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.'"

Comments

stupid

[Black Parrot]

No good will come of releasing the pix.

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

Re:stupid

[x*yy*x]

And exactly why not release them? You mean not good will come for US if, for example, it turns out they just killed him for the sake of it? That's some double morality right there.

Re:stupid

[cheeks5965]

how would the pictures show in what context obl was killed? i think they show him with a hole in his head.

Re:stupid

[Runaway1956]

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:stupid

[X0563511]

It's not a question of if it happened. It's a matter of closure.

Re:stupid

[peragrin]

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.

Re:stupid

[clang_jangle]

I actually wonder if there ever was such a person as ObL.

Re:stupid

[flyneye]

Well let's see... I, as others, paid for that Kodak moment.
                                                This is the 21st century and middle school children can tell me more about the "Faces of Death" movie series than anyone over 30 I know.
                                                Don't wanna see? Don't look! Peekey ,Peekey! It's a car wreck and any being with a primal ancestor wants to gawk. Now take your goody-two-shoes-censorcrat bullshit act down the road there, buddy!

Re:stupid

[Firehed]

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:stupid

[flaming error]

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:stupid

[flaming error]

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

[similar_name]

You're missing the point. Obama released his long form birth certificate. There has to be something else now to latch on to. Bin Laden's kill photos are the obvious choice. What else is the media supposed to talk about with everything else going so well in America?

Re:stupid

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

When Osama Bin Ladin Was Tim Osman

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 Agents in the early 60s, as head of the Dallas field office from 1973-75, and as head of the Los Angeles field office from 1977-1979. He retired to become an investigator for, among others, well-known attorney F. Lee Bailey. And all along the way, Gunderson, whether or not actually a CIA contract agent, had been around to provide services to various CIA and National Security Council operations, as he was doing now.

In more recent years Gunderson was to become controversial for his investigations into child prostitution rings, after he became convinced of the innocence of an Army medical doctor named Jeffrey McDonald, who had been convicted of the murder of his wife and three young children in the 1970s. This has led to various attempts by the patrons and operators of the child prostitution industry to smear Gunderson's reputation.

Michael Riconosciuto was there to discuss assisting the mujahadeen with MANPADs--Man Portable Air Defense Systems. Stinger missiles were one possibility. If the U.S. would permit their export, Riconosciuto could modify the Stinger's electronics, so the guided missile would still be effective against Soviet aircraft, but would not be a threat to U.S. or NATO forces.

But Riconosciuto had another idea. Through his connections with the Chinese industrial and military group Norinco, he could obtain the basic components for the unassembled Chinese 107 MM rocket system. These could be reconfigured into a man-portable, shoulder-fired, anti-aircraft guided missile sytem, and produced in Pakistan at a facility called the Pakistan Ordinance Works. The mujahadeen would then have a lethal weapon against Soviet helicopter, observation, and transport aircraft.

Riconosciuto was more than just an expert on missile electronics; he was also an expert on electronic computers and associated subjects such as cryptology (see my "Michael Riconosciuto on Encryption").

Riconosciuto was a prodigy who had grown up in the spook community. The Riconosciuto family had once run Hercules, California, as a company town. In the early days (1861) a company called California Powder Works had been established in Santa Cruz, CA. It later purchased land on San Pablo Bay, and in 1881 started producing dynamite, locating buildings in gullies and ravines for safety purposes. A particularly potent type of black powder was named "Hercules Powder", which gave the name to the town of Hercules, formally incorporated in 1900. In World War I, Hercules became the largest producer of TNT in the U.S. Hercules, however, had gotten out of the explosives business by 1940 when an anhydrous ammonia plant was constructed. In 1959 Hercules began a new manufacturing facility to produce methanol, formaldehyde, and urea formaldehyde. In 1966 the plant was sold to Valley Nitrogen Producers. Labor problems led to a plant closure in 1977. In 1979 the plant and site was purchased by a group of investors calling themselves Hercules Properties, Ltd.

However, Michael and his father Marshall Riconosciuto, a friend of Richard Nixon, continued to run the Hercules Research Corporation. In the early 1980s Michael also served as the Director of Research for a joint venture between the Wackenhut Corporation of Coral Gables, Florida, and the Cabazon Band of Indians in Indio, Calif

Re:stupid

[MMORG]

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

[Stormthirst]

If bin Laden were alive, he'd have been the first to discredit America. He'd have been all over the news with a dated newspaper in his hands.

But even Al-Quada have said he's dead.

Be distrustful all you like. Doesn't mean they aren't telling the truth.

Re:stupid

[digitalchinky]

They left a few chunks of evidence they were there though, minor odds and ends like a secret helicopter tail rotor assembly. Right you are though, pics or it just did not happen. (Even if it did) :-)

Re:stupid

[AK Marc]

The point is that everything in the official US press release was false. Why? The world will begin wondering about the circumstances. If their first account was false, how many other times will they lie to us about it? Why wouldn't they release the photos, if not as part of a cover-up?

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 confirmation? The only reason to deny them access is if you were lying about it. And the US has already been proven to have lied about it.

Asking for the pictures is a simple question caused by the US's bungle. If the initial account were accurate, then there would have been less demand for the extra confirmation. As it is, the number of people questioning what happened and whether Osama was really there and killed in the raid are increasing as the proof of US duplicity in this increases. And it's not like anyone can check the body, as it was already disposed of.

Re:stupid

[revscat]

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:stupid

[revscat]

I refuse to live in fear of nebulous enemies. Show the photos.

Re:stupid

[Pikoro]

"Dodge this"

Re:stupid

[peragrin]

How about dealing with the real problems we face instead of ignoring them until they fail.

Or maybe I am being too optimistic about the next 20 years. We are entering an era when our parents spent all the money they had supposedly saved, took extra a second and third mortgage on everything and now what to retire and leave us with all the bills, and demand that we pay them the money they spent earlier.

Re:stupid

[epyT-R]

I'm having a hard time figuring out what parts are sarcasm and what parts aren't. if you're saying these people should be feared and obeyed because they're nuts, then I disagree. that's what the europeans are doing, well at least some of the countries in the EU. if you're being entirely sarcastic, then it's a great post! As far as I'm concerned, free speech is paramount. it's the only way the truth won't get covered up by all the bs.

Re:stupid

[DarkOx]

I am sorry but what you describe is a pretty basic example of expression. Its down right fundamental to the concept of free speech that someone be able to create an others interested in looking at it such a cartoon. If you actually think it would appropriate for our government to censor that we might as well not have a first amendment.

I would also be apportionment for Muslims to voice their displeasure as long as they do it in way that is not harmful to the person or property of others. As a Christian I don't look to fondly on "Piss Christ" personally, suspending the sacred symbol of my faith in urine does not evoke good feelings in me but I recognize the artist has a right to express himself, even if I won't be buying a print.

Re:stupid

[cavreader]

Someone wasted a lot of time putting together this BS. And I'm wasting time responding. If everything in this missive is true why is it not on the front page of news papers around the world? Surely at least one or two journalist reading this would take the time to verify everything mentioned here and waste no time releasing the findings. The US government is not competent enough to successfully keep secrets of this magnitude. In this case and the 9/11 case there are just too many people involved to cover up incidents of this involved. There is a limit on how many people the government can pay off or threaten to keep their mouths shut.The President would not have announced this action the way he did if there was even the slightest chance that someone can could provide contrary information.

Re:stupid

[captain_sweatpants]

I agree with you about surgical strikes on corrupt leaders. However in this case there was no need for the assassination. Bin Laden could have been captured and put on trial. They could have done it in Texas so he'd be killed afterwards anyway. This would have actually been great PR for the west to show that we are actually serious about being nations of laws and due process. 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

Re:stupid

[paiute]

I think it was entirely reasonable to doubt his citizen ship,

For certain values of 'reasonable'.

Re:stupid

[ezzzD55J]

Grow up.

Re:stupid

[JWSmythe]

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.
   

Islamic extremists, especially Taliban members, will see the gratuitous display of violence against one of theirs as a motivating factor in reprisals.

    If we wait a while (say a year or so), most likely the emotional responses are going to be lower. It will be a matter of historical record, rather than a current event.

    As someone else said, it will probably be released "around campaign time". Well, that's probably true. An immediate release is in no one's best interest. A campaign-time release is going to be seen as a campaign ploy. The best thing he can do (IMHO) is to sign an executive order stating that the pictures will be released on a particular date in the future (about a year or so from now), possibly putting it in a 3rd party escrow, where it can't be seen until that date comes. That date would be best *after* the campaign season is done, and the election is finished. That way, it's not a campaign ploy. It doesn't add significant danger to the public, and we do know it will be released.

Re:stupid

[shutdown -p now]

The real question isn't whether he is dead, it's whether he was really killed when, where and how the Obama administration says he was.

Re:stupid

[shutdown -p now]

Per TFA, the administration backtracked on the claim that he was "shot in the face":

On Wednesday, after White House spokesman Jay Carney said the photographs show that bin Laden was shot in the face, he quickly backtracked, saying “he was shot above the neck. Let’s say that.”

Who knows, maybe on the photos they had, he has a hole in the back of the skull and hands tied?

Re:stupid

[stealth_finger]

If they had been consistent and convincing people might actually believe a word they said. A tenner says the pictures show some one who was tortured to death, probably a while ago.

Re:stupid

[RobertLTux]

2 reasons they did not bother to capture him and put him on trial

1 massive security risk in doing the trial (what if he breaks out or something)

2 there is a 99.99999% chance that he would have "not survived capture"

Re:stupid

[Fractal Dice]

What exactly are you expecting to get from a bloody photo? It's done, it's over. Why not let it go and get on with your life? (I have no doubt that you'll eventually win, that this will become a stupid partisan show-me-the-birth-certificate issue, force the issue and the world will be a worse place for it)

Re:stupid

[Colourspace]

UID of 137 and marked troll? Man, you must be new here.

Re:stupid

[geekoid]

If we didn't kill him, he would be on the news with todays paper making a fool out of the president.

" I'm inherently distrustful of anything the government says or does,"

well then pics won't matter, will they? you've already traveled down into the government is wrong all the time path, so any evidence contrary to that will be pattern away into some stupid ass conspiracy.

you aren't skeptical you are distrustful to the point where you aren't using logic. Skeptics you logic and reason, not emotional arguments.

Re:stupid

[geekoid]

In what way would they kill him that they would need to lie about it?

I fully expected some of the information to be wrong. The administration had to get on air before any full debriefing could have happened.
Even then, some politician leaked the information before the president spoke.

Re:stupid

[geekoid]

Or maybe the didn't get a 100% accurate briefing so soon after the event?
Or maybe people should stop nitpicking accidental misspeaks and anomaly hunting?

Re:stupid

[shutdown -p now]

The original story was that he died in some kind of defiant last stand, guns blazing.

Then it turned out there were no guns - he was unarmed.

Then it turned out that he wasn't shot in the head, but "above the neck, and let's leave it at that".

One can't help but wonder if what they really have on those picks looks something like this (NSFW and all that).

Personally I don't care all that much how he got killed (though I think that they should have captured him alive if possible for pragmatical reasons). But this would really help the propaganda efforts of his associates if he died that way.

Re:stupid

[geekoid]

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:stupid

[JWSmythe]

You know, I kind of question that one too...

    I do believe he is dead, and they did take a DNA sample, and then give him a burial at sea. But what are the other options?

    His demise...

    There were news reports of his capture a couple years ago. He could have been detained the whole time. No all Al-Qaeda members would know where he was, and not all have contact with him at the same time. He could have been captured for a significant period and only a handful of people would have known.

    There were news reports of his failing health. He may have died of natural causes.

    And finally the Obama assertions that we killed him, in his pajamas, unarmed, in a compound very close to a military base. That sounds funny.

    Verification of his death...

    Obama said DNA was taken. He said it was verified with a family member. We don't know when that sample was taken, or where it was taken. It could have been taken from his dead body after we executed him (the Obama story).

    It could have been taken from a sample at a hospital (he was ill, and did receive hospital treatment).

    It could have been taken from him in custody (if he was).

    His body could have been transported *to* that house for collection. That's an added logistics headache though.

    His burial..

    Assuming the first two are true, which it seems we all agree to, he could have been buried anywhere. Burial at sea has the disadvantage that no one can go back and verify anything. But, burial at sea also means there is no grave for people to go to, pray over, piss on, or whatever they may want to do.

    I'll stick with believing the provided facts, unless new evidence turns up at a later date. I kind of doubt much will. They couldn't have asked for a more controlled scene.

Re:stupid

[jc42]

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:stupid

[geekoid]

"The point is that everything in the official US press release was false"
incorrect is more correct.
I said it after the announcement, there were going to be incorrect pieces. There isn't a way for a full and accurate debriefing to happen. Had this been a fake, they would have time to prepare all the facts before hand.

There are onlt 2 groups the require extra confirmation

1) Conspiracy loons.
2) People who will make money by splashing his face all over their media.

There isn't any controversy, no doubt, and plenty of confirmation.

Re:stupid

[swillden]

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

[EdIII]

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 the most liberal interpretation of the word duress.

2) You NUKE THE FUCKING BASTARDS.

I'll take two please.

Of course, we don't have to go nuclear. At the same time we did not need to spend a trillion and create new billionaires in our decade long war against a nebulous enemy either.

My view is always fight, fight, fight, and then fight some more before we give up the rights that our country's founders went through hell to get for us. You can say whatever you want about conspiracy theories, blah, blah, blah. The ideals and philosophy behind what American's considered Freedom for most of our existence as a country are pretty universal human desires. White, slave owning, tax dodgers they might have been, but that did not make some of their statements any less valid or profound.

Good can come of the photos. However, what would have been better is the BODY. I would have had that body in front of the UN for multiple independent parties (including Iran and North Korea) to take samples from to compare them against Bin Laden's known living relatives. I would have even, with compassion and respect, flown the body back to Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia to be buried in Islamic traditions.

Right now I think the whole thing is suspicious and bullshit.

Pakistan is going through some major shit right now because the US barged in and engaged in a firefight, killed a bunch of people, and "took" a body out of Pakistan. They are not entirely wrong to feel that way either, but I still say fuck em, because for nearly a decade we have felt that Bin Laden was basically granted asylum in Pakistan.

So why is that there is so little information, we have only the government to trust (Wikileaks amongst other events has greatly tarnished their credibility), and the body is BURIED AT FUCKING SEA.

How nice and tidy is that? No exhumations possible. No investigations. No more forensic data collection by any parties whatsoever. The body is now in the OCEAN, and as we sit here on Slashdot, being eaten or at some level of decomposition. Good luck finding the body or any evidence now.

If they took his body and handed it over to Saudi Arabia I would have been more impressed with the credibility. Better yet, Jordan. Just to have a country other than the US in possession would be huge. Give it to the Norwegians for fucks sake or the French. Literally any other place than US custody or the oceans. Kim Jong with his hilarious sunglasses would have been a better choice.

Government transparency and change under Obama? My ass. Full disclosure here, I am not affiliated with any political party. Obama has been a complete let down for what it important to me, which is our rights, punishing those responsible for the economic collapse, and restoring our Freedoms taken from us.

So now the "transparency and change" king of the US has handed us a nice, neat, FINAL, unarguable declaration of Bin Laden's death with nothing but the word of the US government and the President. No real evidence or participation of our allies.

Hmmmmmmmmm..... No reason to be skeptical at all or ask for photos. Which photos will be the only thing you can get at this point if you were lucky.

Of course.... there is absolutely no political or strategic gain to announce Bin Laden's death at this point at all.

Re:stupid

[drsmithy]

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!"

A snatch & grab "gone wrong" - especially on someone else's sovereign territory - is easier to justify diplomatically and legally, than a hit squad.

Re:stupid

[tautog]

A jury is made up of 12 people too dumb or too lazy to get out of jury duty...

Re:stupid

[AK Marc]

When the US has information that could ensure no mainstream credibility for the conspiracy loons, but refuses to provide it, one must question why. And the pictures aren't the only way of satisfying it, but they are the easiest.

Of course the US has bungled many other similar things, like UFO programs, so I'm not attributing it to malice. I'm just pointing out that their complete incompetence in this is absurd. To pretend they are trying to not cater to the conspiracy theorists is also insulting, given that the same people just released another birth certificate to placate the conspiracy theorists.

Re:stupid

[Jeremi]

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:stupid

[Jeremi]

. And there may be as many as 100,000,000 of them (10% of all Muslims). That is not Nebulous

I don't know, "there may be as many as" sounds pretty nebulous to me. It includes any number between zero and 100 million (the latter a number that sounds awfully like it was made up by you, or by someone with an interest in controlling you through fear).

Re:stupid

[c0lo]

p>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!"

What do you mean? That the "bring him to justice" and "justice has been done" is Obama's BS?

And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice.

And on nights like this one, we can say to those families who have lost loved ones to al Qaeda's terror, justice has been done.

If positive, then it's refreshing to see that no quite everyone agree that assasination (justified or not) is what the american people consider (or should consider) "their pursuit to justice". In other words: present it as an act of war, assasination, whatever, but don't sell it as "justice".

Tonight we give thanks to the countless intelligence and counterterrorism professionals who've worked tirelessly to achieve this outcome. The American people do not see their work nor know their names, but tonight they feel the satisfaction of their work and the result of their pursuit of justice.

Re:stupid

[Dutch Gun]

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

[capnkr]

And *anyone* asked/compelled to serve on a US jury should read up on what it is all about at the FIJA website.

Understand the System, before you blindly perpetuate it. Please.

Re:stupid

[Dutch Gun]

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, killing thousands of innocent civilians. The US isn't exactly pure as the wind-driven snow, but I think we safely hold the moral high ground when compared to Islamic terrorists.

Re:stupid

[shermo]

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

[cold fjord]

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

The terrorist organization he headed announces he is dead:

Text: Al Qaeda statement confirming bin Laden's death

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'

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

The locals are protesting his death:

Pakistani tribesmen protest

At this point, I think anyone doubting Bin Laden's death is about ready to star in their own personal Truman Show, and doesn't really need more news or photographs.... maybe a shrink or philosopher. Cogito ergo Bin Laden moritur.

The looney bin is getting crowded. Sanity: step 1, step 2....

Re:stupid

[Wandering Idiot]

Would it have hurt to have MI-6 or others access to the body for confirmation? The only reason to deny them access is if you were lying about it.

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? Is it some kind of overconfidence-in-one's-own-wild-suppositions variety of Tourettes? Is it impossible for you to admit that you don't, in fact, know everything? Perhaps they were on a ship in foreign waters, had documented the body all they needed to, and wanted to get the thing over with, minimizing the perceived slight to the Muslim world by disposing of the body soon after death. Perhaps they didn't want the whole thing to turn into a circus, or a focus for attacks. Maybe US Navy/CIA black ops divisions aren't in the habit of having every operation they perform double-checked by the freaking British Secret Intelligence Service for some random reason.

Or maybe Bin Laden was already dead and there was no operation, or it killed someone else, or he never existed in the first place, or was actually a CIA plant, or any number of a dozen theories of varying degress of likelyness I've heard over the past week. There's no such thing as absolute certain Truth (reality could all be a computer simulation, or you could be the only real mind in existence and everyone else is hallucinations, etc), only different weights given to proposed possibilites based on sensory input and past experiences.

For myself, I think Bin Laden was probably just killed in Pakistan, that there was a capture-or-kill order with the understanding that no one was going to cry about it if the latter happened, and that the photos haven't been released because of their potential propaganda value and they might give evidence that his shooting wasn't defensive in nature. The reasons I've seen for people thinking he died around 2001 have been rather weak and circumstantial, although admittedly both the US government and Al Quaeda would have had reasons to keep up such a pretense (Al Quaeda for morale, the USG for the usual military/industrial/security apparatus reasons, although I have a hard time believing the former could pass up the chance to embarass the latter as fighting a phantom all this time [Paranoid Conspiracist]UNLESS THEY WERE IN CAHOOTS![/PC]).

Also, the intial inaccurate picture of events seems consistent with a top secret mission on the other side of the globe being reported through various games of Telephone and levels of ass-covering.

Re:stupid

[wulfmans]

Screw that I Want To See HIS Brains. Or lack there of.

Re:stupid

[GameboyRMH]

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

[swillden]

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:stupid

[artor3]

Why? What good reason is there to show them? There are plenty of gruesome pics out there on the internet. Go look at those if you want to see death.

Re:stupid

[GameboyRMH]

I thought the most likely conspiracy theory was that Bin Laden had been dead for years and the US was making up a cover story after finding his grave in the mountains somewhere. But if that were true, Al Quaeda would have told the truth by now to put the US to shame. Confirming the US' version of events is something they would only do if that was the truth. If they had any other option they'd take it.

Re:stupid

[GameboyRMH]

But, but, but...he's B-L-A-K!

Re:stupid

[AK Marc]

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 out the government's incompetence with regards to conspiracy theories is asserting that they all are true.

Re:stupid

[countertrolling]

And who is this 'Al Quaeda'? Where does their credibility come from? Have you ever met one?

Okay let's play your little game.. Why doesn't 'bin laden' pop up on video right now? It's just not time.. Better to wait a month or two before the election, where it will have a much greater effect. I, for one, am counting on it. It will the funniest thing since Gerry Ford falling down the steps.

And why is the government's story any less 'nutty'? We never hear the same one twice. Definitely a sure way determining they are lying.. Very common in any other criminal case. I believe blind faith is just as nutty.

Re:stupid

[GameboyRMH]

And who is this 'Al Quaeda'? Where does their credibility come from? Have you ever met one?

Replace "Al Quaeda" with "US government" and this question would be just as silly and pointless.

Okay let's play your little game.. Why doesn't 'bin laden' pop up on video right now? It's just not time.. Better to wait a month or two before the election, where it will have a much greater effect.

No I think they'd go for it right away, for maximum impact. How conceited of you to think they'd care so much about US politics to lose this impact. And even if they were going to do this, why would they admit to his death in the meantime rather than just keeping quiet?

Re:stupid

[laughingcoyote]

You're absolutely right. Aside from complying with the principles and open government which the Obama administration specifically promised to be better at, providing important current-event and historical documentation, silencing a lot of potential conspiracy-theory circus a la the birthers, and not keeping secret information which is in no sense a secret at all, no good would come of it whatsoever.

Re:stupid

[Cwix]

Your definition of reasonable and mine are different apparently.

Exactly why do you believe it was reasonable to ever assume that he was not born in the country? I mean I dismiss Orly Tatiz out of hand because shes batshit crazy. What exactly has she ever said that lent her ANY credibility.

Re:stupid

[GameboyRMH]

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

Re:stupid

[laughingcoyote]

Really, are you serious?

Bin Laden is a demagogue and an attention whore. All it would take is one verifiable "Nyah nyah nyah, you didn't catch me!" video (and plenty of organizations have the means to verify such a video's veracity and every motive to break such a huge story if it can be verified), and in one fell swoop, he has the attention of the entire world, utterly humiliates the US, and gives a tremendous morale boost to his followers. Do you really think he'd pass up that chance?

I'm all for being skeptical of the government, but the conspiracy concept here just doesn't add up. Al-Qaeda has even acknowledged his death, and that's a blow to them-they could just as easily cause the humiliation and get the attention by producing evidence that he's still alive.

Re:stupid

[bitMonster]

You, and all your conspiracy loon buddies, would have found something to key off of no matter what they did or said.

Re:stupid

[Rolgar]

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

[countertrolling]

All your assumptions are based on hearsay... You have no way to verify any of it. Entirely faith based the storyline is. You are simply appealing to authority with no basis whatsoever in scientific fact.

Re:stupid

[Ocker3]

So Al Quida itself saying to OBL is dead isn't good enough for you? If Apple said that Steve Jobs was dead, would you demand photos?

Re:stupid

[bstender]

I'll bite.
The US govt. has proven itself capable of massive coordinated fraud, (not just once or twice mind you) and there is seemingly no limit to that. Lying, obfuscating and withholding is what they do as a rule, (not unique to the US Gov of course) and in this case, nothing has been consistent or verifiable. Withholding and destroying the evidence on flimsy rationale to boot.

Statements from "Al Qaeda" are de facto useless as the mere claim of a "statement from Al Qaeda" is a non sequitor since there is no "AL Qaeda" in the sense of a top-down centralized org. Should some valid terrorist cell, or a CIA cell wish to pose as the voice of Al Qaeda, their word is about as useful as the US Gov., but the former's intelligence capability is highly questionable.

Iran is not the only one who has been convinced of OBL's demise many years ago, OBL abruptly stopped his regular inspirational messages after the Tora Bora assault (and several obviously bogus ones took their place). There is no reason to think he was alive, (other than the USGov saying he was, but again, their credibility is less than zero in this situation)

If his son actually wrote that letter, it's unlikely that he would have any knowledge of the situation more than you or me. It doesn't help that the entire article is so tabloid-credible.

Ditto the "Talibani" tribesmen. More or less credible than the yahoos shouting "USA-USA" on TV?

Bottom line, we all have nothing to go on but statements from the US Gov, a story which started unravelling within hours and by now is almost a completely different story. No valid reason to withhold any evidence. Dumping the body at sea on ridiculous pretense. Combined with the fact that OBL has been silent since the time he was cornered in the mountains, on dialysis and on the run, leads one to think that this is simply more political theater for the gullible masses. Theater that most conveniently has the effect of both fluffing the USA cred and pumping up the flagging War on Terror brand, both of which have been falling on hard times.

And you conclude by saying that to think otherwise is evidence of sheer lunacy, a reliable sign that you know you've put together a weak argument. It seems to me that anyone who simply _believes_ ANY statement from the US govt is just emotionally invested in a fantasy of essential-goodness. Which is what you've put forward, mere belief in official statements.

Re:stupid

[genik76]

Everybody should have a right to a trial. There's a reason why USA has Separation of powers.

Re:stupid

[Wandering Idiot]

I'm not saying there is a conspiracy

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 release the pictures at some point, but more out of a selfish desire to make the internet commentosphere slightly less irritatingly paranoid by a few percentage points than any real historical utility.

Re:stupid

[bstender]

"So Al Quida itself saying to OBL is dead isn't good enough for you?"

WHICH verified spokesman of WHICH "Al Qaeda" was that again?

this is how the govt gets through its day, even a lot of slashdotters are ready to ignore obvious flaws. It's like how kids believe in Santa Claus long after the writing is on the walls in giant letters, they just want to believe.

Re:stupid

[bstender]

i'm very concerned. this madman you speak of is a cartoon, and with _zero_ evidence you're all for vigilante justice with a few million men, women and children in collateral damage along the way. when exactly do you start to get concerned?

Re:stupid

[Adayse]

I'm thinking OBL may have been mutilated then shot from very close range so pictures would help. I didn't like his beliefs or methods and I suppose dying would have been his choice. The spin on his killing was dishonorable though. He fought corruption and lost and if we don't see it that way then all the death and suffering he caused is for nothing.

Re:stupid

[cold fjord]

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

Re:stupid

[countertrolling]

Anyone who disputes the official story has been tagged as a kook. Your post only confirms how well it's working. Now please remove all metallic objects, place them in this tray, and step through the machine

compliance...

Re:stupid

[bstender]

i just hope they don't start dropping hellfire and bunker busters on our country, that's when it goes from bogeyman propaganda to millions of real dead loved ones.

Re:stupid

[bstender]

"On balance of the evidence, the only plausible scenario is that the US version of events is - modulo a few details about who shot whom, when, and in which room - generally truthful."

Evidence? There is zero evidence. We are relying on statements by the US Govt.The US Government! They lie about everything, constantly. why would you believe this one with zero evidence?

Re:stupid

[HellYeahAutomaton]

> I don't care if it was an ordered assasination, or he went down fighting. It just makes no difference.

There are right and wrong ways to do things -- within the bounds of the morals that we should be holding ourselves to. He could have been easily captured because he was unarmed but since the president didn't want to deal with "legal hassles", we have now affirmed our stance on extra-judicial killings. Executing an unarmed mass-murderer by an extra-judicial killing however gratifying it may feel is not the American way.

IANAL but the Military Commissions Act of 2006 would loosely put him as an 'alien unlawful enemy combatant' One point I am trying to make is that we should be working within our existing laws

While you may sleep well at night knowing he is dead, I am awake at night worrying about how our government is going to behave next.

“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.” -- Thomas Jefferson

Re:stupid

[bstender]

Your summary is loopy, which is why your conclusion doesn't work.

Re:stupid

[DarkOx]

She had a narrative that did not require any magic and fit the evidence which was available at the time. Your personal attack calling her crazy does not change that. It was reasonable to think it possible Obama was not born in Hawaii, likely no but possible. That is all I was saying, I think with the long firm birth certificate now published its pretty much impossible he was born anywhere but Hawaii.

Re:stupid

[AK Marc]

I'm not a conspiracy loon. I'm just a regular person pointing out that a secret mission followed by a press release found to be filled with holes and lies and immediately destroying the "evidence" and blocking all access to any information was a colossally stupid move.

That you believe everything the government says without question indicates your stupidity. You know the country is run by career politicians who lie for a living, right?

Re:stupid

[master_p]

If Al Qaeda is driven by CIA, MI6 and Mossad, then its no wonder Al Qaeda announced OBL's death. Why would they need to announce it anyway?

OBL's family wasn't anywhere near OBL, otherwise they would either be dead or in position to describe what happened, neither of these two cases being true.

The locals know nothing more about OBL than we do. If they did know more, OBL would have been betrayed along time ago.

Please show us a video of OBL that is after 2001. I bet you cannot find one. The 2007 video is clearly a fake, since he appears younger.

Osama is dead from 2001. US waited a long time to present his death to us, when the time was right.

Re:stupid

[adtifyj]

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. ..

That is true, however they had better have taken pictures and put them in the archives. If they are going to lie, we should at least ensure that their lies are recorded and available to historians. A FOIA request to verify that there are photos, and they look legit, is appropriate.

Re:stupid

[DarkOx]

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 greatest villains enjoy.

Re:stupid

[ppanon]

Actually, Justin Bieber is Canadian.Not proud of it, just sayin'...

Re:stupid

[AGMW]

In killing OBL America has moved further away from the moral high ground that it once prided itself on.

... and yet still thinks it has the moral high ground! Sadly, the US just came out of the heads and has her skirt tucked into her knickers. Meanwhile, when the US looks down it just sees the crackin' pair of knockers and still thinks she looks hot!

Re:stupid

[perryizgr8]

why?

Re:stupid

[AGMW]

Also, the intial inaccurate picture of events seems consistent with a top secret mission on the other side of the globe being reported through various games of Telephone and levels of ass-covering.

Er ... hang on! Didn't I see Obama watching it live from Washington?

Re:stupid

[datsa]

Who are you living in fear of exactly? Didn't you hear? They got the bastard!

Re:stupid

[jecblackpepper]

And if that is your stance, then you won't ever trust photos provided by the US Government. So this can't be used an argument for the US Government to publish the photos to dispel these types scepticism.

Re:stupid

[EdIII]

His point is that out of all possible scenarios that logic and reason would lead one to conclude the US events are truthful over other accounts based on his belief that there is no political or strategic advantage and that other countries by default have less credibility than the US government.

Unless you are blinded by patriotism towards the US you would not quickly dismiss the assertion from Iran, North Korea, Russia or China if they said the evidence did not match the US statements, specifically, that it was not Bin Laden was killed. Especially if it is more than one country and I mentioned those countries sarcastically for literary affect. You would have to a be a moron if several EU nations disagreed with the US findings and you believed the US just "because". There better be some solid logic and reasoning why several EU nations would be wrong.

You mentioned the most interesting part of all, especially in his post too.

Evidence.

So far all the evidence, and I do mean all that I know of, are statements of facts by authority figures.

Ummmmm, that is not evidence. Not at all, not even close, not even in the same galaxy. If I inform you that I have 5 apples, that is a statement that I believe I possess the evidence and proof that I do indeed possess 5 apples. If I show that I have 5 apples, I don't need to say a damned thing. You can see and evaluate the evidence in front of you to conclude I have 5 apples.

That's why proper science is peer reviewed and for anything to be considered seriously it has to be able to be reproduced under the same conditions so that other scientists can obtain the same evidence and verify your conclusions or offer alternatives, etc. Anything is else is taken a hell of lot less seriously.

Granted, if a highly notable and credible figure like Stephen Hawking announced tomorrow that he invented anti-gravity we would probably believe him and give him benefit of the doubt. We would still be waiting for the evidence though, but would not instantly conclude his is an idiot nutjob.

Now if Buford out in hillbilly country wrote a letter to the New York Times saying he wanted a press conference for his anti-gravity device he just invented..... I doubt Buford would get the press conference.

So there are really two questions for me then:

1) Do I respect Obama and the current administration enough, "on the balance of the evidence of their performance so far", to give them the benefit of the doubt?
2) Am I so blinded by my respect and loyalty to the US or Obama in #1 that I allow him to not present me any real evidence at all or additional confirmations from reputed governments and public figures that Obama's statements are truthful and backed by evidence I am not allowed to see?

 

Re:stupid

[cold fjord]

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.

The US has a perfectly adequate legal system to handle the likes of Bin Laden.... right here. fact sheet

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

US GRAND JURY INDICTMENT AGAINST USAMA BIN LADEN

Also, Bin Laden admitted or demonstrated his association with the 9/11 attacks on multiple occasions.

Bin Laden claims responsibility for 9/11
Video Shows Bin Laden, 9/11 Hijackers
Bin Laden '9/11 video' broadcast

No doubt there is plenty of other material evidence linking him to other crimes under either the Law of War or US criminal law.

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.

You've got this wrong on two points. First, I very much doubt that any group of would-be terrorists is just waiting for the US to "bend the rules" so that they feel justified in attacking. Second, the US is at war with Al Qaeda under the authority of the Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force passed after 9/11, so raids to capture or kill its members is completely legitimate. It is also quite fair seeing as Bin Laden declared war on the US in the 1990s.

Re:stupid

[bored]

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

[AK Marc]

Emphasis "only".

The only reason to *deny* access would be for a conspiracy. That's not to say that they were denied access.

And they didn't ban anyone from seeing the body exactly, just disposed of it once it was verified

So your comment about my comment was that "you are 100% right, if anyone was denied, but I don't believe they were." You didn't disagree with me. By being so argumentative but not actually contradicting me, it sounds more like you agree with me but don't want to.

Oh, and who "verified" it, and was there any other check on the verification by any 3rd party? I'm not asserting that's evidence of a coverup. I'm stating that if they were doing a coverup, that's how they'd have to do it. They ran the whole thing like a coverup. Whether it is or isn't is irrelevant to whether it looks like one.

Re:stupid

[nosferatu1001]

"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.

Re:stupid

[Stuarticus]

How many Afghan civilians do you have to kill before you lose it?

Re:stupid

[Tuan121]

Then... don't live in fear?

Re:stupid

[corbettw]

Hear hear. I for one am tired of doing or not doing things because of what may happen. It's time for this country to be the "home of the brave" once more.

Release the photos.

Re:stupid

[dave420]

It's possible any president was born anywhere, but there wasn't any stink about anyone else, just Obama. That's the problem with her bat-shit crazyness.

Re:stupid

[Runaway1956]

"isn't a free nation of laws suppose to hold the law above all risks?"

Sorry, but you have the wrong terminology, which places the wrong emphasis on the law. Had you put the word "reasonable" in there, then I could agree with you.

"isn't a free nation of laws suppose to hold the law above all reasonable risks?"

That one word has meant the difference between life and death for uncountable men and women who have been put on trial. But, outside the court rooms, that word takes on a whole new meaning. What is reasonable? Is it reasonable to expect the US to stage what would turn into the most expensive trial in history, for the likes of Osama bin Laden? Is it reasonable to demand that the police, the military, and the justice department provide the necessary security for all persons involved in the trial? Is it reasonable to expect some dramatic strike or another someplace in the world against American interests during the trial?

Reasonable. No, I for one don't think that a trial would have been reasonable at all.

Re:stupid

[Raumkraut]

Basic justice demanded we kill him and I am glad it was done.

Basic vengeance demanded him killed.
Basic justice demanded him given a fair trial.

Re:stupid

[Runaway1956]

Allow me to point out that the Nuremburg trials weren't exactly United States trials. I've never looked into the composition of the courts, the witnesses, the advocates/lawyers/advisers, or anything, but I believe that everything was done by people from around the world, under international law. The US may have had (undoubtady DID) a leading role in the trials, but they weren't US courts, held by US judges, and decided under US law.

That said - your point is taken.

Re:stupid

[Runaway1956]

All I can say is, "Bring it on!" I'm not the juvenile who once thought it necessary to go out in a blaze of glory, but I'm not a doddering old codger who is going to just fall over for you either. ;^)

Re:stupid

[flyneye]

Yes, I believe we need a worldwide dialog on the truth about Mohammed or any religion. It is of interest to mankind and last time I checked a single entity doesn't control the rest of the world through religious blackmail and political correctness.

If the Muslims break the law, punish them. They are no better than anyone else, even if their religion declares so.

Supressing any dialog in the name of "peace" is just an exercise in blackmail. I don't cooperate with blackmailers or terrorists. Funny how their radical subculture espouses both as we shed some light here. Could the mainstream be much further? Any Muslims here to enlighten us?

I'm a live and let live kind of guy. If you are not hurting anyone, especially me, I could care less if you paint yourself purple and worship carnival barkers. If however your religious beliefs start bumping into what I'm doing... Terrorism, sharia law, child kidnappings, inciting our politically retarded to self-depreciating acts of political correctness, sending my tax dollars overseas for a war that returns no profit, well,then, you can just drop off the face of the earth for all I care. You would then be what my high school teachers taught me is the definition of the word ,N*gger. One who takes no personal responsibility and puts the load off on others.
Funny, the "politically correct" who are trying to banish this word, exemplify it to its deepest meaning. If someone acts like an irresponsible child, then they are treated like an irresponsible child. Nothing to do with race, everything to do with character. Unfortunately there is a large demographic of Muslims worldwide who put their antics off to the responsibility of a dead pedophile. Muslims are NOT to portray any of Allahs creation in their own hand. That means no artwork. Especially about their Prophet. It is their law, not the rest of the world. Do you randomly respect everyones laws ,no matter your locale? Muslims as a whole need to enlighten their ignorant, punish their deviant and find a way to be an attribute to the world rather than the violent bombing vermin they are. Notice their efforts over history to police themselves is non existent. So it is up to us to go, and conquer and discipline these children. Unfortunatley we have a permissive,politically correct parent/presidency only grounding them and sending them to bed early instead of beating their asses black and blue.

We want the closure of seeing his half-chewed head staring back at us with the eye left on the other side of his face. This is what it is about, a photograph worth billions in dollars and blood. Monkey#2 (Bush was the first, look at the ears) has no right making the photo release his call. It belongs to us. Who is this worthless faux-leader to condescend to us? Well f*ck him and his made up birth certificate.

Re:stupid

[shilly]

"we paid for his death, we should be able to verify it"
the photos won't verify his death to the public.
dna won't.
inspection of the body wouldn't.
his weeping children throwing themselves over his dead body wouldn't.
his other children writing letters to the NYT complaining about the manner of his execution or his metaphorical children threatening revenge for his martyrdom won't.

because some people won't trust the evidence and you can't prove a negative (the negative being, "he's still alive!").

but as Obama said, wait and you'll see ... no more videos or audiotapes from him ever again.

so time to stop wishing for the moon

Re:stupid

[shilly]

I'm not a conspiracy loon. I'm just a regular person pointing out that a secret mission followed by a press release found to be filled with holes and lies and immediately destroying the "evidence" and blocking all access to any information was a colossally stupid move.

Whereas, of course, holding on to the dead body of the world's most notorious Jihadi for way more than 24 hours and then burying on land in a location that is discoverable in principle is just an excellent and highly intelligent thing to do.

Re:stupid

[fishthegeek]

OBL received all of the trial he deserved. As far as I am concerned the SEALS showed amazing restraint, they had far more bullets with them than they used.

Re:stupid

[Cwix]

You did not answer my question, and if you like I can pull up plenty of examples that shows Orly Taits is batshit crazy. Not just on the birther stuff.

Just answer one thing.. How did she explain away the birth announcements in the Hawaii newspapers.

Seriously, how did she explain away the birth announcements.

Re:stupid

[GameboyRMH]

Do you see any scientific facts to work with in this situation?

Re:stupid

[stewbee]

...people in the US discover the impedance mismatch between what he says, and what our politicians have been saying

Yes. It might result in the people Voting out Several Washed up Representatives. (aka VSWR).

Is it too early in the morning for bad RF humor?

Re:stupid

[Hatta]

That moral high ground has always been a lie. This is just more of the same.

Re:stupid

[Heretic2]

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.

Exactly, they claim it was a "capture" mission, but clearly it was a "kill every male in sight" mission: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/141342/20110504/osama-dead-new-photos-inside-the-compound.htm

I highly disapprove of killing unarmed, non-combatants. It's quite obvious they were interested in covering up any potential "intel" these guys could have provided. If they were prepared to capture them, they would have captured them. It's not hard to fire knock-out gas through windows. Obama may have given a "capture" mission, but the order that eventually made it to these SEALs through the chain-of-command was definitely, "Kill all males, no capture."

Re:stupid

[cavreader]

How many kooks would that be? Where is the proof of any of the allegations and suppositions mentioned in the screed published. Conspiricy morons are rapidly ursuping the truth with wild unsupported reasoning and theories. The internet allows these type of stories to go viral. Once that happens there are sites that support and post the fictional stories and then link to others in the same support group. Thse groups then use each other as their "proof" that the story is true when in reality the story still has not been verified with any facts. Although I could be wrong. Maybe you are gifted with so much intellegience and foresight that only YOU are capable of recognizing the real truth but I doubt it. Unless you can prove it?

Re:stupid

[countertrolling]

Precisely my point. The evidence trail is more tainted and lacking than OJ's. In a real trial they couldn't possibly get a conviction with what has been presented. In a word, bullshit. I really am amazed (and impressed, actually) how so easily all of you swallowed the whole kielbasa, especially considering the prosecutorial misconduct of the past and present

Re:stupid

[DarthVain]

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 deal should have been made about these guys. Stop all the cult of the personality, and hype, and BS. Without fanfare, dead, out airlock, keep walking. I am a firm believer that the type of attention these guys have gotten around the world only emboldens other to follow their footsteps. They see these idiots becoming world famous. The message that should have been is "do this kind of stuff and you will die, and no one will care".

Re:stupid

[Slashdot Parent]

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.

Would you have said the same thing about Saddam Hussein or Slobodan Milosevic? What makes bin Laden any worse than any other mass-murderer who got a trial?

Re:stupid

[bipedalhominid]

Cant be any worse than all the other trash on the net. I mean really, go turn off the safe search filter and browse around Google images. Just don't do it at work unless you're in charge of the firewall.

Re:stupid

[countertrolling]

The 'real truth'.. that's funny. And whose 'truth' is that? I can only answer with the same question.. Can you prove you know the 'real truth'? If not, then you are just expecting me to trust the government's conspiracy theory, which so far, is just as 'loony' as the rest. Serious kool-aid consumption going on

if the knife don't slit, you must acquit

Re:stupid

[DrBoumBoum]

No good will come of it.
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

This was my exact feeling regarding the Iraq war!

Re:stupid

[cowboy76Spain]

Burial at sea has the advantage that you cannot convert his tomb in a center for pilgrimage/meeting point for simpatizers. Many old christian churches/cathedrals and mosquees were funded/did profit from the belief that there was a saint buried there.

My opinion? They were there to kill him, capture was not an option. Both because of a security risk (terrorists kidnapping people and asking for his release) and because a trial to that long-time-ago-friend could be very embarrasing for the stablishment.

Re:stupid

[RicoX9]

We haven't been a "free nation of laws" in a LONNG time. The law is only applied when convenient. Against people who have it coming and are not A- a large corporation, B- a powerful politician, C- insanely wealthy person. There are protected classes in this country and "We the People" aren't one of them.

Re:stupid

[flaming error]

> the US government has effectively announced that
> killing someone without any sort of trial is "justice"
> ...
> It would have been better... if ... at least a pretense
> 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 defendant to confront his accusers and defend himself.

In this case the guilt of the defendant was not in question. Besides the findings of every intelligence service on the planet, he personally claimed responsibility.

The only thing a "fair" trial could have done was give him a forum to spew his vitriol and maybe give him an off chance of being acquitted.

Due process is critical, and it was served. He was guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. We did not adhere to the standard checklist, but blind adherence to checklists is bureaucracy, not fairness.

UBL really was a unique case and it doesn't bother me that we skipped the formalities and put a bullet in his head. He knew it was coming, and he knew he brought it on himself, which you can't say about his victims.

Re:stupid

[captain_sweatpants]

He may have been hateful, and maybe even pathetic, but little he was not (actually and figuratively).

Yeah I know that wasn't the right word but it just fit the narrative flow! From what little I've seen of him he has that serene way about him that is typical of many religious nuts. I'm sure he speaks his lies and half truths with beauty and eloquence, but his arguments are no doubt based on a bunch of very ugly premises. He may be a very charismatic and clever guy, which allows him to subtly manipulate his underlings, but experienced lawyers and judges would pull him apart.

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.

I'm sure they probably didn't bother. Politicians ignorance of the subjects they deal with is exceeded only by the publics general ignorance and apathy. No doubt people in the 'Muslim world' have some genuine grievances about US foreign policy, and many powerful people would have been unhappy with Osama bringing them to light. A good judge wouldn't have provided him much of a platform though. What really disappoints me about this situation is Obama was supposed to be the guy that would actually take on that challenge because it's the right thing to do, but instead he took a very cynical approach and spun the situation hard for his own short-term political advantage.

Re:stupid

[Risen888]

Whenever someone pulls out the phrase "conspiracy theories," you can bet they're trying to hide from something.

I can think of all kinds of plausible, "non-conspiracy" reasons (whatever the hell that even means) that the administration would not want the pictures released. The first one that springs to mind is that it's a picture of one bullet hole in the side of the head of an unarmed man. We could have brought him in.

Re:stupid

[Risen888]

Quit hiding behind the phrase "conspiracy theories." It's intellectually dishonest. It's a pejorative without a meaning.

The conspiracy theorists argue that they're hiding him

I've heard no such argument. I've heard very reasonable reports that we shot down an unarmed man who we could easily have taken in. Bin Laden could be in American custody right now. Instead we gunned him down. Why?

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.

Ad hominem much?

Re:stupid

[Risen888]

They gunned down an unarmed man who may in fact have been attempting to surrender. The most wanted man in American history, perhaps in the history of the world, and rather than bring him in, they shot him down. If that picture shows one bullet hole at point-blank in the side of the head, you can bet your ass it'd raise some serious questions.

Re:stupid

[kilfarsnar]

If everything in this missive is true why is it not on the front page of news papers around the world? Surely at least one or two journalist reading this would take the time to verify everything mentioned here and waste no time releasing the findings

Why do you assume that newspapers will tell you everything that is true? Where do we get the statement "if x is true it will necessarily be reported in newspapers"? Anyone who does even a little research will find that it is likely the CIA is involved in international drug trafficking. BlackBoxVoting.org and Stephen Spoonamore have pretty good evidence that some electronic voting machines are rigged. Why have neither of these stories been shouted far and wide? Could it be that the major media work to protect the status quo and manage the popular perception? That they work with, not against, the establishment because their interests are congruent? That they know which side their bread is buttered on?

The phrase "All the news that's fit to print" implies that someone is deciding what is fit and what is not. That the government was in bed with the guy they are now demonizing might not be fit.

Re:stupid

[Risen888]

Binny Boy

"Binny Boy?" What the fuck is this? Grow up.

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.

You don't care that the most wanted man in the history of the world was caught with his pants down, unarmed and helpless, and rather than bring that son of a bitch in we shot him in the face?! You don't care that now you will never know what that man knew? You are a fucking idiot. We had him. We had him fucking nailed, we had a chopper on the spot, we could have him in American custody now. Instead he's dead and his secrets died with him. And you don't care. You don't want to know why.

Well fuck you. I do care.

Re:stupid

[Risen888]

massive security risk in doing the trial (what if he breaks out or something)

"Breaks out?" With what, his super heat vision? Are you daft? How many people have broken out of Guantanamo? Can you name one?

there is a 99.99999% chance that he would have "not survived capture"

No shit, and that's exactly what happened. "One day you too may be shot trying to escape."

Re:stupid

[Risen888]

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.

We've had high-value targets in custody at Guantanamo for literally ten fucking years now. Have there been any escapes? Attempted escapes? Breakouts? Attempted breakouts? Anything? Anything? They're not super-villains, you know.

In custody he becomes a rallying point.

Too late.

He would be a global political nightmare.

Too late.

and several other i probably don't need to list.

I think you do.

Re:stupid

[Risen888]

I'm sure killing him wasn't an easy task

Yeah, shooting that unarmed 60 year old man in the face must have been just a bitch.

In killing OBL America has moved further away from the moral high ground that it once prided itself on.

I completely agree.

Re:stupid

[Risen888]

Bullshit.

Re:stupid

[Risen888]

Anyone who tosses around the phrase "conspiracy loons" is hiding from something. So what is it?

I said it after the announcement, there were going to be incorrect pieces.

Yeah, like the complete lack of a firefight or any hostilities whatever. I'd say that's pretty hard to fuck up. Bullets are pretty unmistakable. As is their lack.

Re:stupid

[bstender]

I wasn't calling for photos to settle this matter. Photos would be something greater than assertion, I would certainly look at them. I'm not sure they would be conclusive, regardless of the source, but with a worldwide crowd looking at this evidence, doing forensics on them, something valid could be produced.

of course, an autopsy is the usual method and the fact that that surefire proof was quickly made impossible is unfortunate for the govt.

Heh, i reread that last sentence and wonder to myself, what is 'unfortunate' to these people? They are fully divorced from all accountability in words and deeds. which btw is why wikileaks suddenly became enemy #1, the piercing of the bubble of immunity was/is horrifying.

Re:stupid

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Try taking over an unlocked cockpit with a box-cutter. Let me know how that one works out for you.

Children's fairy story, for the gullible.

Re:stupid

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

The media reports from Fox News to NPR keep referencing these "Jihadi Websites".

Where the hell are these? How come the media don't publish URLs?

I am ALL OVER the 'nets - and these sites are just not present or credible. Most of the so-called "statements" released on video come from a couple of US Jewish kids: "converts" to "radical Islam" - whatever that means.

There's a reason it is derided as Al CIAda.

Re:stupid

[gpinkham]

Well Al Quaeda said he's dead. Why would they admit this if they weren't certain it was true?

my only thought to why would be that he was already dead and now they can blame the US government for his death making him a martyr.. Otherwise there would be no reason.. not sure I buy this theory but I guess it's as likely as any of the other "conspiracies".. :-)

Re:stupid

[cavreader]

By truth I mean verifiable facts of an event without including any predispostions or bias in the verification of the facts. I don't believe everything the government says but I do leave room for a stray truth now and then. Truth is being defined on the internet by people that do not even pretend to be unbiased in their pronouncements. A good conspiracy theory can offer up the means to attack or discredit those who think differently. The situation is muddled further by the sheer volumn of hearsay and conspiracy theories posted on the Internet. It doesn't matter if the theories are legitimate. Just by throwing out theory after theory can generate uncertainty and confusion for those who do not take the time to truly investigate the situation before forming an opinion. And investigation does not include participating in partisan echo chamber web forums.

Re:stupid

[bluefoxlucid]

No good will come from releasing the pictures of Bin Laden with a bullet hole in his forehead. The AP does not want this because of its "historic value," they want it because anyone who screams "PICTURES OF BIN LADEN HERE!" will get tons and tons of eyeballs-- and money. They want these pictures for their monetary value. The only thing we could get from releasing them as a political impact would be flashing a shiny picture around for evil terrorist leaders to use to go, "LOOK AT THE DEAD BODY OF ONE OF OUR LEADERS! SEE WHAT THE AMERICAN DOGS WILL DO TO YOU AND YOUR FAMILIES!" I mean we did kill his wife and son, too.

Re:stupid

[bstender]

"Also, Bin Laden admitted or demonstrated his association with the 9/11 attacks on multiple occasions."

Bin Laden explicitly denied his involvement immediately afterwards, and then several other times (while praising its righteousness). Of course he may be lying, but that would be a strange thing for him to do considering his open declaration of war against America, it should be a time for him to sing it from the rooftops. that later 'admission' tape has never been considered credible as it is clearly not OBL sitting there, along with the several other bogus videos and recordings issued by persons unknown.

But this does not relieve him of culpability in other terrorist acts he did claim responsibility for, I'm not saying he shouldnt have been captured and tried in court.

But come on! OBL, the entire 9/11 incident and the subsequent War on Terror TM narrative stinks to high heaven. Bush summarily pinned it on "Al Qaeda" and OBL about a day or two afterwards, no investigation was done. And speaking of investigations, there never was a credible investigation of 9/11. Even the limited show inquiry has never been fully released to the public because it would simply beg the questions and it obviously opened up a bunch of new questions. This massive crime, hugely symbolic successful attack, revealing a complete breakdown of normal defenses, so many intriguing questions all swept under the rug and summarily pinned on this one former CIA asset.

The perfidy of this latest OBL story is in perfect synch with a pattern of deceit.

Re:stupid

[Culture20]

He fought corruption and lost and if we don't see it that way then all the death and suffering he caused is for nothing.

He commanded others to fight defenseless civilians and ultimately lost. The way you see it makes him look like a glorious martyr fighting the great Satan.

Re:stupid

[Runaway1956]

We got his hard drives. We got his journals. We got his live-in courier. We got damned near everything. Alright - so he might have taken a couple secrets to the bottom of the ocean with him. Phht. Calm down, son.

And, yes, Binny Boy. What? Do you have a copyright or trademark right to that name, or what?

Re:stupid

[Risen888]

We got his hard drives. We got his journals. We got his live-in courier. We got damned near everything.

Except for...the most notorious and sought-after criminal in the history of mankind. Public Enemy #1. And we had his ass. All we had to do was open up the chopper doors and reel him in. Instead he's dead. You obviously don't care about that, but I take a slightly broader perspective.

And, yes, Binny Boy. What? Do you have a copyright or trademark right to that name, or what?

No, it makes you sound like a fucking idiot.

Re:stupid

[Runaway1956]

Good grief. What, exactly did you expect to do with him, anyway? Oh - I have an idea. Media circus, huge court circle jerk, more of the whooping and dancing in the streets by retards, a huge legal fight after he's found guilty about whether he should be executed, more media circus, and yet MORE media circus.

I have a better idea. Just get everyone together for some mutual masturbation. Same result, far less hassle.

Binny boy really gets to you, doesn't it? I could come up with a lot more that might bother you, too. Remember Slick Willy? Or, Herr Bush?

Oh - the "fucking idiot". Isn't it hard to keep the moral high ground while shouting "FUCKING IDIOT!!"???

Re:stupid

[bstender]

clearly they are relying on the blind patriotism disorder to win the day at home, plus they know the media is in lockstep to relegate doubters to the 'lunatic fringe'. done and done.

Re:stupid

[Risen888]

What, exactly did you expect to do with him, anyway?

If it hadn't occurred to you by now that he might have some intelligence value...well, you're as dumb as you sound. Do I have to spell this out for you?

The only reply to the rest of your comment that I can muster the patience for is: "What the fuck, are you like 14?"

Re:stupid

[AK Marc]

Whereas, of course, holding on to the dead body of the world's most notorious Jihadi for way more than 24 hours and then burying on land in a location that is discoverable in principle is just an excellent and highly intelligent thing to do.

Because holding on to it long enough to get independent testing samples (even if not results) would take longer than 24 hours? And yes, any land location is "discoverable" but that doesn't mean that every land location would be located. Nor did anything I say preclude disposal at sea.

Re:stupid

[Adayse]

Not to me it doesn't and I'm not defending his actions or beliefs.

The point is that US foreign policy is to protect and further the interests of the US and that makes it the duty of the US gov to use whatever methods are effective abroad. Fairness, truth and justice are not required. Defenseless civilians is an interesting term. The US has slaughtered defenseless military opponents for the last 30 years but do you think that make the US bad?

Re:stupid

[Culture20]

Defenseless civilians is an interesting term. The US has slaughtered defenseless military opponents for the last 30 years but do you think that make the US bad?

Defenseless civilians =/= Defenseless military opponents

Re:stupid

[X0563511]

You have to trust someone, else anything you haven't personally seen must might not exist!

Re:stupid

[X0563511]

Unfortunately this is exactly what it is seen as from their perspective.

Re:stupid

[Runaway1956]

This is getting rather comical. My birth year is right there in my nick. Intel value? Maybe you need to look and see how much valuable intel we got from our waterboarding. Rummy can tell you better than that idiot Cheney, and his cheerleaders.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/05/the-republican-spin.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+andrewsullivan/rApM+(The+Daily+Dish)

Or, maybe you think that Osama was going to surrender information with the "nice guy" approach? What was the nice guy going to offer him? A silk rope for his hanging? A nice pork pie for his last meal?

Interrogations in this country have gone to shit since the day Bush took office. I'm not sure there are enough people in power to ensure that proper interrogation techniques would be used on Osama. It would have likely been more of those silly-assed "enhanced interrogation" techniques that were used, and those yield complete garbage.

Phht. Whatever. Again, we got his hard drives, and his dead tree journals. Osama was very unlikely to contribute anything or value in person.

Re:stupid

[Adayse]

Because the civilian may flee her slaughter but the soldier must stand and die if so instructed. Doesn't that make it worse? The kicker is that we sell despots weapons for the oil money they get from us but when they have too many guns and maybe think about buying other stuff, like our IP, that would give them real power over us then we have to slaughter their men to use up the weapons so that the new guys blow more oil money on more weapons. Where is the honor in that?

Re:stupid

[shilly]

As if people would be satisfied with "independent testing samples"! They'd want to *see the body*. They'd say the samples weren't independent (and they'd be right, independence in this context is just absurd). And yes, it would take more than 24 hours. Where would they take the damned body anyway? Gitmo? Who gets into Gitmo to verify this is he? The US mainland? That'd sure keep a lid on bruised Islamist feeling.

As for discoverability of a land grave, I'm pretty sure you could expect to see FOIA requests for its location, concerted efforts by hostile state and non-state actors to find it by espionage and by applying pressure (eg terror), etc etc. Another frickin circus, but a Roman one with blood'n'guts.

Re:stupid

[cavreader]

It has been shown over and over that journalists, politicians, rabble rousers, malcontents, and your basic trouble makers will waste no time in releasing damaging information for profit, political power, or revenge passed off as some form of justice. But they need to be able to prove their assertions or suffer the fate of being branded as a liar or conspiracy nut. If the conclusion presented in the parent post is even close to being proven there would be people jumping up and down to promote their findings and reap their rewards. How many people can the CIA silence? Every time they try they increase the risk of further exposure and our government is pretty well versed in risk analysis. Just because they have the risk analysis does not mean they actually use the analysis properly. That's one reason I believe that the governments story concerning the killing of Osama. There is no way in hell this or any other President would step out on that limb. There are just to many people with factual knowledge of the operation. You assume the CIA is involved in drug trafficking but you have based your opinion on years of hearsay without any verifiable facts to support that charge. You issue a blanket unsupported statement that does nothing but ratchet up animosity of the CIA. I am not saying that the CIA hasn't taken advantage of the drug trade as a means of fulfilling their primary obligation which is to protect the US from similar organizations around the world. That's why the CIA has no jurisdiction in the US and is barred from operating directly in the US. I'm sure they have crossed the line somewhere along the line but those restrictions are in place because it is assumed they may step over the line know and then to fulfill their job requirements. Making them out to be principles in the drug trade without any supporting facts harms the organization. And yes, their operations can sometimes be on the far side of legal but any clandestine state security service practices the same methods in the real world. Idealists usually have no business in the security arena. An idealist would shun all forms of coercion and violence on the chance that everything might work out OK if we just come together. However there has not been a single international conflict solved without some degree of violence. We like to proclaim ourselves evolved but without our tech base we are the same as the people were 200 or more years ago. To pretend this is not true just postpones and increases the violence when it all comes apart. Once again I am not excusing them of possible wrong doing but proffering non-ending and non-verifiable charges against the organization creates enough background noise to obscure those times when they may have went to far. What I fear the most is seeing how the truth is being systematically re-written using the communication abilities of the Internet. There are governments and special interest groups and individuals who use multiple online identities and websites to refute or support anything related to them on the Internet. It is propaganda on steroids.

Re:stupid

[AK Marc]

As if people would be satisfied with "independent testing samples"!

Wait, so your argument is "because conspiracy theories will exist no matter what we do, we should act in a manner calculated to increase the conspiracy theories as much as possible (perhaps for the reason that the one time they are right, no one will believe them).

Re:stupid

[countertrolling]

...verifiable facts...

Please, do tell.. how you're going to verify the facts if you're not allowed to examine the evidence?

...I do leave room for a stray truth now and then...

So you decided now's the time? Why? Why don't you leave room for precedence? We have plenty of that to illustrate what I'm trying, and failing to get across.. Your beliefs are just as loony as anything else.. I'm not following the internet chatter on the issue. I only say that the rules that apply to us should be applied to this case. And all of you are simply accepting official statements at face value for no logical reason. Tell me again.. who's the kook?

Re:stupid

[Jeremi]

Understand the System, before you blindly perpetuate it. Please.

What makes you think that I don't Understand the System? Are you saying that if I Understood the System, I would no longer believe that jury trials are important? Even the site you linked to supports jury trials.

Re:stupid

[cold fjord]

OBL's family wasn't anywhere near OBL, otherwise they would either be dead or in position to describe what happened, neither of these two cases being true.

0 for 1

Amal al-Sada was shot in the leg as she rushed the Navy SEALs, according to U.S. officials. She is now in Pakistani custody, along with her daughter and two other bin Laden wives, according to Pakistani officials, who say they eventually will be repatriated.-- Bin Laden's Wife: I'll Stand With You

Next.

Please show us a video of OBL that is after 2001. I bet you cannot find one. The 2007 video is clearly a fake, since he appears younger.

0 for 2

Oct. 29, 2004: Osama Bin Laden Video Message

0 for 3

Wanted: dyed and alive. Bin Laden reappears – and he’s had a makeover
Of course you weren't thinking that hair dye isn't invented till the year 2200, were you?

Next.

The locals know nothing more about OBL than we do. If they did know more, OBL would have been betrayed along time ago.

0 for 4

BACKGROUND: The Haqqani group, al-Qaeda's own Taliban

Next.

Osama is dead from 2001. US waited a long time to present his death to us, when the time was right.

0 for 5

See video from 2004, and this: Osama bin Laden Killed: 'Justice Is Done,' President Says

Next.

If Al Qaeda is driven by CIA, MI6 and Mossad, then its no wonder Al Qaeda announced OBL's death. Why would they need to announce it anyway?

0 for 6

The US had the body, there was nowhere for Al Qaeda to go, was there? Try to say, "He's not dead!", and the US could produce either the body or the photos. Then there would be the awkward question of, "If he's not dead, why isn't he saying anything?" For Al Qaeda to try to cover up Bin Laden's death would have been more pathetic than the idea that, "Al Qaeda is driven by CIA, MI6 and Mossad". Well, there is also the fact that Muslims from around the world have been recruited to fight and die for Al Qaeda, and apparently none of them would have noticed that it was run by Americans, British, and Jews? Really? The fact that Bin Laden's wife saw him killed would also make that awkward, wouldn't it? If you've paid attention, you know that al Qaeda has announced the death of its regional leader in other places, such as Iraq.

You might want to try reading from a broader range of media - you've got things pretty much backwards. Maybe you can start here

Re:stupid

[Grishnakh]

Yep, it's too bad that we didn't elect a Democrat President, instead of one of Bush's Republican cronies, so that we'd have an Administration that is more concerned with following laws and not just doing whatever the hell it wants like Bush did. We even had a Democrat candidate promising change, greater transparency, a return to rule of law, etc. Oh wait...

Re:stupid

[Grishnakh]

America hasn't been on moral high ground for at least 50 years. Just look at Vietnam back in the early 1960s, and all the lies used to go to war there.

Re:stupid

[cavreader]

So a lack of evidence automatically means someone is lying? I never said I took government statements at face value. I don't believe they are always lying but I also do not believe they always tell the truth. I need facts to make that determination. "They did it before! They will do it again!" is not a solid platform to be standing on when accusing people of wrong doing or does the concept of innocent until proven guilty escape your understanding? Precedence has it's place when analyzing an event but you can not rely on precedents alone. Precedence factors alone lead to pre-judgements and stereotypes.

Re:stupid

[countertrolling]

It's not just lack of evidence. The government is withholding and intentionally destroying evidence. These are criminal acts. It can't tell the same story twice. You put them under oath and it will be perjury. The precedence and its present actions are overwhelming. A normal person would never find this acceptable, except this time you all do. In fact, history shows you find it acceptable every time. Government says "HALT!" and you freeze like a statue. What the hell is the matter with you people? What makes this so special? You afraid somebody will get mad? It's like watching a bad zombie movie.. You hear the siren, and you march, trance like, into the mouth of the beast..

I need facts to make that determination.

But you don't have them, and yet, hear you are telling me the man is guilty.. all on government say-so. You're not making making sense.

...does the concept of innocent until proven guilty escape your understanding?

Excuse me? Coming from you that's funny as hell after all this.

Bleh, you're a blind man walking. You're not hearing. You prefer to believe known liars and thieves. Most likely because you just don't want the disruption and distraction from your own problems.. "Just let them do what they want, so long as they don't take away my TV and my Gameboy". Whatever...

Peace!

Re:stupid

[Archangel Michael]

100 Million is 10% of the 1 Billion (Approx) Muslims in the world. If only 10% are "radicalized" that would be the number of radical jihadian Muslims in the world. The numbers are from various sites and references, if you need them google "how many muslims are there", you'll find that 1 Billions is ... rather conservative. Some places are running 1.5 Billion. 10% is arbitrary to show you just how many there could be, even if it is one in ten that are radicalized. It was to be used for conceptual purposes not as "fact".

And by Radicalized Jihadians, I mean those who are willing to strap a bomb to their chest to blow up a shopping center, or fly airplanes into buildings. Not necessarily the number who can actually pull off such a feat.

Re:stupid

[cavreader]

I am evidently talking above your comprehension level. I am not and have not said I believe everything the government says. I'm saying you cannot by default consider everything the government says and does is illegal or untrustworthy. Taking that hardline stance resolves nothing. Every government action deserves to be examined and judged based on the facts of the event. And yes precedents can be considered when reaching your determination but precedents are only one factor in the process of determining truth from fiction. You have taking the stance that the government is ALWAYS lying and then using your inability or unwillingness to find evidence to back up your pre-conceived notions as proof they are lying. You see no problems with this type of mindset? Your other points are so off the mark I don't even know how to refute them other than tell you to loosen up your tin foil hat a little and try to be a little more open minded if you ever expect anyone to give a shit what you think. You have labled a huge swath of people as liars and thieves will little or no evidence to back up your rightous indignation. The worst part is this type of attitude never results in resolving any problems. It creates vapid emotionalism, gross stereotyping, and heated animosity between people. It might be a good tactic when trying to hype up a crowd to man the barricades and fight the "man" but most the time it results only in distrust,chaos, and eventually violence.

Re:stupid

[swillden]

Ron Paul has announced his intention to seek the Republican nomination. Even if you don't like him, it'd be nice to see someone in the office who is actually different. Not that he has a prayer.

Re:stupid

[Grishnakh]

I'd like to see Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich run together. Unlike the rest of them, they both seem to actually believe in making things better instead of just helping corporations, and working together maybe they'd balance out some of their nuttier tendencies.

Re:stupid

[countertrolling]

I'm saying you cannot by default consider everything the government says and does is illegal or untrustworthy.

Yes you can, and when dealing with coercive, secretive authority, you should ALWAYS default towards that direction. This little paper on the the nature of nature clearly illustrates why...

You're right about one thing, failure to comply will usually lead to violence, but it won't originate from where you think it might. Sounds to me like you would blame the victim. In that light, I can no longer consider this a serious discussion... The message you are sending is, "Prisoner #819 is a bad prisoner. Because of what Prisoner #819 did, my cell is a mess, Mr. Correctional Officer."

Re:stupid

[countertrolling]

Oh.. here.. This is an even better illustration of your thoughts..

Prisoner #416 coped by going on a hunger strike to force his release. After several unsuccessful attempts to get #416 to eat, the guards threw him into solitary confinement for three hours, even though their own rules stated that one hour was the limit. Still, #416 refused.

At this point #416 should have been a hero to the other prisoners. But instead, the others saw him as a troublemaker. The head guard then exploited this feeling by giving prisoners a choice. They could have #416 come out of solitary if they were willing to give up their blanket, or they could leave #416 in solitary all night....What do you think they chose? Most elected to keep their blanket and let their fellow prisoner suffer in solitary all night.

Capiche?

Re:stupid

[cavreader]

I'm sorry but I am not following your scenario, at least on how it applies to the original post. The discussion started off by me saying that elaborate conspiracy theories that cannot be verified with facts is damaging to society. I am not talking about one particular event I am taking a wider view of society as a whole. I am talking about the way truth is re-defined on the Internet. About people who post complete nonsense and accusations that end up going viral and distorting the facts because most people will not even attempt to verify the facts being presented in someones argument. About how political and antagonistic partners who only except the facts that support thier opinions and ignore any facts that might prove them wrong. This type of behavior is a major factor in generating the violence throughout the world today. Social web based media is the perfect platform for shaping the truth while spreading lies and propaganda to manipulate the public.

Re:stupid

[countertrolling]

One more time... The 'internet' and its 'conspiracy theories' has no relevance whatsoever on my contention that the government is full of liars, buggers, and thieves. I don't know why you insist on bringing it up, except for the possibility that you're only trying to redirect the conversation and discredit any and all opposition.. Come back with something more concrete... if you wish to continue..

Re:stupid

[shilly]

No, my argument is that "because conspiracy theories will exist no matter what we do, we should focus on doing the right thing measured by standards of practicality and morality, which in this instance suggested getting rid of the body at sea quickly". False dichotomy.

Re:stupid

[capnkr]

My post was not directed at you, instead it was meant to be informational for those who neither understand nor give importance to jury trials. Sorry about the misunderstanding.

The way the system is set up at the current time, people are knowingly misled by the System into thinking and doing things in a way which strips them of their power as Citizens. IMO, and I would think yours as well, this is wrong on many levels. Learning through FIJA about what is really going on at a jury trial, what is really involved and what a Citizen is really there for, would help make things better for everyone - except those who profit from the System as-it-is currently. That was my point.

Re:stupid

[AK Marc]

But I don't see how your requirement would prevent anything I mentioned from happening. Like you said, you are pushing a false dichotomy. We could have done almost exactly what we did do, but still take actions that would have answered questions that are already being asked internationally by reputable news organizations. But you want to make it into "we do what we did, or we plan the body in the middle of the new World Trade Center buildings with a shrine around him and a 'bomb me' sign on him" and then accuse me of a false dichotomy.

Re:stupid

[cavreader]

Because you believe the "government is full of liars, buggers, and thieves" you possess a strong bias against the government and will always let that bias dominate your decision making when looking at the government. This is similar to someone declaring "all Muslims are terrorists" and using that belief in all future discussions. There are indeed liars, buggers, and thieves that work for the government but there are 14.6 million government employees. How many of those does it take to meet your definition of "full". Also keep in mind that the general public is also full of "liars, buggers, and thieves". According to your logic that makes the entire US just a bunch of liars, buggers, and thieves. And I am sure this trait holds true for the entire world. So by using wide ranging, all inclusive denunciations, and unsupported accusations you display all the signs of being one of those who feels they are much more intelligent than anyone else and thus it is up to you to make sure the rest of us know what the truth really is. This entire thread started with me questioning the story that alleged the government is hiding something but there is no offering of details to support the accusations in the story. You then took this to mean I always agree with government actions which I don't, not by a long shot. The unsupported story in this post is an example of how someone can post mis-information but still convince a lot of people that the story is true without even investigation of the accusations. But since you have already condemned the entire government you don't need to bother with any fact checking because you have all ready made up your mind. This is the same with any major story today. There are large numbers of people who believe anything they are told and since the web has now made it easy to rapidly spread dis-information across the world. Dis-information for the sole purpose of manipulating the masses. Even the well known Wikipedia online encyclopedia contributes to this problem. Just look up any controversial topic in Wikipedia and see how the "facts" are repeatedly "updated" everyday. I would start with looking at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The vast majority of Arabs have never even heard about the Arab countries attacking Israel in 1973 in force and and getting their assess handed to them. Or of Israel returning the Sinai to Egypt for a peace treaty. Most Arabs think Egypt won the war. In truth Israel beat back the surprise attack and proceeded to cut off and totally surround the Egyptian military. In return for peace Israel returned the soldiers and the land. The land Israel has occupied was a direct result of wars waged against them Instead the Arabs and their supporters think that Israel was the aggressor in each conflict for the sole purpose of stealing land. This dis-information has helped fuel a non-stop war for over the past 40 years. Acknowledging this information to everyone might lance the boil of hatred in the region and possibly create an opening for a peaceful resolution. There may be wrongs on both sides but if the problem is ever going to be solved it will take full disclosure of the facts with each side acknowledging their wrongs. It's a situation directly caused by dis-information.

Re:stupid

[countertrolling]

"But my feeling is that if this case is handled in the same fast-food, slick-ass ' Persian Bazaar manner with which you seem to handle everything else, something's gonna get missed. And I wouldn't be doing my job if I allowed Dawson and Downey to spend any more time in prison than absolutely necessary, because their attorney had pre-determined the path of least resistance."

"Wow... I'm sexually aroused, Commander. "

Re:stupid

[kilfarsnar]

I would advise you to do some research if you are interested. It is not hearsay and Internet rumors that inform my opinion.

It always amuses me when people say that I can't prove what the CIA is doing. Of course I can't; they are a secret organization. They don't even tell Congress what they do. But people have come forward to tell what they know. Again, it is out there if you care to look; most don't.

Re:stupid

[cavreader]

I am not doing any of your research because the truth is I don't really give a shit what the CIA does or how they do it. I have no interest in international money laundering, terrorists operations, weapon sales, drug trafficing, or any other area which the CIA might have an interest. However, my original statement about the over dependance on hearsay, anecdoctal evidence, and rumors have made the truth hard to find today. And I am not talking just about anything the specific to the CIA or any other organization. And I still say that if your sources were as reliable and truthful as you make out their information would be taken seriously if they had actual proof to back up their claims. We live in a "Conspiracy our Us" universe today so I am going to actually need some hard evidence before I believe someones great tale of intrigue and wrong doing.

National security exception

[Local ID10T]

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.

Re:National security exception

[NeutronCowboy]

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

[xevioso]

Announcing his killing != bragging about it. I don't think one can reasonably say Obama bragged about his killing during the press conference. In fact, he has said regarding the photos that we "Don't need to spike the football" which is pretty anti-bragging to me.

Re:National security exception

[Altus]

You don't get it. Watch it again, look at the way hes so smug, so cool... like he didn't even have to kill Bin Laden. It's no big deal and we don't have to make a big deal about it but I'm just sayin, we killed public enemy #1.

Smug bastard! He's practically rubbing it in our faces!

Re:National security exception

[hack slash]

Are you sure they're not being released because Obama hasn't finished reading the PhotoShop manual?

Re:National security exception

[epyT-R]

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:National security exception

[jrumney]

By refusing to release the evidence, conspiracy theories can run rampant. This may be useful as a tactic to prevent the loose association of terrorist organizations that is known collectively as "Al Qaeda" from rallying around any replacement leader, as many of their members do not believe that the leader needs replacing. But it increasingly looks like Al Qaeda groups are accepting that Bin Laden was killed in this raid, so that particular reason for holding the evidence back may not be relevant anymore.

Re:National security exception

[victorhooi]

heya,

Lol, I love people who do the whole "It's a free country!" thing. You remind me of kids back in gradeschool.

Anyhow, to use your own analogy - sure, you're free to do whatever you want to photos of other people's mother's, but there's really no perogative for them to *give* you photos of your mother so you can do perverted things with them. Man, nerds in basements.

Also, this is an FOI request, true, but I think National Security, as well as basic common-sense trumps this. As nearly everybody else has said - "Why do you want them? What good will come from it?". And saying "Nyah, nyah cause I WANT THEM!!" makes you sound like a juvenile little kid who didn't get sweets. You didn't create the photograph, nor did you have any part in killing Osama.

They may release it eventually, when the humdum has died down, but really, releasing it right now will only incite Osama's supporters and cause any other anti-US rabid followers to crawl out of the woodwork.

Cheers,
Victor

Re:National security exception

[geekoid]

I have dealt with conspiracy loons for decades. There theories have no basis in reality with or without the photos.

we have photos of planes hitting buildings but some people think it was a controlled explosion, regardless of the solid scientific facts.
We have photo of men standing on the Moon, but people still make shit up to claim we didn't get their.

Re:National security exception

[zippthorne]

That's a shitty exemption. It seems we should have held out for the more specific language of operational security reasons. Otherwise, it seems there's a huge hole for the occupiers of high office to sweep embarrassing shit under the rug.

Not that this particular thing is particularly embarrassing, though, I'm assuming. It's probably just gross. The pictures need to come out because they're a record of something the government has done, and releasing them can't possibly reveal anything useful about ongoing operations, and "released to the public" should be the default for all information the government holds that doesn't need to be kept secret for operational security reasons.

I don't think I'll look at the pictures when they come out, but it'll be my choice not to.

Re:National security exception

[hedwards]

They will eventually be released, documents of this sort always are. The problem is that there's nothing to gain by releasing them. Al Qaeda already acknowledges that the raid killed Osama bin Laden. Which is ostensibly the reason for releasing the photos, since they agree with the government that Osama bin Laden is dead, there's no reason to release the documents for the benefit of the same group that still thinks that the President isn't a natural born citizen like his opponent John McCain.

However if they do release them now, all it's going to do is stoke suspicions and validate the view that we in the US view these killings as trophy killings and give further ammunition with which to slander us.

Re:National security exception

[Aighearach]

It's not censoring when somebody won't tell you what you want to hear, or show you what you want to see. Censoring is a completely different thing involving what YOU have to say. (or show)

Re:National security exception

[EdIII]

Tinfoil hatters will still cook up a hoax. Besides, Al Quaeda confirmed bin laden is dead.

Firstly, Al Qaida could have a strategic advantage to agree that he is dead. Dying while being shot by U.S forces helps him become a shahid, or martyr. Bin Laden is granted the highest privileges in heaven and gets to live next to Allah himself.

Aside from the propaganda and emotional impact to Islamic warriors of Bin Laden achieving the state of shahid, which is one of the hopes and goals of all jihadists, they can also benefit by still having Bin Laden alive to lead them, but the U.S unable to use him as an excuse for acts of aggression in the Islamic world. Not that the U.S would not find other reasons, or somebody else that becomes the new Darth Vader to us.

Furthermore, as an oft accused Tinfoil Hatter myself, I have to say that skepticism here about the truth and actual status of Bin Laden here is not unreasonable.

Why is the U.S government, out of all of our allies, the only one with any information or forensic evidence? Why bury Bin Laden at sea so fast with no unbiased 3rd party collecting forensic evidence witnessed by multiple parties belonging to our allies?

Speaking for the Tinfoil Hatters, we literally have only the word of the White House and President Obama to declare him dead.

I agree that releasing the photos might incite incredible unrest in the Middle East. However, that did not even have to be necessary. He could have been flown to a base in Germany where the whole thing was video taped by multiple countries and forensic evidence collected by every country in the EU, Canada, Russia, and China. Basically, the entire UN Security Council members could have video taped each other collecting the evidence.

No video tape footage needed to be released. No photos. A nice respectful burial at sea to show the Islamic world that we respect the death of an enemy, even Bin Laden, and gave him a proper burial.

But...... there would have then been multiple countries on the opposite sides of many issues, ALL saying they used their collected evidence to prove it was Bin Laden.

We don't have that do we?

It does not make me a Tinfoil Hatter to have questions and skepticism at this point, nor does it make me not patriotic for my country to ask these questions and question the credibility of the government itself in this situation.

Re:National security exception

[Risen888]

What would the pictures tell you that you don't already know?

That we put one bullet in the side of the head of an unarmed man. The most wanted man in world history. An unarmed 60 year old man who posed no threat and we could have brought him in. He could be in custody now. We had him.

Transparent...

[Wyatt Earp]

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:Transparent...

[Xeranar]

I'm calling bull shit on that. This administration makes attempts to be moderately open compared to the last several Republican administrations. Reagan committed an act of treason in the arms sales. Bush hid numerous documents including the total lack of WMDs in Iraq. The idea that they're somehow some shadow organization is bull. The problem was he made statements that in our current political climate of wanting to know the people and not the issues were hard to actually do. If people focused on the issues instead of the people once more the question of "transparency" would become obsolete. That being said, I find that the FOIA are nice statements but I doubt they'll win because the photos are an easy emotional tool to be exploited. The individual details are hard to use to rile somebody.

Re:Transparent...

[jcdenhartog]

Here's a citation to help: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/transparency-obama-denies-significantly-more-foia-requests-bush

A Google search provides other locations.

I wouldn't count on anything coming out.

Re:Transparent...

[LordKronos]

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

[pjh3000]

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.

Sorry, it's Classified.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Sorry, it's Classified.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but the potential for people to be angry over the release of this information is not a permitted reason to classify a document.

Here are the permitted reasons:
1.4(a) military plans, weapons systems, or operations;
1.4(b) foreign government information*;
1.4(c ) intelligence activities, sources, or methods, or cryptology;
1.4(d) foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources;
1.4(e) scientific, technological or economic matters relating to national security; which includes defense against transnational terrorism;
1.4(f)USG programs for safeguarding nuclear materials or facilities;
1.4(g) vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems, installations, infrastructures, projects or plans, or protection services relating to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism; and
1.4(h) weapons of mass destruction.
Source: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/89254.pdf

Re:Sorry, it's Classified.

[xevioso]

It's pretty easy to say that these photos fall under 1.4(d) foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources. Killing Bin Laden in a foreign country certainly counts as foreign activities. His photo is evidence of that, so it's pretty easy to classify it under this reason.

Re:Sorry, it's Classified.

[webmistressrachel]

I was about to post this exact observation, but you beat me past the post one that part.

However, you failed to point out that you (or I would) have just done the homework for those boneheaded lizards... I'd bet my UID that this will be the reason given. I wonder if they get all their "how to be an evil dictator" tips from Slashdot...

Re:Sorry, it's Classified.

[xevioso]

You are making your "reason" up out of whole cloth. If the killing of Bin Laden was not covert military action, then what was? That was as covert as it gets. The fact that the government has chosen to release *some* of the details about the covert military action does not mean it needs to release *all* of them. It gets to pick and choose. You may not like that, but if the government wants to classify his photo as part of a covert military action, it is legally entitled to do so. You are wrong.

Re:Sorry, it's Classified.

[Aighearach]

It doesn't say it has to be classified stuff, or even that it can't also have versions that aren't classified. What it says is that it can be denied if it involves "foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States..." and clearly it was a foreign act of the United States, and one that is critically important to foreign relations.

Re:Sorry, it's Classified.

[gatkinso]

How do you know that they would not reveal any additional detail? Were you there?

That's what I thought.

Re:Sorry, it's Classified.

[gatkinso]

I can make a great case for 1.4(a), (c), and weak one for (b).

that didnt stop his staff from leaking

[decora]

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

[Smidge204]

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

[CannonballHead]

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:that didnt stop his staff from leaking

[Sloppy]

"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:that didnt stop his staff from leaking

[xevioso]

Did you not get satisfaction at the videos of him watching TV? Watching the outtakes with the sound removed, knowing that he was dead? Why must you see the blood? BTW, there are pics online taken by the Pakistanis who came in afterwards of his couriers lying on the ground dead. Quite graphic. Not good enough for you?

Re:that didnt stop his staff from leaking

[Dachannien]

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:that didnt stop his staff from leaking

[cheeks5965]

no worries. you can get your satisfaction fix from the KSM photo. he looks like a stoned ron jeremy in a scoopneck wife beater. It always gives me a laugh when i need one!

Re:that didnt stop his staff from leaking

[peragrin]

If a photo produces satisfaction then you must only sit in your parents basement and download porn instead of making some yourself.

Re:that didnt stop his staff from leaking

[OttoErotic]

Well, if the photos were to show something controversial, like evidence that he was shot in the back or executed point-blank, I think that exposing that (not that that would ever happen) would be a positive effect in and of itself.

Re:that didnt stop his staff from leaking

[NeutronCowboy]

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 away identities. Not to mention - so? It's not like they're hanging out in a country, gathering intel? They come in, shoot stuff, get the hell out.
7. Again, source please. Idle speculation by websites on what kind of breed it might be doesn't count.
8. Wow. NSA is involved in SIGINT? I'm shocked - shocked, I tell you.

You haven't given a single example of a time when either something previously unknown or something that is still operationally relevant has been given away.

Re:that didnt stop his staff from leaking

[olsmeister]

Wow, did that statement ever paint a picture. You sure have a way with words...LOL

Re:that didnt stop his staff from leaking

[epyT-R]

a general default policy of openness is what obama ran on for president. refusing to show the pics just suggests to alquada et al that we're weak and fearful. that's what they want. release the damned pics. overall, it would be good for american citizens to see what their government is doing in their name, not just with these pictures, but in general.

Re:that didnt stop his staff from leaking

[DarkOx]

I have to agree love him, like him, dislike him, hate him, whatever president Bush display far less capriciousness on these types of issues. Sure he did some inconsistent things from time to time too, (bailouts) but you know what to expect for the most part on a day to day basis.

Obama seems to oscillate wildly between progressive socialist and neoconservative with no determinable (atleast to me) rhyme nor reason.

Re:that didnt stop his staff from leaking

[LordLimecat]

Damn republicans....
Knew I should have voted Dem.

Re:that didnt stop his staff from leaking

[dasunt]

every other damn detail about the damn mission including

1. the fact that a courier led them to his house

I wonder about this. Why be so open with the fact that a courier led them to him?

Since there are still senior AQ leaders out there we're hunting, wouldn't we want to hide how we found one?

But perhaps (tinfoil hat time) we are hiding how we found him. We had the wife that was found with him in US custody. She was released to Pakistan, then sent to her native Yemen, yet somehow ended up in Pakistan again. Wouldn't the CIA be tracking her anyways? Perhaps she lead us to Osama. Or perhaps it was a turncoat in the organization, or a noisy neighbor. As a cover story, blaming the courier serves two purposes: It answers any questions about how we found him, and it disrupts the AQ communications network, since they are going to be more suspicious about couriers now.

Some of the other leaks could be explained due to accident (such as leaving the helicopter wreckage behind where news media received photographs and people recognized it was non-standad), expected leaks (people bragging about the names of those involved), things that would be easily guessed (it was going to be an elite team who did it), or just bragging about capabilities that could be guessed at and that might not work as well in practice but could scare terrorists (such as the hyperspectral imagers), but releasing info about the courier so early?

It makes me wonder.

I could see it being just a dumb moment. But it could also be misinformation.

I suppose with this post I need a tinfoil hat now. :)

Re:that didnt stop his staff from leaking

[shutdown -p now]

ou got him plain and simple, which is fair enough, but in a circumstance such as that you should show some decency, some humbleness, and you do not celebrate, you do not cheer, and you do not smile...since without fail all of these things will make your enemies think: "you cunts" and then they'll come back at you as hard as they can.

Just because it makes some fundies out there a tad more mad than they already are, is not a valid reason not to celebrate.

Re:that didnt stop his staff from leaking

[commandermonkey]

I know most people are looking for snuff porn and other want conformation (really???) and if those were the only reason for not releasing the photos I would totally understand; but, they are not the only reason.

Like it or not the US is supposed to be a country governed by law not by fiat. Over the past decade we have been compelled to listen to tortured rhetoric that [The "war" on terror is justified because they don't respect out freedom(s).] To use that logic, to say that the US is the greatest country ever, to say we have a constitution that protects people from the government and that is "why they hate us" requires us to live up to our ideals. This means:
you CANNOT wiretap everyone(4th amendment)
you CANNOT torture(5th and 8th amendments)
you CANNOT order the assassination of a US Citizen(and possibly not really anyone) because they said something mean(1st; 5th; 6th; 8th amendments)
you CANNOT convict someone in a secret trial where they are unable to defend themselves(5th and 6th amendments.)

Why I would like a few groups like Amnesty, UNOHCHR, maybe ACLU to examine the photos, and more importantly the videos, is to verify that despite the "misstatements" by the US government and witness at the compound, bin Laden was NOT captured and executed.

I know that many of you don't care and that any trial would have only been for show and achieved the same outcome. But if we are going to pretend to be a nation governed by laws, and if we are going to be forced to listen to our tea party (republican) friends go on and on about the supremacy of the constitution, and we continue to spout "they hate us for our freedoms", then shouldn't we at least pay lip service to that founding document?

tl;dr: Release the video to have reputable NGOs verify that bin laden was killed while in a frantic shootout; err using a human shield; I mean lunging for a weapon(but that doesn't make too much sense since the combatants shot one of his wives in the calf while she was lunging at them(I guess UBL hasn't been running much and has small calves?))how about: doing anything other than look confused while and armed force descended on his house.

Re:that didnt stop his staff from leaking

[The Dawn Of Time]

I'm not saying releasing the photos is necessarily a positive, but your pussified capitulation disgusts me on a fundamental level.

Re:that didnt stop his staff from leaking

[geekoid]

Procedure was followed. The lower trusted people got the info after key people. some ass hat politician released the info to gain points with someone in the media.

"willy nilly about state security"
it doesn't look like he is. It looks like he picks case where he is confident that there is a case with evidence.
Persecuting everyone, regardless of the evidence from the stand point of the court is what an emperor would do.

Re:that didnt stop his staff from leaking

[geekoid]

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:that didnt stop his staff from leaking

[sonamchauhan]

Are you defending these leaks ? Are you that dense?
If you are not actually responding to the post you responded to, then say so!

Re:that didnt stop his staff from leaking

[xigxag]

"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 for immediate popular review, but the USA is not, and never has been such a place. Not even before 2008. Maybe the government should put detailed H-bomb schematics online as well? Troop movements and nuclear sub locations should be on Google Earth, perhaps? Trotting out "Freedom of Information" isn't gonna get you that stuff either.

And oddly enough, the Bush II administration suppressed images of our own fallen soldiers for years and there was less of an outcry than over this one, er, photo op.

Re:that didnt stop his staff from leaking

[xigxag]

"Obama needs to comply with FOIA law"

As others have pointed out, the administration can refuse and still be 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. You should 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 for immediate popular review, but the USA is not, and never has been such a place. Not even before 2008. Maybe the government should put detailed H-bomb schematics online as well? Troop movements and nuclear sub locations should be on Google Earth, perhaps? Trotting out "Freedom of Information" isn't gonna get you that stuff either.

And oddly enough, the Bush II administration suppressed images of our own fallen soldiers for years and there was less of an outcry than over this one, er, photo op.

Re:that didnt stop his staff from leaking

[DigiShaman]

Let's call it a Colosseum-Complex.

That's a bit harsh, don't you think? That may be true for those savages in the middle east that stone people to death, but hardly that's the case in western culture. Do you know why executions used to be made public in America? Do you know why there's still even a limited audience to view modern executions? One word. Closure. It's a visual confirmation that marks the end of their time, and the beginning of a new chapter in the victim's lives (assuming their still alive).

Re:that didnt stop his staff from leaking

[smellotron]

Let's call it a Colosseum-Complex.

That may be true for those savages in the middle east that stone people to death, but hardly that's the case in western culture.

Are you claiming that western culture is somehow above morbid curiosity and vengeance? How else do you explain Gapers delay(block) (purportedly coined in Chicago) or Faces of Death, a USA-produced movie advertised entirely about watching people die? How about YouTube animal cruelty, many from the USA or UKA (according to TFA)? Get off of your xenophobic horse.

Re:that didnt stop his staff from leaking

[another_twilight]

Just because it makes some fundies out there a tad more mad than they already are, is not a valid reason not to celebrate.

No, but a respect for human life and an awareness of the enormity of taking it is. It helps people recognise that it wasn't petty revenge; that it was the sober deliberation of reasonable and civilised people who had explored and exhausted other possibilities.

Re:that didnt stop his staff from leaking

[CobaltBlueDW]

I am skeptical, and any video of the incident would remove my skepticism. Assuming everyone is either a raving loon or your ideal liberal BFF is not a wise presumption, and certainly not a valid argument.

Regardless of my personal stance though, in this era of information, especially on a site like this, I would hope everyone would share some level of agreement on the intrinsic value of knowledge and information... When we weaves the 2010s into the tapestry of our societies history, what is gained by depriving our descendants the full, un-abridged, and uncensored truth? What is gained by our forbearers telling us Washington had wooden teeth, or the Native-Americans and the Pilgrims got along famously? What would be gained by leaving footage of JFK's assassination out of historical records?

Unless you consider information to be, by default, an un-necessary evil, the question shouldn't be "Why share information?", but "Why NOT share information?". The sharing of information is one of the biggest advantages humans have over less successful species. Okay, you might not want to see some dead guy shot in the fact. You might think it some form of barbaric, gratuitous, exhibition indicating poor moral fiber. It may be true that many of the people that want to see the images are either doing so as a political move or are looking for some cheap thrill while swilling a PBR and shouting, "Fuck yeah! He got what he deserved." --But, I believe the flaws of the lesser should not deter the aspirations of the greater. By that I mean, just because some people might want the images released for less than stellar reasons, that you might not agree with, shouldn't be the basis for an opinion, IMHO. I believe there is almost always a greater good to be served by the free and open distribution of information.

The argument about retribution is an excuse. It's true that some people won't be satisfied with the images, just as some people weren't satisfied with the moon-landing footage, or 9/11 footage. I know that many people resist the average emotional reaction of the masses, to glorify the death of Bin Laden, on moral grounds. I will make no attempt to argue that glorifying the death of another person is reasonable, not because I don't care, but because I don't think it plays into this discussion. In the grand scheme of things, these are all petty arguments of the month. 50 years from now, is anyone going to care that a handful of wackos didn't believe the images were real, or are they going to be more concerned that valuable information about their ancestor's history was lost forever; are they going to care that a few people got their jollies off the imagery, or are they going to care that the prevailing government of the time was with-holding information from the people who instituted them? What was more important about the Vietnam Conflict? The fact that prostitution ran rampant, or the fact that public visibility was kept at a minimum? That was a crude metaphor, but I hope you can see where I'm coming from.

Re:that didnt stop his staff from leaking

[master_p]

Osama is already a martyr for some muslims. They do not need a corpse photo to protest.

Releasing the photos will convince us that he really died now, and not in the past, provided that the photos will be real.

You know why yheh do not release the photos? because million of eyes will look to them for errors, and they are not convinced of their ability to fool million of people.

Re:that didnt stop his staff from leaking

[ppanon]

Well I tend to give Obama some slack for not wanting to be the only black USA President ever. I expect the USA would probably dissolve before it would elect another black president if Barack had carried out the kind of house cleaning the US government so desperately needs.

So, yes, he was probably deliberately lying to the public when he proclaimed to be an agent of change because his options would be limited, but maybe he really was deluded about the amount of racism still left in the USA, was shocked by the reaction he elicited, and had to reassess. Keep in mind that McCain picked Palin to be his running mate, a choice that made anybody paying attention think wistfully of Dan Quayle's candidacy for the same role, so I don't think there was any choice really.

Re:that didnt stop his staff from leaking

[Smidge204]

I'll argue that the photos can make things worse.

Sure there was celebration. But you know what? As far as I know, Osama wasn't burned in effigy anywhere. Osama's corpse wasn't foisted into the air and displayed as a trophy. Instead his body was quickly disposed of, supposedly in accordance with Islamic burial rights.

American citizens killed at the hands of Muslim extremists have, in the past, not been afforded that dignity.

So as it stands, even though there were celebrations in the streets, we have yet to reach the level of insensitivity shown by others. Releasing the photos will only bring us down to their level.
=Smidge=

Re:that didnt stop his staff from leaking

[Ash Vince]

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:that didnt stop his staff from leaking

[fritish]

Closure? I don't think that's necessarily the case.

People expect to reap hedonic rewards when they punish an offender, but in at least some instances, revenge has hedonic consequences that are precisely opposite to those that people expect. Three studies showed that: (a) one reason for this is that people who punish continue to ruminate about the offender, whereas those who do not punish "move on" and think less about the offender, and; (b) people fail to appreciate the different affective consequences of witnessing and instigating punishment.

From psychologist Kevin M. Carlsmith.

True, the term Colosseum-Complex may seem harsh, but I like it better as a term because it implies a show. People didn't go to the colosseum to get closure, they likely went there to be entertained and in the hopes of seeing injury and death.

In this case, and perhaps in the viewing of executions, I think it's people wanting vengeance. They may think it will lead to closure, but according to Carlsmith, it often doesn't.

Re:that didnt stop his staff from leaking

[_0xd0ad]

the information shows we had the power and the technology to go kill him

Killing him showed that we had the power and technology to do it.

along with the way we accomplished it

So that the terrorists can make themselves harder to find and better prepared for us in the future?

Re:that didnt stop his staff from leaking

[Risen888]

Screenshot or it didn't fucking happen.

Re:that didnt stop his staff from leaking

[CannonballHead]

Apparently, I was confused as supporting or "having" what I termed the "Colosseum-Complex" (if some psychiatrist(s) used that term in the past, I was unaware). I do not support it; I don't "want" to see Osama's death pictures, I didn't click the "EXCLUSIVE OSAMA GETTING SHOT VIDEO!!!11" Facebook links, etc. I was stating that I think western culture is enthralled with violence as a show... and I think that's bad, not good. Cheering at someone else's death ... could be ok, I guess. I think Osama was a pretty bad man and some sense of relief seems ethical based on his death, and that relief may be expressed in cheering. However, it can easily become a "revenge" thing. Which I don't think is good.

Re:that didnt stop his staff from leaking

[CannonballHead]

My post was condemning said Colosseum-Complex, not condoning.

Re:that didnt stop his staff from leaking

[CannonballHead]

My post was condemning said Colosseum-Complex, not condoning.

I actually didn't watch any videos or anything, nor seen any pics aside from the apparent hoax ones that pop up in ads and whatnot. I have no desire to see the blood or even watch outtakes, videos of him watching TV, etc. Again, I was attempting to explain what people were "missing" and then attempting to condemn it. I never thought me calling it a Colosseum-Complex would actually be understood to somehow be a positive condition... :)

One can only hope bin laden is alive...

[NotQuiteReal]

... and living in a tropical island climate. With daily water boardings for entertainment.

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.

Re:One can only hope bin laden is alive...

[LordLimecat]

I would really really hope that even politicians would be above pulling the photos out around reelection. There has to be a maturity line that you dont cross....

Re:One can only hope bin laden is alive...

[geekoid]

it's no win. If the FOIA is successful, it will be closer to the reelection campaigns, so regardless of reason, people will claim that's why they where released.

If it isn't successful, then people will use the to support their bias.

Re:One can only hope bin laden is alive...

[GrumblyStuff]

On the contrary, I would find it better he be alive and well but without the means to communicate his hatred or the ability to harm others and himself. He would live for no reason and without knowing of the successes or failures of his movement.

hmm..

[laxguy]

I'm as interested as the rest of the world to see these pictures, but at the same time I understand the need to keep the private. I feel that we've already pushed our luck by partying in the streets and don't believe we need to give terrorists any more reason to attack us.

Re:hmm..

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

You sound a mite terrorized, there...

Re:hmm..

[laxguy]

I just believe that we shouldn't underestimate their power. Just because al-Qaeda lost their "leader" doesn't mean that they are not able to hit back at the US or any other country. One of the problems with eliminating these organizations is the fact that they are comprised of individual cells that operate on their own. They don't need bin Laden or anyone else to tell them that it's time for revenge.

Re:hmm..

[Runaway1956]

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..

[BitZtream]

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:hmm..

[shutdown -p now]

They don't need bin Laden or anyone else to tell them that it's time for revenge.

Exactly. And why do you think the photos would make any difference?

Re:hmm..

[shutdown -p now]

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:hmm..

[geekoid]

because it's easier to get emotional appeal around a picture.

Re:hmm..

[geekoid]

There is no difference.
Morally it's exactly the same.

Re:hmm..

[shutdown -p now]

That's some interesting morals you have.

Well, I guess we just disagree on this. There's no point arguing about the morality when it's inherently a subjective "because I believe so" judgement.

Re:hmm..

[cyclomedia]

How about the President invites a buck of Hacks^H^H^H^H^H Journalists from various news agencies and papers to the white house to look at the photos and then go away and report.

Re:hmm..

[Agent0013]

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.

Except, the only pictures of people celebrating after 9/11 were staged by a photographer. The participants were not told what the pictures were going to portray, only to act a certain way. Once the photos where in all the papers, they were quite shocked to see how their images were used. The American government has manipulated it's population from the beginning of all of this. They are the true animals.

Re:hmm..

[shutdown -p now]

He did originally deny it in 2001. He did acknowledge responsibility in 2004.

But feel free to ignore it. ~

Re:hmm..

[shutdown -p now]

Source?

And, FWIW, I've seen the celebrating crowds of people on 9/11 on the local TV as well, and it was not in USA nor in any other western country.

Re:hmm..

[Risen888]

I can count the number of successful terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11 on...wait for it...zero hands. They are 0 for ten years. Meanwhile, we've been bombing them into the goddamn stone age every single fucking day of every single week.

Don't be such a chickenshit. They're not supervillains.

Re:hmm..

[Risen888]

People who danced in the streets after 5/2, cheered the death of a single self-proclaimed militant who has likely killed people personally

Citation needed.

and on whose orders thousands of innocent people have died - which he never denied.

Citation still needed. I have seen zero pieces of evidence that Osama bin Laden ordered the 9/11 attacks. He took credit for it - years later - because that's what terrorist organizations do, whether they did it or not. Dozens of organizations took credit for 9/11. We picked one that was politically convenient for us. Nothing more.

And maybe that's why we shot him in the back.

Re:hmm..

[shutdown -p now]

Citation needed.

Osama fought the Soviets in Afghanistan. If he was so bad a shot that he never hit anything, I doubt he'd go forward to become a leader of a militant Islamist group.

He took credit for it - years later

It's good enough.

Dozens of organizations took credit for 9/11. We picked one that was politically convenient for us.

We took the one where we actually had past evidence linking them to this. That they came out and acknowledged it merely gave credence to that evidence.

Yes, that is still classified. I'm not normally the one to believe the govt on such matters, but when the guy himself comes out and says that, yes, he really did that, I'm inclined to believe that CIA weren't lying, either. It's the simplest possible explanation.

Re:hmm..

[Risen888]

Osama fought the Soviets in Afghanistan.

A Saudi crown prince personally took up arms in Afghanistan? I'm not saying it's impossible, but I am not convinced. I find it vastly more likely that he ordered others to do so.

It's good enough.

No it's not. Plenty of loonies took credit for it, just like plenty of loonies have taken credit for every terrorist action ever, before or since. That's not proof.

We took the one where we actually had past evidence linking them to this. That they came out and acknowledged it merely gave credence to that evidence.

What evidence? The "classified" evidence? Why the hell should anyone believe that? Remember Oklahoma City? They tried to pin that on "Islamist militants" too, before McVeigh and Nichols confessed. The US government has a long-established pattern of trying to blame any and everything that they possibly can on the scary brown terrorists. Make with the proof or GTFO.

Re:hmm..

[shutdown -p now]

A Saudi crown prince

Since when is Bin Laden is a crown prince?

The ruling family of Saudi Arabia is the House of Saud. Any crown prince (which is to say, a potential heir to the throne) would be of that house. Osama bin Laden does not belong to the House of Saud.

What evidence? The "classified" evidence? Why the hell should anyone believe that?

I already explained. Because the person they claim to have evidence against has admitted guilt. Each of those facts need not be believed separately, but when combined together, the easiest explanation is that both are true (because otherwise you have to concoct various conspiracy theories explaining why both are lying). Occam's razor, ever heard of it?

Re:hmm..

[Risen888]

Sorry, you are correct about "crown prince." Osama bin Laden was a distant member of the Saudi royal family (perhaps merely by marriage? I'm not gonna look this up right now), but he was not a prince (or the equivalent). My error.

My overall assertion stands though. The rich and powerful don't tend to do their own shooting. That's what money's for.

because otherwise you have to concoct various conspiracy theories explaining why both are lying

First, let's dispense with the phrase "conspiracy theories," shall we? We're all adults here. We needn't hide behind weasel words.

Yes, I've heard of Occam's Razor. I've also heard the phrase "Cui bono?" It's a rule I tend to find much more applicable to questions of foreign policy, because no, the simplest explanation is usually not the correct one. So, cui bono? It benefits our military and intelligence establishment to pin the blame for 9/11 on Islamist elements because it gave us an excuse for this endless fucking war. It benefits the Islamists to claim credit for the attack because it gave them street cred. Simple enough for you? No conspiracies required.

Nor am I forwarding any such "conspiracy theory." I am not saying "I don't think al Qaida did it, and here's who I think did it." I'm saying "There is no evidence," and that is all I'm saying. And that's not an opinion, that's not a theory, that's objective analysis based on publicly available information.

Re:hmm..

[Agent0013]

I heard it on NPR the other day, but cannot find a news article on their site.

I found the same information on other sites on the Internet though. Here is a link to Wikipedia that has the same information in it. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reactions_to_the_September_11_attacks&oldid=427793399

And here is the relevant quote.

Annette Krüger Spitta of the ARD's (German public broadcasting) TV magazine Panorama states that footage not aired shows that the street surrounding the celebration in Jerusalem is quiet. Furthermore, she states that a man in a white T-shirt incited the children and gathered people together for the shot. The Panorama report, dated September 20, 2001, quotes Communications Professor Martin Löffelholz explaining that in the images one sees jubilant Palestinian children and several adults but there is no indication that their pleasure is related to the attack. The woman seen cheering (Nawal Abdel Fatah) stated afterwards that she was offered cake if she celebrated on camera, and was frightened when she saw the pictures on television afterward.[24]

There was also rumour that the footage of some Palestinians celebrating the attacks was stock footage of Palestinian reactions to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990.[25] This rumour was proven false shortly afterwards,[26] and CNN issued a statement to that effect.[27]

Check out that "Daily Caller" Link

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Whoah! SIXTEEN tracking cookies?

I wouldn't ask that from a baker!

Was he captured

[failedlogic]

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:Was he captured

[MoonBuggy]

An interesting theory, and one I hadn't considered, but I'd hesitate to accept it unless there's some evidence beyond "It could have happened". If they were lying about his death (and in that case, presumably, going so far as to make the "He was armed. Oh, wait, no he wasn't." claims as a double bluff) I don't see why they wouldn't have faked a photo - it's absence doesn't give any direct credibility to the theory he's alive, IMO.

Re:Was he captured

[peragrin]

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...

[damn_registrars]

I don't know that there has been a time prior to this when Fox News acknowledged that the Associated Press had good ideas - or even existed. Now they are joining forces?

Of course, we all know what they really want out of this, and it doesn't come down to "the truth".

Re:Strange bedfellows, those are...

[dziban303]

Now they are joining forces?

It's like some kind of hideous, journalistic Voltron.

Re:Freedom of Information Act is defective

[Local ID10T]

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

[Haedrian]

"pledged to be the most transparent government in US history"

Failing this is just like losing a game on the tutorial level

Re:Freedom of Information Act is defective

[schwit1]

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.

Government should randomly hide information?

[Kohath]

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:Government should randomly hide information?

[xevioso]

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.

Re:Government should randomly hide information?

[BitZtream]

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:Government should randomly hide information?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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 willing to stand up for those ideals when it came to the terms for "embedded" reporters and a whole host of other pansy-ass news reporting they've committed over the last decade.

Re:Government should randomly hide information?

[swamprat0129]

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 don't know how the pictures could insight people more than every show on TV mocking his life and death of various skits and scenarios.

Re:Government should randomly hide information?

[epyT-R]

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 american population, yet when it comes to blood and gore (and sex), suddenly it's ok..

bullshit. welcome to life. it's not all happy rainbows and smiling clouds.

An FOIA request will be denied for obvious reasons, its rather silly that AP even would consider pushing the issue.

Your subjective morality is NOT obvious. a transparent government should be showing all it is doing, including relevant details. then the citizenry can decide whether this is acceptable or not and make changes accordingly.

Re:Government should randomly hide information?

[TopSpin]

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:Government should randomly hide information?

[Colourspace]

More like it. America is a lot of the reason we have a dependence on oil, political correctness (even though they wrote the book on being un_pc [citation:caddyshack]), ugly imperialism, legal shananigans and a willingness to sue - 'you stepped on my foot, Dude', and the policing of the world 'their way'. That's saying a lot I know and I'm English. They just took over being as shit imperialists as we did, and now they are dying like the UK (by the way Scotland you are welcome to your country, we are fucked off with subsidising you). Karma burn, I have the points, but probably not enough for what I just wrote I'm sick of the US and the crap we ultimately have to suffer because of them, and Andy Murray needs to CHEER UP. ktxbi

Re:Government should randomly hide information?

[Colourspace]

Drink much Tricky?

Re:Government should randomly hide information?

[ColdWetDog]

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:Government should randomly hide information?

[shutdown -p now]

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?

[Shakrai]

a head blown apart with assault rifle rounds.

Most Americans would have volunteered to squeeze the trigger that fired those rounds.

Re:Government should randomly hide information?

[The Dawn Of Time]

Wait you're English and you accused the US of imperialism? That's almost cute.

Re:Government should randomly hide information?

[geekoid]

So your view of America is basically from TV?

And don't get me started on how overly PC england is, and we sure as hell didn't make your government put cameras everywhere.

Re:Government should randomly hide information?

[jc42]

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.

It's already being mentioned that those people are using the suppression of the photos against the US. There are several ways this can be done. "The US's Seals made such a bloody mess of his body that they don't dare show us the results." "The US can't show us the pictures because they didn't kill him; they dragged him off to a secret prison where they're torturing him." "ObL was actually cooperating with the US all along, playing the part of a Foreign Devil, and wanted to retire, so they faked his assassination and he's living under a fake identity at his luxury retirement villa." Make up your own; it's fun. ;-)

There's really no way this can be handled correctly. No matter what the US government does, it's a major PR disaster. The large percent of the US population that's openly calling it "justice" just adds to the disaster.

Re:Government should randomly hide information?

[Jeremi]

I think the assassination itself is what's going to do that, photos won't really make any difference.

You'd think that, but that isn't how human beings work.

Consider the effect of the release of the Abu Ghraib photos, versus the effect of the various textual reports of prisoner abuse that were released before the photos were.

It's one thing to hear about something unpleasant, but quite another to actually see it with your own eyes.

Re:Government should randomly hide information?

[shutdown -p now]

The difference was that Abu Graib photos provided definite proof of abuse. Right now, so far as I can tell, there's no doubt in Osama's case since even al-Qaeda has confirmed that he is indeed dead - I think that, for any one vowing to revenge him, their statement on the matter is all proof they need.

Re:Government should randomly hide information?

[Jeremi]

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 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:Government should randomly hide information?

[c-reus]

Most Americans would have volunteered to squeeze the trigger that fired those rounds.

Most Americans support hate crimes? Shooting someone based only on the opinion that that someone did something bad is a hate crime and is no different than shooting your neighbour because of a rumour that he had killed some people.

Re:Government should randomly hide information?

[Fallingwater]

You mean like the fact that the release of those pictures is almost certainly going to incite violence against the US and its citizens?

Perhaps, but some sort of proof is needed here. So far, the only proof the world has of Bin Laden's death is what the US government has said, and sadly that is not enough by a long shot.

Re:Government should randomly hide information?

[Stuarticus]

Luckily all Americans are sane and reasonable. I've never seen any Americans burning the Koran or harrassing muslims or holding "God hates fags" signs.

Re:Government should randomly hide information?

[shilly]

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:Government should randomly hide information?

[Sir_Lewk]

Most Americans have no real understanding of what it really means to kill a man with a firearm.

Re:Government should randomly hide information?

[nusuth]

I don't think Middle East is upset about death of OBL at all. Muslims are not the most progressive bunch but few would consider flying planes into buildings to kill civilians as a honorable way of fighting, even those who consider fighting against USA is fighting for a good cause (and many don't). He was not liked and assassination is culturally more acceptable anyway.

Re:Government should randomly hide information?

[Risen888]

Quit living in fucking fear. You are helping them win. Grow a pair.

Re:Government should randomly hide information?

[Risen888]

Grow a pair, man. We've had these fuckers on the run for ten goddamn years. Want proof? I can count the number of successful terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11 on zero hands. They blew their wad a decade ago, and we've been bombing them back into the stone age ever since. If they had a move to make, they'd be making it, pictures or no. Quit hiding under the covers and be a man. They're not fucking supervillains.

Re:Government should randomly hide information?

[Risen888]

Yes. A more spineless bunch of pussies I've never seen. It makes me sick to call myself their countryman. But rest assured, we're not all like that.

Re:Government should randomly hide information?

[countertrolling]

You must accept groupthink and whatever the government says as god's truth if you want to lift your karma. BTW there were prior arrangements, but those aren't a matter of public record.. It's all a real live snuff film.

Re:Bullshit logic..

[blackbeak]

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 for Kenneth Lay. In today's world bullshit reigns supreme and the higher you go the higher it's piled.

Live Footage

[black6host]

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.)

Re:Live Footage

[failedlogic]

If you look on Cryptome, you'll see some AP photos of the dead messengers. They're pretty gruesome so Hillary might be reacting to the wet-work of ST6. Just my thought. I'd caution if you have a weak stomach to not look at the photos though.

What happened to...

[denzacar]

"...and the truth will set you free"?

I mean, besides being taken up and distorted into a sort of a motto by CIA.

Re:What happened to...

[LordLimecat]

"what happened to...and the truth will set you free"?

Aside from the fact that thats taken out of context, and in its original context had no bearing on this situation?

That quote isnt referring to honesty (that is, the act of telling the truth), but to knowing the truth.

Re:What happened to...

[denzacar]

That quote isnt referring to honesty (that is, the act of telling the truth), but to knowing the truth

Yeah, and? That is the point. Enquiring minds want to know.

Or should they simply accept how that too is utter bullshit - along with that "home of the... land of the..." and be happy about their increased ration of chocolate?

I don't think a photo is necessary.

[BlueCoder]

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.

Re:I don't think a photo is necessary.

[geekymachoman]

I don't get you people. You don't have to be hard core fanatics to be skeptical. Judging from recent politics posts here on slashdot, it seems to me that skepticism in you people is long dead.

There certainly could be political motivation in bin laden conspiracy theories. I mean, it's highly probable. If you keep it all secret for 10 years, without explaining some evidence flaws and there ARE many, etc.
I'm not gonna be giving references because I'm not trying to take sides and 'fight' for one side or another, i'm pointing out the mindless labeling, stereotyping, and two dimensional thinking in general that somehow started to be considered as "normal" and "balanced" way of thinking.

Re:I don't think a photo is necessary.

[StikyPad]

Except that's not how it works. It's not our job to prove that the relevancy; it's the government's job to prove the necessity of keeping them classified. That's the same standard I have when it comes to potential illegal wiretapping, government sponsored torture, or false pretenses for war, and my principles aren't going to change just because it might sully our image or piss somebody off. Those are not good reasons for abandoning our principles. In fact, it's the worst possible reason: cowardice.

Re:its not about positive, its about the law

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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.

Oh god, I certainly hope so...

[denzacar]

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 and Elmo.

My money is on Oscar.

he could release them in a redacted format

[decora]

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.

Maybe I'm missing something

[scribblej]

Isn't there a photo of dead Bin Laden that's been all over the internet and 4chan?

Nice straw man there...

[denzacar]

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 children to cum unto me" would make a great title for that one, don't you agree?

I KNOW!
A cartoon comparing the genocides done by Israelites in the Bible with Holocaust.
Complete with graphs of world populations and percentages of population killed by both sides.
Quick! Someone call Randal Munroe! I have his next cartoon right here!

Re:Nice straw man there...

[geekoid]

"t incestuous sex among Adam and Eve's children."

except that had to happen. According to that ridiculous fairy tale.

Let violent enemies decide US policy

[Kohath]

So all someone has to do is threaten violence and they can have any particular information suppressed? Why allow violent people to decide what we do or don't see? Should we hide our women (or adopt an Iranian dress code for them) to further appease these enemies?

If releasing the photos will provoke violent people, then let's do it immediately. The enemies of civilization are hiding. If they are provoked to act by these photos, then we'll know who they are. It's easier to defend against rash, emotional reactions than calculated sneak attacks.

Re:Thank God...

[Bitsy Boffin]

> all he has to do is release another video

Releasing videos is real easy when you are locked up in a secret facility between "interrogation" sessions.

Now you've done it...

[denzacar]

It's like some kind of hideous, journalistic Voltron.

Now you got me contemplating on who'll be forming the crotch part.

Exactly right: "Whose needs are served?"

[Kozz]

Whose needs are served by showing the post-mortem pictures of Bin Laden? Do you think that victim's families actually desire to see a photo of blood & gore? If they want reassurance, would an affirmative statement by Boehner, Gingrich, Rice or GW Bush (pick your own political advocate) be enough?

If the purpose is to tamp down conspiracy theorists, well -- that's not a good enough reason, because conspiracy theorists can only see further conspiracy and are never served by the truth. So far, it seems the leaders of mideast nations don't need further convincing of his demise.

  If you thought that the reaction to Mohammed cartoons was extreme, imagine the results of the release of these photos. I think it would result in difficulties of all kinds, from inflammation of fundamentalists to foreign relations and so on. Some may say, "Who cares", but actions have consequences not just politically, but for American citizens and service members home and abroad.

I'm sick of this!

[Paska]

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.

Re:I'm sick of this!

[sincewhen]

I'm wondering if they won't release the photos because they show a dead man.

Not some super-villain who could take on 300 million people, just a dead man.

Where's the evidence?

[zill]

Where's the long form death certificate, Obama?

Re:mansion??

[PPH]

I'll wait until Zillow posts the pics.

I Expect the Problem Is

[Greyfox]

There there's isn't really a "head" left past the chin. They said they shot him once in the head, they didn't say how big the gun was.

FOIA vs Patriot Act

[hackus]

Guess which one wins?

I don't even know why people bother to file this stuff, you are never ever going to get those pictures.

Furthermore, you are never ever going to know who exactly if anyone they dumped in the ocean.

Even suggesting such a path to actually finding out who or what was photographed shows just how naive most people are in the world today.

I hope eventually everyone wakes up, till that time...keep yourself busy mailing letters and enjoy watching complete strangers molesting your family members who just a couple of years ago would have been put in jail.

Not even Check Point Charlie in the cold war had those sorts of requirements and those people who were manning the check points were not McDonald's Employee rejects.

Those people were professional killing bad asses.

-Hack

They cheered the death of innocents ...

[perpenso]

When the 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.

"They" cheered over the death of thousands of innocents working in offices; women, elderly, fellow muslims - all unarmed targets prohibited by their religion. We cheered over the death of a mass murderer of innocents (Africa, NY, Europe, etc) who was actively planning more attacks on innocents.

only worth between $250,000 and $480,000?

[MoFoQ]

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
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/south-asia/pakistans-per-capita-income-rises-to-1027_10050970.html

Re:Classify this!

[shutdown -p now]

C'mon,you lose the corpse, you don't release the photo of the said corpse and you expect everybody to take your word for it?

Don't worry, the photo was promptly erased after they realized that it would offend Wahabbi beliefs against making an image of a living thing. ~

I had intended...

[Medevilae]

to reply to someone who said about it being needed as proof. I saw a bunch of what were essentially repeats, so I'll just throw this out there. DNA tests were done. Not firm enough evidence for you? Al Qaeda themselves said he was dead. The type of people who are thinking he's alive are probably the same ones that think 9/11 was conceived by the government.. Make of that what you will, but I think the sane ones on /. will concur.

lol

[smash]

There have been 2 countries invaded, countless civilian casualties during 10 years of war, cities bombed back (further) into the stone age, and civil liberties destroyed over this guy. All of this is public record. As is guantanamo bay.

but we are expected to believe someone might get upset over a pic of a dead guy and we are so concerned over that, we cant release the pic. Bs. That is the least of their problems.

pic isnt released because of other reasons.

It was an execution

[Charliemopps]

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.

Re:It was an execution

[hedwards]

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:It was an execution

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes it was an execution and he should have been executed and not captured.

Do you have ANY idea how many people would be taken hostage overseas with the demand of Osama's release? Every single militant in Iraq, Afghanastan, and Pakistan would have grabbed the nearest foreigner they saw and threatened him with death unless Osama was released.

Yes, this is a country of laws but this is also a country at war. Even Lincoln suspended habeus corpus and even threatened to throw the chief justice of the supreme court into jail for getting into his way regarding rebels.

Re:It was an execution

[pete6677]

1. You're wrong. Please cite the "international law" you claim was violated.

2. Even if you were right about the killing being technically illegal, so what? Sometimes what's right and what's legal aren't exactly the same thing. If you cannot comprehend this simple fact then you have huge huge problems.

Re:It was an execution

[Anonymous Coward]

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:It was an execution

[HellYeahAutomaton]

1. Take your pick

UN's International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has declared the same:
"Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No man shall be deprived of his life arbitrarily."
"[The Death] penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgment rendered by a competent court" – ICCPR Articles 6.1 and 6.2.[1

Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/executions/index.htm

Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/terrorism/rapporteur/srchr.htm

2. "So what?" you say. We've got this important principle called "Rule of Law". If you cannot comprehend this simple fact then you have huge huge problems. The way it was handled was *not* right, let alone legal.

Re:It was an execution

[Bob The Cowboy]

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.

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 bit contradictory. Especially since plenty of press has no issue making the US look bad...

Re:It was an execution

[Anonymous Coward]

Taking Bin Laden alive would have resulted in multiple groups taking hostages around the world to negotiate his liberation. Killing him instead of trying him saved the lives of those that would have been taken hostages.

Re:It was an execution

[Tuan121]

Your proof is overwhelming.. oh wait, you have none.

Re:It was an execution

[corbettw]

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.

Personally, I'm OK with summary execution of bin Laden, for a number of reasons. But that's not important now. What is important is that during the campaign, Obama promised to use the civilian courts to try terrorism suspects. So if it turns out the SEALs executed this guy on orders from the President, how is that going to look? This is the only reason I can think of for why Obama is refusing to release the photos.

Re:It was an execution

[RogerWilco]

I think that if the story was indeed very different from the official US government one, then the Pakistani have enough survivors (among whom bin Laden's youngest wife) who will tell the story. And given the state of Pakistan currently, their version of events would not take long to come out.

If the US, Pakistan and al Qaida all have basically the same story, that's proof enough for me that that's probably how it happened.

Re:It was an execution

[Charliemopps]

What the fuck are you talking about. I said it was WRONG. Being legal, and being the right thing to do are 2 entirely separate concepts. Doing the right thing is often more important than doing the legal thing.

Re:It was an execution

[Charliemopps]

The Russians have, and use, tear gas grenades filled with an opiate based knockout gas. I guarantee we have the same. Throw the shit in from a distance, it either knocks him out cold or he blows up the building. Either way we win. It's that fucking simple and you and I both know the CIA/Seals probably have even better stuff. I suppose we wanted a body to prove to the public he was dead didn't we... oh wait, we dumped it in the fucking ocean didn't we?

Re:It was an execution

[Charliemopps]

"But there's one option the administration appears to have never seriously considered: taking bin Laden alive."
"The SEALs’ decision to fatally shoot bin Laden -- even though he didn’t have a weapon – wasn’t an accident. The administration had made clear to the military’s clandestine Joint Special Operations Command that it wanted bin Laden dead, according to a senior U.S. official with knowledge of the discussions. A high-ranking military officer briefed on the assault said the SEALs knew their mission was not to take him alive. "
http://www.nationaljournal.com/for-obama-killing-not-capturing-nobr-bin-laden-nobr-was-goal-20110503

"Osama bin Laden’s daughter had confirmed her father was captured alive and shot dead by the US Special Forces during the first few minutes of the operation carried out at the huge compound in Bilal Town, Abbottabad."
"The daughter has reportedly told her Pakistani investigators that the US forces captured her father alive but shot him dead in front of family members. "
“Not a single bullet was fired from the compound at the US forces and their choppers. Their chopper developed some technical fault and crashed and the wreckage was left on the spot,” a well-informed official explained. 


http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/05/04/147782.html
http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/05/04/147782.html

They'll probably be released later

[Animats]

The House and Senate Intelligence Committees have already been shown the pictures. Once the "Osama was a martyr" stuff dies down in the Islamic world, there's no reason not to release them. It's barely front page news on Al Jazeera any more, although they're doing a bin Laden retrospective. Give it six months, and the pictures will be of historical interest only.

There's really not much question that he's dead. Even al-Queda says he's dead.

The really interesting results of the raid will come out as the intel found on-site is processed. It looks like bin Laden's people didn't have a chance to destroy any data, and their records, computers, and video are in US hands. NSA and CIA people are undoubtedly working around the clock on that data. What's left of al-Queda is probably trying to find a place to hide. (They talk about "martyrs", but that's for the people at the bottom, not the leadership.)

Re:They'll probably be released later

[bugs2squash]

I was about to say "Even Al Queda thinks he's dead", but you beat me to it, I don't think I read it in any of the other comments above though and I see it as important and telling that this is not about proof and more about the message.

What comes across to me is the sheer coldness of this whole business...

• He was unarmed. So, what of it ?
• Can we see his body ? No. Fuck off
• Can we visit his grave? No. Fuck off
• Can we see his effects ? No. Fuck off

It is so assertive in a way that splashing an image of his corpse all over the news could never be. In this instance I think the style is important and that Obama is being very effective.

Re:They'll probably be released later

[GameboyRMH]

They'll never release the photos. But like the video of Saddam Hussein's hanging, they will "anonymously leak" onto the Internet. The US government will have to confirm their authenticity this time because of the fakes going around, and now here's the hard part, show just the right level of indignation at the leak that they don't draw too much attention to the issue, while at the same time not showing a radical change from how pissed off they were at the Wikileaks fiasco.

blah blah

[db10]

this has been a huge waste of lives, money, and other resources.. and to be frank I don't take the word of any politician and surrounding propagandists... sure he's probably dead, but it's all bullcrap until the pudding is served.. rah rah jackass is dead, meanwhile people are jobless and the elite are laughing at the masses.

Re:They just want the money

[db10]

that's what the AP do, they generate money by providing information. just like the government generates money by manipulating sentiment to invade other countries to dip their greedy grasping hands into national funds to enrich itself and their cohorts.

maybe they'll finally cave in

[bugs2squash]

and release the pictures just before the 2012 election.

Christian Church statement...

[xded]

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 [...]

Re:Christian Church statement...

[Runaway1956]

Agree, with your post, and with the Vatican's statement.

In real life, I knew a guy who really needed killing. I spent a couple years contemplating the deed. He almost gave me enough justification a couple times. (No, I won't go into details - I'd be typing all day!" The old bastard finally died. It was sobering. I felt kinda good, but there wasn't any singing and dancing. And, I never have gone to the cemetery to piss on his grave, like I promised him that I would do.

Satisfaction is enough. Rejoicing is just - I dunno - ignorance? hubris? stupid? bestial? savage? My education is lacking, I just can't come up with the right word.

Re:Christian Church statement...

[shutdown -p now]

Faced with the death of a man, a Christian never rejoices

The Pope should notify Saint Theodosia. By all accounts she and her followers rather did.

Vietnam on crack

[dugeen]

Whoever said the war of terror was like the Vietnam war on crack was right. And now this incident is like the Kennedy assassination on fast forward; OBL has only been dead two weeks and the terror forces' account of events has already turned out to have been a pack of lies from the beginning.

He's dead, Jim

[reboot246]

Yeah, he's dead, but we paid for those photos and we have the right to see them.

Change you can step in. Indeed!

Re:Photos too violent?

[NoOneInParticular]

Saddam Hussein was killed by Iraqis, and we all know what a brutal and primitive bunch these are. Watch the footage if you don't believe me. The American military only kills through surgical strikes: no blood, no gore, clinical and precise. It's civilized.

They'll never learn

[OneSmartFellow]

I am getting awfully tired of my government keeping secrets from me. I don't see how it can be justified that the pictures or video should be withheld. Who gives a F#*% if it angers our Islamofascist 'allies', they've shown their spots.

They are classified

[gatkinso]

Shove your FOIA req up yer butt.

Irrelevant.

[denzacar]

"Need" for something to happen in (any) particular fairy tale or in real life is irrelevant.
The issue at hand is the use of "loaded" religious imagery to incite intercultural hatred and how that has nothing to do with requests for the reveal of historical documents, the First Amendment and the freedom of press.

I actually believe Iran.

[crhylove]

Let's be real the stories we've been getting about the event are obviously suspicious.

http://rt.com/news/osama-dead-raid/

Seems more likely to me. "Hey look! We got Bin Laden!" Now don't pay attention to the massive decline of the American dollar.

Release them, but not right away

[mr100percent]

Scott Horton finds middle ground:

There is no reason why they need to be made public today, this month, or even this year. But the materials should be preserved carefully and passed to an archive. In good time they should be available to those who chronicle these events, so they can do so with a keen and impartial eye. The death of bin Laden marks the end of an era. This should not be marked with lies and secrecy; it should be marked with a strengthened commitment to acknowledge the truth, unpleasant as it may be in certain details. The passage of some time may be necessary, but in the end a democracy is nourished, not demoralized, when it looks the truth unflinchingly in the face.

Not a mansion?

[TimeElf1]

Only between 250,000 and $480,000? If that's not a mansion what is? My house I just bought just over a year ago was only worth 90k when we bought it.

Understatement

[DrBoumBoum]

The AP isn't alone in wanting more insight on the specifics of the raid

THIS is a hell of an understatement. I guess it would be closer to the truth to say that a few billion people don't feel alone in wanting more insight on the specifics of the raid.

mod parent up

[ppz003]

Everybody wins*.

* for certain values of win

thats why more Al-Caida attacks in Europe

[peter303]

Soft governments who give into whining protesters.
Dont forget to look under your bed tonight.

Limit international law violation

[DrYak]

They were outside of their own jurisdiction, they were performing military operations, on a foreign land, with which the USA aren't in war, and which wasn't authorised by the Pakistani before hand. The whole operation was a big fuck up of international laws.

Taking the other bodies, or taking the survivors prisoners would only further aggravate the situation.

Purpose of the war ?

[DrYak]

2. "So what?" you say. We've got this important principle called "Rule of Law". If you cannot comprehend this simple fact then you have huge huge problems. The way it was handled was *not* right, let alone legal.

A simple reflection that I might add to your answer :

What was the initial purpose of starting the war in Afghanistan and starting the whole "War on Terror" military-political machine ?
What are the value the US have fought for ?
Why were they trying to protect their citizens from deaths by terrorists ?

If you apply an "the end justify the means" answer to this, what really fundamentally makes the US any different from the individual that they fought for ? (I mean except "kindergarten"-level of answers like "They did it first, they should have started making terrorist acts if they didn't want the US violating every possible individual freedom and internation treaty on semi arbitrary random principle). (Retaliation is not an excuse)

If the US really values justice, it should have followed the applicable law.
If the US wanted to protect their citizen from arbitrary deaths caused by terrorist, they should *NOT* freely go arbitrarily assassinate people in foreign countries (whom they are not at war with), outside of their jurisdiction and without permission of the government of said country ; they should not kill said people without due process, without a fair trial.

The US should have showed an example, not only by getting the head of al-qaida, but also by perfectly handling him according to the law. apparently, they failed.

The message sent by the US to the rest of the world, was :
- yes, you can go around killing people, only as long as said people are not american, as long as you are the most powerful and have the biggest toys.

I suspect that they killed him

[Agent0013]

When I heard that they dumped the body into the ocean so quickly I began to suspect that they had actually killed him. Either they are keeping him alive someplace, or even more likely, he has been dead for a while already.

I found this page with lots of statements from people about how Bin Laden died back in 2001. http://www.rense.com/general94/lies.htm

It makes you wonder.

Would it matter?

[GeddyT]

Two theories: 1.) Is it possible that people underestimate how much damage to a face an assault rifle round can do at close range? Would looking at a picture of a neck with some bloody hamburger above it really convince anyone that OBL is dead? 2.) What if something during the actual raid went wrong? Maybe, perhaps understandably, one or more of the SEALs took matters into their own hands in dealing with a surrendering OBL? Or something else that might make the U.S. or its special forces look bad? Maybe the lies and whatnot are to protect some of the team that was on the ground conducting the operation? Just playing devil's advocate. I suppose it's also possible there's he's in a secret prison somewhere, being asked a few questions, with a go Kart--"GOLF cart"--battery hooked up to his nipples.