Slashdot Mirror
AP Files FOIA Request For Bin Laden Photos
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.'"
No good will come of releasing the pix.
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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.
"You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
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.
Of course it's got nothing to do with making bucket loads of money from exploiting the photos. They are the Altruistic Press after all.
The president can just make this classified, and decide to make it unclassified in the future. The president's assertion that the images might inflame tensions and lead to lost lives is a valid one, an idea that the AP doesn't care about. So make the images classified for a specific period of time, and move on.
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
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.
"You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
"pledged to be the most transparent government in US history"
Failing this is just like losing a game on the tutorial level
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.
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.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
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.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
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.
Lets just get this out in the open: Obama ordered the execution of the guy.
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.
I suppose the Vatican's statement 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 [...]