Slashdot Mirror
AP Files FOIA Request For Bin Laden Photos
Hugh Pickens writes "The Atlantic reports that President Obama's decision to withhold the visual evidence of Osama bin Laden's death has created a fundamental disagreement between the White House and the Associated Press, one of the largest journalism organizations in the world, prompting the news organization to file a Freedom of Information Act request for the bin Laden photos. 'This information is important for the historical record,' says Michael Oreskes, senior managing editor at The Associated Press. 'That's our view.' AP's FOIA request includes a reminder of the president's campaign pledge and a plea to be more transparent than his predecessor. 'The Obama White House pledged to be the most transparent government in US history,' writes the AP, 'and to comply much more closely with the Freedom of Information Act than the Bush administration did.' The AP isn't alone in wanting more insight on the specifics of the raid. When it eventually surfaced that bin Laden was not killed in a firefight, his wife wasn't used as a human shield, there was no live footage of the event and the 'mansion' where he lived was only worth between $250,000 and $480,000, many became skeptical of the White House's narrative. Other organizations that have filed FOIAs include Politico, Fox News, Judicial Watch and Citizens United. Oreskes sympathizes with the president. 'This is obviously one of his most difficult decisions and we understand that.'"
No good will come of releasing the pix.
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Per Obama's original statement, the photos are not being released because the administration felt that they could be used to incite acts of revenge (terrorism) against the USA.
Sounds like a simple: "Request denied for national security reasons" answer is to be expected.
"You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
This administration has been at least as opaque if not worse than the last administration.
The Obama White House cuts off access to news agencies that are critical of the Administration, the Press Secretary mocks questions and there are as many off the book meetings as the Bush administration was criticized for.
Of course it's got nothing to do with making bucket loads of money from exploiting the photos. They are the Altruistic Press after all.
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
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.
This Freedom of Information Act is defective in my opinion because the burden of proof for harm [if any] is on the entity from which information is sought but not the party seeking the information.
In fact, the party that seeks information does not even have to say why or what they are going to use the information for. Absurd, isn't it?
Not at all. All government information is public information, unless there is a reason for it not to be. I don't need to say why I want public information, because it is public information. When asked, the government must say why it is withholding the information.
That is pretty simple.
"You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
"pledged to be the most transparent government in US history"
Failing this is just like losing a game on the tutorial level
Yes, I agree with laxguy's statement about partying in the streets. When the ragheads - AHEM - Muslims danced in the streets after 9/11, we frowned on them, and named them animals, or worse. Then we take out one of theirs, and we behave in the same manner.
Me? I feel satisfaction that one of our enemies has been put down - but singing and dancing? Crap - I don't have time for that childishness.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
if the FOIA says they have to be released then they have to be released; the president does not have a choice. . . nobody is above the law.
Except that's not what the FOIA says. In fact, the FOIA has all kinds of exceptions that can be used to deny a FOIA request - all part of "the law."
personally i dont want to see the photos.
I don't want to see the photos either and I think a government decision to release them now would just be trophy waving of the lowest order. But I do fully support the AP's argument that they are of enormous historical significance. I'd be fine with them being declassified in ~10 years from now, preferably sooner if al qaeda's irrelevance continues to accelerate.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
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.
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
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.
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"?
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
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.
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 [...]