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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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.

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.

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.

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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

[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.

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

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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: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: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.

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: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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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: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.

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]

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...

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 [...]

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.