morbid to celebrate the death of anyone, and gratuitous violent pictures are not necessary.
Isl
Check out that "Daily Caller" Link (Score:3)
Whoah! SIXTEEN tracking cookies?
I wouldn't ask that from a baker!
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a question of if it happened. It's a matter of closure.
Re: (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
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: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:4, Insightful)
I think it was entirely reasonable to doubt his citizen ship,
For certain values of 'reasonable'.
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: (Score:3)
Knowing Osama bin Laden, he would be releasing a video proving the announcement of his death as a lie (proving the video was new by mentioning the date of said death) in order to destroy the credibility of the U.S. The fact that he hasn't done so should be proof enough that he can't.
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]
Re: (Score:3)
One can't help but wonder if what they really have on those picks looks something like [laogai.org] this [documentingreality.com] (NSFW and all that).
I'm not viewing those pics, but you were right on the money that Osama's head was badly messed up:
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/05/11/congress.bin.laden.photos/index.html [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
9 November 2001. Thanks to J. Orlin Grabbe
November 8, 2001 When Osama Bin Ladin Was Tim Osman
By J. Orlin Grabbe
The two men headed to the Hilton Hotel in Sherman Oaks, California in the late Spring of 1986 were on their way to meet representatives of the mujahadeen, the Afghan fighters resisting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
One of the two, Ted Gunderson, had had a distinguished career in the FBI, serving as some sort of supervisor over Special A
Nice straw man there... (Score:3)
Did you make it yourself or did an adult help you with it?
Here's a hint.
Bin Laden photo - a historical document/photographic evidence.
Mohammed cartoon depicting him as a pedophile - deliberate provocation through use "loaded" religious material.
Sorta like making a cartoon depicting Jesus and Judas french kissing.
Or a cartoon depicting all that incestuous sex among Adam and Eve's children.
Or how about that one with the current pope as a pimp of children prostitutes AND a child pornographer.
"Suffer the little
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.
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: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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If a photo produces satisfaction then you must only sit in your parents basement and download porn instead of making some yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
This does not help the rest of the worlds image of Americans though. I found the pictures of you all cheering at someones death kind of disturbing. I am very glad he was shot (captured would have been fine too though) but I just find the idea of cheering at someone else's death distasteful.
Re: (Score:2)
None of the things you listed can be put onto a poster and waved around during an angry protest.
But most of them sound great on the campaign trail.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
he could release them in a redacted format (Score:3)
in fact, if you dig through old files on the CIA FOIA website, you will find precisely this.
there are photographs on that site where portions of the photograph have been redacted.
the government secrecy thing has gone way, way, way beyond where Congress ever intended it to go.
Re: (Score:3)
"I'm bombing the ammunition depot at Daquiri tomorrow morning. We're coming in from the North, under their radar."
"When will you be back?"
"I can't tell you. Classified."
Re: (Score:2)
1. No shit. All breaks start with following people around.
2. Ya think?????
3. That wasn't released by the White House. That was picked up by looking at pictures coming from third parties.
4. Umm. ya think they use the latest available toys? FYI, kids on the street in Baghdad thought that the sunglasses of army grunts where "hyper-spectral imagers".
5. What difference does that make? Just adds flavor.
6. Source please. Unless you think publicly available info about where they're stationed is the same as giving a
Re: (Score:3)
"Obama needs to comply with FOIA law"
In this instance, the administration is fully compliant with FOIA since it contains an exemption for national defense.
"and stop pretending he is the fucking emperor who can decide willy nilly about state security."
Deciding matters of national security is what was elected for. Stop pretending that Obama is somehow doing something egregious, it's a totally ahistorical perspective. Perhaps somewhere on this earth is a nation where there are no secrets and everything is up
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: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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
A Google search [google.com] provides other locations.
I wouldn't count on anything coming out.
Re: (Score:2)
The Obama White House cuts off access to news agencies that are critical of the Administration
Like which ones? The only one I was aware of was the "news" agency that blatantly makes up it's own "news", and went to court in order to win the right to lie in it's "news"casts.
Altruistic Press (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, it's Classified. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
One can only hope bin laden is alive... (Score:3)
OTOH, I wouldn't be surprised if the death photos show up closer to (re)election time, if the administration thinks it will help the campaign.
Was he captured (Score:4, Interesting)
I have a lingering thought though that he might have been captured alive and not killed.
Personally, I don't really care what happened to Bin Laden. I hope he's dead but I'm not going to dwell on the conspiracies. I only think that the USA took care of him in a way they saw fit.
But, there's been pictures of the dead infamous throughout history killers, dictators, criminals, war lords, blah blah I think they weren't concerned with releasing photos of Saddam dead. Though there could have equally been 'security' concerns over that one too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The thing is the only body US troops took out of the compound was Bin Laden's. Every other survivor, was left behind for the pakistani's. They are the ones saying yes Bin Laden was present, and yes he was dragged out with holes in his head.
Strange bedfellows, those are... (Score:2)
Of course, we all know what they really want out of this, and it doesn't come down to "the truth".
Re: (Score:2)
Now they are joining forces?
It's like some kind of hideous, journalistic Voltron.
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
Live Footage (Score:3)
If there was no live footage, it would have been a calculated decision, IMHO. Perhaps based on the fallout anticipated from AP, next of kin, the rest of the world or whatever. Either that, or there was live footage, I myself wonder what Hillary Clinton was so upset about as she covered her mouth. If that's the case then we have the denial of such video. At least at this point. 50 years down the road disclosure might be different.
Those more knowledgeable perhaps can chime in as to whether or not an operation is typically recorded on video. (I do understand, this was not your "typical" operation.)
I don't think a photo is necessary. (Score:3)
The facts of the raid possibly are relevant but that could easily be a "national security matter" although I would call it a trade secret.
You have to prove to me the relevancy of releasing this dead mans photo. I think it would be bad taste no matter who he was. Photos of the dead have long been thought to be desecration.
What I think the AP could pursue is getting interviews of people involved and facts reveled in private under confidentiality for historical release later. Something like this should remain private no more than ten years.
I'm sick of this! (Score:3)
The America Government isn't scared about any threats that releasing these photos may attract from foreign threats.
Your Government is scared of setting a precedent of being a truly open republic that allows the citizens to open their minds and come to their own conclusions.
Those in power would rather make the public live in fear thinking that your Government is doing anything, and everything in it's power to protect your borders when in reality it's stripping away your freedoms that you've fought so hard to establish.
American citizens need to wake up to the truth. The Government thinks it's own citizens are the threat, and you don't need to look too far to confirm this behaviour with the wire tapping, surveillance, border security, fear mongering and public deceit.
Wake up America. The world is getting sick of watching your own Government surpress everything that your constitution stands for.
I Expect the Problem Is (Score:3)
only worth between $250,000 and $480,000? (Score:3)
only worth between $250,000 and $480,000
dude...in pakistan...that's like Hugh Hufner's mansion.
According to wiki, the minimum wage in pakistan is roughly ~US$ $82.4 per month. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_law#Pakistan)
To put that into perspective....between roughly 253 years to 485 years or if u use the Gross National Income (GNI) per capita, 250 years to 480 years.
Pakistan's GNI is $1000 while the US is $46,360.
more info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNI_per_capita [wikipedia.org]
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/south-asia/pakistans-per-capita-income-rises-to-1027_10050970.html [thaindian.com]
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:It was an execution (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm going to have to call bullshit on that. Despite what you might see on NCIS, you cannot tell all of that from a photo of a dead man. You need a lot more forensic evidence than that to determine that the individual was shot from an elevate position rather than just coincidentally with a similar angle. Even just a simple angle, is really tough to tell just by looking at a photo without having several more with which to compare it.
Yes, there was an incredibly high barrier to him surrendering, but unless you've got actual evidence to support the accusation, you really shouldn't be spreading conspiracy theories.
Re: (Score:3)
I haven't read this anywhere. Citation? I'm not saying you're making it up, or that I'd even doubt it, but you're claiming that 'reports' are saying one thing and 'press' have said another, which seems a
Release them, but not right away (Score:3)
Scott Horton finds middle ground [harpers.org]:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is a difference between being terrorized by a fire ant hill and running away screaming versus pulling my pants down and sticking my dick in it.
I do neither of those things, and because of that I'm not a terrorist.
Re: (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: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.
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: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.
Re: (Score:2)
Not absurd. FOIA was created on the basis that people have the right to know. To that end the burden should be on the person trying to hide or cover up information.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Speaking of bullshit logic....
The official excuse for the quick burial at sea was so there couldn't be a Bin Laden martyr shrine. However, there are innumerable shrines around the world built around the flimsiest of relics such as a cup the martyr drank from once, or a shred of cloth the martyr supposedly had touched. A body is simply not necessary for a martyr's shrine. If anyone wants a Bin Laden shrine it won't take long before it's built.
We do know for a fact that Bin Laden may or may not be dead. Same