Thursday, May 5, 2011
Media Bring Us the Head of Osama bin Laden?
Posted by Jim Ridley on Thu, May 5, 2011 at 10:53 AM
The debate's going 'round in my head: "Do you want to see the death photos of Osama bin Laden?" There's a part of me that does — not because I think the photos will prove or settle anything, but because a part of me would really like to see Osama bin Laden with a bullet in his head. And I can understand the case that maybe we should have to see it to accept the gravity of the action: this wasn't the removing of a target but the taking of a life, even if the life in question won't trouble most people's sleep. (The idea of bin Laden being shot unarmed doesn't bother me — this is war, and he set the terms by orchestrating the deaths of thousands of innocents. It's not like he gave a fighting chance to anyone on the 70th floor of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11.)
But do I want to see the photos everywhere for decades to come? Waved to incite jihadist frenzy? Brandished against innocent Muslims by bigots? Used on some indie-rock flyer? Pasted on T-shirts? No more than I relish four more decades with Eddie Adams' famous 1968 photo of a Viet Cong guerrilla's execution — an image so co-opted and Xeroxed it's been reduced to edgy clip art (or worse, a visual cliché). No more appealing is the possibility the photos could turn bin Laden into some kind of martyr or rallying cause for Islamic extremists.
I still can't decide. There are plenty of images I've seen I wished I could un-see — the mutilated body of Emmett Till, for one. It may be that what bothers me about this one isn't that I'd feel revulsion, but satisfaction.
Comments (49)
Showing 1-49 of 49
There's a part of me that would definitely like to see the photos. But releasing them would serve no real purpose and might well stir up a hornet's nest and cause deaths. Stirring up a hornet's nest is fine if there's an over-riding reason to do so. But that's not the case here.
As far as the photos being proof OBL's death, the people who don't believe it now wouldn't believe it after they see the photos either. They'll say it's not OBL at all, or that you can't tell it's him, or 'that shadow is obviously Photoshopped!' and so forth.
So Obama made the wise choice. If you doubt that, keep in mind that Sarah Palin wanted the photos released. That should seal the deal.
like
dislike
I don't want to see them, and, if they were made publically available, I wouldn't look at them. That said, I'm not sure that I would ever advocate censoring them, just because I, personally, find the idea repugnant. OTOH, I'm not concerned enough about censoring them to challenge the Obama Administration's decision not to release the photos for what I consider fairly persuasive national security reasons.
In other words, meh.
Thoughtful post.
There is a policy-related reason to show the pictures. It prevents people from claiming he is still alive. I have read some arguments for this view but I do not think that he needs to be alive or be a rumor. There will always be another 'leader' ready to step up.
"Waved to incite jihadist frenzy?"
I have heard this position but it seems that people who are willing to kill because of rumors of a Koran burning or because of a cartoon or similar 'justifications' don't need the picture of a dead terrorist to reach a frenzy.
On the whole, I tend to think that releasing the pictures is not a good idea. Now stuffing him and displaying him at pork barbecue festivals across America would have been a good idea but it is too late for that.
"So Obama made the wise choice. If you doubt that, keep in mind that Sarah Palin wanted the photos released. That should seal the deal."
Wise decision, my arse! Sarah Palin would have personally travelled to Pakistan, verified it was him, and then ripped his cajones out! Of that, I have no doubt! Obama Bin Laden IS NOT DEAD!!!!! I NEED TO SEE PHOTOS AND DEATH CERTIFICATES!
"It may be that what bothers me about this one isn't that I'd feel revulsion, but satisfaction."
This is me. I'm so uncomfortable with the part of me that wants to see them, and might even revel in them, that I'm glad they won't be released. That said, I'll be shocked if they don't leak.
As for people who need the picture to believe he's alive, they will never be satisfied. Releasing a photo of what, post-headshot, is most likely an unrecognizable bearded guy will not convince them anymore than the release of a long form birth certificate or the continued debunking of this LOOSE CHANGE nonsense has.
They're going to get out, either by leak, "leak," or maybe even FOIA. I don't really care one way or the other. I'm not clamoring for proof, by any means. I'm sure he's dead. But if they're there? I'll take a look, and probably feel nothing.
Enough is enough. He's dead, let's not disgrace ourselves as a country more by pasting his dead head everywhere while still pretending to straddle the moral gulf between our highfalutin rhetoric and actions as a government. I have been disgusted and embarrassed at the collective celebratory reaction at Bin Laden's death--the unending, guttural need for societal retribution after so much bloodshed on both sides of "the war on terrorism" is disgraceful.
Ashley, the Russians have photos that they claim are of the burned body of Hitler but they lack the excitement of Benito hanging around.
I will confess my own decadent curiosity about the pictures. (For instance, I viewed with interest Ted Bundy's pirated autopsy photos.) And while distinctly satisfying the SOB is dead, the unfortunate truth is he became what he wished. A martyr. He died by bullet, also his confessed preference. And aside from the moment of truth, it was instantaneously painless for him. I think there might have been a better way.
Imagine for a moment Osama confined solitarily in a place like Marion, Ill. Caused to feed himself on bacon, sausage, ham hocks and head cheese. Being trotted out now and then for display. Yanked through observances of 9/11 etc, handcuffed, with a chain around his neck.. Then being clapped back in the slammer for another session with the swine.
A nice long lifetime of that stuff would inflict upon him just the sort of suffering he inflicted upon bereaved families of his victims. Dead is not necessarily better.
I don't care much one way or the other whether I see any death photos, but I'm sure that if they are available, I'll eventually get curious and look. It seems worth pointing out that most of us have seen pictures of dead bodies that were in worse shape than Osama's probably was, and we may have been disgusted and even pained, but the circumstances didn't suggest a moral quandary for us. I don't really know why this case should, just because we choose to see the photo and are glad this person is dead. We can't do anything more to him by looking.
I would sure like to un-see a photo of the burnt head of a Japanese soldier who tried to get out of a tank at the wrong time. (Either that or the head was mounted on a U.S. tank as a hood ornament. I'm not going to go back and clear up the ambiguity.) Enemy or not, he was probably a lot more innocent than bin Laden. Till is an interesting case, because Till's mother WANTED everyone to look. She kept the casket open at the funeral for that reason. A very different case.
A very different case, and nobody can blame Till's mother for wanting the world to see what had been done to him. And its effect was undeniable. It's one thing to hear about racist violence in the abstract — it's another to see the body of a kid butchered and rendered unrecognizable. Except, of course, to his mother.
I don't really care one way or the other if I ever see them. Its not like a picture of it will add to any historical context (actually, I'd much rather see a video of the funeral process). However, I'm not sure how long they can keep the photo from the public. While they can temporarily block FOIA requests (and Judicial Watch has already filed one), it would seem to be a hard case to make that disclosure of this photo, which has been acknowledged and described by the White House, would be a threat to national security...especially 2 or 3 years down the pike.
So, eventually I'll see it. When I do, I'll look at it, say, "huh, OK," and move on.
At some point, somewhere, someone is bound to start making accusations of cold blooded murder, forgetting that there are occasions for justifiable homocide. Bin Laden is one, Mexican drug lords are another. Monsters all and by now the drug lords are richer than was Bin Laden. What if they decide they don't like America or Americans? Oh. wait, they don't, do they? Let the fun begin. (I wonder if the seals comprende Espanol.)
A bit off the subject but you folks need to be up to date, makes sense to me:
White House Insider: Obama Hesitated – Panetta Issued Order to Kill Osama Bin Laden
Q: You stated that President Obama was “overruled” by military/intelligence officials regarding the decision to send in military specialists into the Osama Bin Laden compound. Was that accurate?
A: I was told – in these exact terms, “we overruled him.” (Obama) I have since followed up and received further details on exactly what that meant, as well as the specifics of how Leon Panetta worked around the president’s “persistent hesitation to act.” There appears NOT to have been an outright overruling of any specific position by President Obama, simply because there was no specific position from the president to do so. President Obama was, in this case, as in all others, working as an absentee president.
Q: What changed the president’s position and enabled the attack against Osama Bin Laden to proceed?
A: Nothing changed with the president’s opinion – he continued to avoid having one. Every time military and intelligence officials appeared to make progress in forming a position, Jarrett would intervene and the stalling would begin again. Hillary started the ball really rolling as far as pressuring Obama began, but it was Panetta and Petraeus who ultimately pushed Obama to finally act – sort of. Panetta was receiving significant reports from both his direct CIA sources, as well as Petraeus-originating Intel. Petraeus was threatening to act on his own via a bombing attack. Panetta reported back to the president that a bombing of the compound would result in successful killing of Osama Bin Laden, and little risk to American lives. Initially, as he had done before, the president indicated a willingness to act. But once again, Jarrett intervened, convincing the president that innocent Pakistani lives could be lost in such a bombing attack, and Obama would be left attempting to explain Panetta’s failed policy. Again Obama hesitated – this time openly delaying further meetings to discuss the issue with Panetta. A brief meeting was held at this time with other officials, including Secretary Gates and members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but Gates, like Panetta, was unable to push the president to act. It was at this time that Gates indicated to certain Pentagon officials that he may resign earlier than originally indicated – he was that frustrated. Both Panetta and Clinton convinced him to stay on and see the operation through.
What happened from there is what was described by me as a “masterful manipulation” by Leon Panetta. Panetta indicated to Obama that leaks regarding knowledge of Osama Bin Laden’s location were certain to get out sooner rather than later, and action must be taken by the administration or the public backlash to the president’s inaction would be “…significant to the point of political debilitation.” It was at that time that Obama stated an on-ground campaign would be far more acceptable to him than a bombing raid. This was intended as a stalling tactic, and it had originated from Jarrett. Such a campaign would take both time, and present a far greater risk of failure. The president had been instructed by Jarrett to inform Mr., Panetta that he would have sole discretion to act against the Osama Bin Laden compound. Jarrett believed this would further delay Panetta from acting, as the responsibility for failure would then fall almost entirely on him. What Valerie Jarrett, and the president, did not know is that Leon Panetta had already initiated a program that reported to him –and only him, involving a covert on the ground attack against the compound. Basically, the whole damn operation was already ready to go – including the specific team support Intel necessary to engage the enemy within hours of being given notice. Panetta then made plans to proceed with an on-ground assault. This information reached either Hillary Clinton or Robert Gates first (likely via military contacts directly associated with the impending mission) who then informed the other. Those two then met with Panetta, who informed each of them he had been given the authority by the president to proceed with a mission if the opportunity presented itself. Both Gates and Clinton warned Panetta of the implications of that authority – namely he was possibly being made into a scapegoat. Panetta admitted that possibility, but felt the opportunity to get Bin Laden outweighed that risk. During that meeting, Hillary Clinton was first to pledge her full support for Panetta, indicating she would defend him if necessary. Similar support was then followed by Gates. The following day, and with Panetta’s permission, Clinton met in private with Bill Daley and urged him to get the president’s full and open approval of the Panetta plan. Daley agreed such approval would be of great benefit to the action, and instructed Clinton to delay proceeding until he had secured that approval. Daley contacted Clinton within hours of their meeting indicating Jarrett refused to allow the president to give that approval. Daley then informed Clinton that he too would fully support Panetta in his actions, even if it meant disclosing the president’s indecision to the American public should that action fail to produce a successful conclusion. Clinton took that message back to Panetta and the CIA director initiated the 48 hour engagement order. At this point, the President of the United States was not informed of the engagement order – it did not originate from him, and for several hours after the order had been given and the special ops forces were preparing for action into Pakistan from their position in Afghanistan, Daley successfully kept Obama and Jarrett insulated from that order.
No matter how you look at this, Obama acted in a manner that clearly was not in the interests of the United States of America.
Pete, John got this "news" from various right-wing blogs. This is nothing but the newest way that the right is trying to spin the credit away from Obama, facts be damned. Notice he doesn't even specify who is asking the questions and who is answering them, only a shadowy "White House insider." I've already googled this crap and it is completely coming from "sources" such as Pajamas Media, Conservative Daily News, and Newsbusters, hardly credible sources. And they all speak of this same shadowy "White House insider."
Come on John, you've got to do better than that.
Me.
Google it, it's everywhere. Sounds about right. Look at BHO in the now famous picture.
"Sounds about right."
Only it isn't and there is zero evidence to suggest otherwise. Of course it sounds right to you because of your political bias. But don't believe everything you read in the blogosphere John.
No, CA. It makes sense. Consider BHO and Valerie Jarrett. Not exactly the type to do the heavy lifting.
Heh, heh, I knew it was just a matter of time till BHO got outed on this one. Maybe he can explain all this to Oprah. Tidy it up, so to speak.
My reaction, at least initially, is this might be true.
Face it, BHO just doesn't have what it takes. Panetta, I feel does, as well as Patraeus and Hillary. You might not like them, but it all makes sense.
One more thing. Look at the number of people involved in that situation room, would not a leak be expected even demanded by real patriots or just normal Americans.
Min, these days it's like a female woman. Times have changed. Look at the picture you posted here, and you want salsa?
I've always had questions about why multi-presidents considered Panetta worth having around. Now I know. Thanks, John.
Apparently, I don't speak john as fluently as I thought. What the heck does that mean?
@min: It means that Panetta did what needed to be done when it needed to be done, a valuable trait.
John, I don't even believe that you believe it. You're not that dumb. There are major problems with this "story." 1) It relies on an "unnamed source". Right, and an unnamed source told us Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened. I'm sure you found that credible. 2) CIA chiefs, nor anyone else, can make a decision for the President. That would be treason. 3) No leaks at all about the mission (which is remarkable in and of itself) but someone in the room at the time who witnessed this decides to leak it to FreeRepublic.com? Sure, again very credible.
What's amazing is that the right continues to believe all this crap. And then they come over here, to the Scene, and share what they've learned. But it only makes the right all look like raving lunatics, even though there are plenty of very smart conservatives. Hey John, have a little fun and go over to Snopes.com and go the Obama section. Look at all the debunked "information" they have that has been emailed around, usually beginning in the conservative blogosphere. It just might blow your mind.
Come now, CA. This is what I posted.... read it again.
"My reaction, at least initially, is this might be true.
Face it, BHO just doesn't have what it takes. Panetta, I feel does, as well as Patraeus and Hillary. You might not like them, but it all makes sense."
I thought Bill Clinton was lying that night he denied fooling around with Monica. Just a gut feeling. So, you see how that turned out. I have always thought the birthers wrong. One is entitled to his hunches and feelings.
CA, BHO is not much of a president so maybe Panetta stepped up and did the right thing or pushed Obama to do the right thing. BTW, you don't know what went down.
A bit more off the subject, but this seems pretty credible to me:
According to White House sources, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack spent nearly 20 minutes of a cabinet meeting Tuesday rambling on about recent fluctuations in the price of corn before President Barack Obama finally told him to "shut the fuck up." "Look, Tom, I like you, I do, but we have some serious shit to talk about here," said Obama, who during previous meetings of the executive branch's top officials has reportedly listened with patience to Vilsack's digressions before moving on to other subjects. "Seriously, how long do you expect a group of people to listen to one man talk about corn? I'm sick of it, and everyone else in this room is fucking sick of it, and you need to shut the fuck up now." Sources confirmed Vilsack spent the rest of the day asking other cabinet members whether he was out of line or the president was just being a dick.
John. One. Massive. Fail. Not even a nice try.
And why do you hate America so much!
John, I believe you! It also makes sense to me! I've recently been skowering the internet looking for more juicy morsels and I've stumbled across something that will make your head spin! And I found it on a website billing itself as "America's Finest News Source" so it must be true! Here are a few snippets:
"Saying the nation must face the "grave realities" of its mounting debt, President Barack Obama unveiled a deficit-reduction plan Wednesday that included far-reaching spending cuts, pulling off a daring robbery of the heavily fortified Fort Knox bullion deposi-tory, and repealing Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy."
"According to a fact sheet issued by the White House, the proposed measures include slashing farm subsidies, cutting federal pension insurance, tricking Fort Knox security personnel into thinking that the president and five others are ordinary elevator repairmen, capping Medicaid's outlays on equipment, shaping C4 charges to blast 21-inch-thick vault doors off their hinges, and curbing discretionary spending."
""The president looked at every conceivable option," said Plouffe, who is expected to externally coordinate the six-man Fort Knox team from a van outfitted with multiple video screens. "He considered trimming the federal workforce, scaling back welfare payments, taking out a $4 trillion fire insurance policy on the Pentagon and burning it to the ground, even raising the retirement age—everything was on the table.""
A-ha!!!!! This didn't even rely on unnamed sources, it relied on the president's, and his closes advisors, own words, speaking of burning down the Pentagon for the insurance money and robbing Fort Knox!
Look, let's address the obvious question. Has anyone ever seen Osama and "Obama" together? Can "Obama" account for his whereabouts on 9/11? Why has he refused to release that information?
Let's face it - Osama and Obama are THE SAME PERSON.
I innocently posted about Panetta being in charge of the mission. I even made a qualifying statement. But, that's water over the dam and you all have made your rude comments.
The fact remains here we are days later and no one seems to know what happened over there. OBL resisted, no he did not, his wife was killed, no such thing, the new press guy was a mess and added fuel to the fire as did Brennan, for one, as well as lesser others. It appears no one in the WH can/has given a coherent description of the raid. In fact most is contradictory and changing hourly.
So, any ordinary skeptic like me, might go back and think maybe Panetta, HRC and the General are the only ones with good going around sense. This is in spite of, well, clarification of my absurd post by the majorty on this MB. My post makes me think of the old one about the rubber in the collection plate. This group is unchurched, I know.
As things get more out of control, my initial post deserves a better welcome than it so far has received
@ john: The thing about your post that sticks out is that Jarrett and Obama worried more about "looking bad" than getting Bin Laden. Thankfully, Panetta and Gates were there.
Shut up, John. You said your piece.
Obama got bin Laden. Al Qaeda even acknowledged as much. You Obama haters will always find fault with our President no matter what he does and most of us realize that. Move on.
"my initial post deserves a better welcome than it so far has received"
You mean your initial ridiculous copy-and-paste from some nutjob website. It received the "welcome' it deserved. Be a big boy, accept what happened, and stop your pathetic whining.
I'll say no more. Well, one thing, what about the chaos in the WH after the raid?
oh by the way, john and gast, President Osama got bin Laden! and now....repeat! Obama got Osama! got it?!!
@brian: Obama happened to be in charge when Bin Laden was killed. How much credit he deserves will be left to future historians. Bin Laden would have been dead years ago if Clinton had done what needed to be done when it needed to be done. Would you like to credit 9/11 to Bill Clinton? The present situation in Iraq and the reaction to it by hypocritical European nations would never have happened if Bush 41 hadn't wimped out during the Gulf War. The USSR might still be around if the liberal's attitude (don't make 'em mad) of the eighties had prevailed. Cuba might be a free country today if the Bay of Pigs' fighters had received air support they were promised. Should we blame JFK? Except for taxes presidents receive to much credit and/or blame for the events of their watch. Se la vie.
If I wanted to be mad at Obama I could choose one of his lies as a reason(no lobbyists working in the White House; closing Gitmo.) or idiocies (trying a terrorist in NY civilian courts), or the tremendous inflation we're about to face because of his spending policies (he makes Bush 43 look like a piker). Or the profane speech he allowed in the White house(no class) or the commonness of "I'm going to kick their ass!"(from an American President?) referring to the BP oil spill. Or all the angry and hateful-of-America pals(Jeremiah wright, Bill Ayers) he had before his election. So you see, if I wanted to be mad at Obama there's lots of reasons. (And I didn't even mention the fraud, both monetary and voter, associated with ACORN, for which he was a prominent recruiter. Or the failure to indict the Black Panther jerks at the polls in Philidelphia.) Liberals are always demanding honesty and fairness; it's amazing how they overlook all this crap. Or maybe not.
