Releasing the Osama kill photo

[Kopji]

I say yes, it is a historic event. (If they don't want photos don't take them). When is an appropriate time though? As we approach the next national elections, accusations will arise over the timing of the release being a political rather than historic event. Politicizing this in favor of one party or another would be unfortunate, since years of hard work have taken place.

I'd agree with releasing the photo a couple months from now. The usual media circus and 'celebrations' will have died down.

 

[geni]

It's part of the historical record so yes. I don't know if it's the switch to colour photography but it's only in the last few decades that this is something we have started worrying about.

 

[BeAChooser]

It's really amazing to me how different I think than most people.

I like the way you think.

 

[WildCat]

I think some news organization will sue under the FOI Act, and we'll get it that way if the White House doesn't release them.

 

[geni]

It's really amazing to me how different I think than most people. The burden shouldn't be on those who think the photos should be released to prove that they should be released. That should be the default stance with any and all information, that it's released. The only reasonable stance to take is that all government information should automatically be assumed to be released unless there is a compelling national security reason to keep it secret. This goes for pretty much every piece of information that the government has access to. The burden should be on those who want to keep it secret to have very good reasons to keep it from the rest of the people. Now, military operational security *is* a good reason to keep stuff secret. However, this operation is now over and I see no compelling reason to not release them. Being uncomfortable about the picture or thinking it's "insulting to the dead" or that it will piss people off is *not* a good reason. Nobody has a right to not feel uncomfortable. You could use those same reasons to do things like restrict free speech as some countries do (and I disagree with their reasoning).

The problem you hit is goverments react to this approach but not storing such information in a fixed form in the first place so there is nothing to release.

Bottom line for me is that my taxes partially paid for this operation and I damn well expect to see the results unless the government has a very compelling reason to keep them secret. Way way too much information is already inaccessible to the public for no reason. Where is the governmental openness that Obama proclaimed he would bring about? I would think he would be the first guy to say "Man these are ugly pictures but I promised to be open". Gimme a break.

The US goverment releases massive amounts of information. Problem is most of it is of almost no interest to anyone so it sits on websites not being accessed.

 

[WildCat]

It's part of the historical record so yes. I don't know if it's the switch to colour photography but it's only in the last few decades that this is something we have started worrying about.

The execution photos of the Lincoln assasination conspirators are in the National Archives: http://www.archives.gov/research/military/civil-war/photos/images/civil-war-201.jpg

 

[NewtonTrino]

The problem you hit is goverments react to this approach but not storing such information in a fixed form in the first place so there is nothing to release.

Government react? I don't understand they are supposed to be representing *us* not themselves. All government actions should be taken from a caretaker perspective, not a "we are the government so we decide".

Again I just think about this stuff different from "normal" people I guess.

The US goverment releases massive amounts of information. Problem is most of it is of almost no interest to anyone so it sits on websites not being accessed.

So what? If the information is of no interest why does that department even exist?

Bottom line, information should by default automatically get released to the public unless there is a very compelling reason to keep it secret. The process to keep things secret should also have cross checks and a balance of powers between different branches to prevent abuse.

 

[bigred]

Oh, and let me add also. If you don't want to see the picture, don't look at it. If the photo is released, no one is going to force you to look at it. By them releasing the photo, you can make your own choice about whether to see it, and let the rest of us who are intelligent adults make ours.

I'm hardly surprised that you first start off with a self-righteous "don't name call" post and then follow with more direct and asinine name calling spittle of your own. The pot/kettle thing, it's all the JREF rage. How intelligent and adult of you.



That said, I did not mean that everyone who wants to see the photo fits the orig description I gave. But I've little doubt it's easily the majority.

 

[EGarrett]

Really? What "direct and asinine name-calling" did I participate in?

Oh, and by all means, please explain why your preference for whether you wish to see the photo should override the preference of others, since you want it to not be released. Whereas if the photo is released, as I wish, you still don't have to see it.

 

[Moon-Spinner]

When the photos are finally released, I plan to digitally erase the bullet hole - just to drive the Conspiracy Theorists totally bananas!!

 

[Minadin]

I can see why they are carefully considering this situation.

Some people want the photos released. But, people who are wont to disbelieve will not be convinced, regardless. There are probably more people *who matter* who would be angered by the release than by not releasing it.

 

[cambion]

When the photos are finally released, I plan to digitally erase the bullet hole - just to drive the Conspiracy Theorists totally bananas!!

Make sure you flip the image horizontally, rotate it a few degrees, crop out the background, and change the facial hair ever so slightly. Can't have them thinking the government made a sloppy 'shop.

 

[Olowkow]

Really? What "direct and asinine name-calling" did I participate in?

Oh, and by all means, please explain why your preference for whether you wish to see the photo should override the preference of others, since you want it to not be released. Whereas if the photo is released, as I wish, you still don't have to see it.

I'm not so much against releasing this stuff in principle, but the problem is that once one of these things is released, like that 'bigfoot in a freezer', or the KSM hairy back jerk, or the Rodney King beating, Sadam hanging, etc. that's all you see for months, as a sidebar of nearly every report. You really can't help but have it imposed on you. I think many of us just get tired of looking at them.

The one they keep showing now is that water boarding scene every time water boarding is mentioned. I frankly don't want to see it any more. I guess it is a combination of natural revulsion and just poor reporting fatigue.

 

[Moon-Spinner]

I also would love to see the video of the raid, but I don't know if I should watch the theatrical release, or wait for the Director's Cut!!!

 

[Loss Leader]

I think it should be released but people shouldn't look at it.

I'm serious. Government should be open and transparent. At the same time, death should not be gawked at as entertainment.

 

[Furcifer]

Hang on a minute there ladies and gents. I am not a "nutter", or CT, or whatever derogatory label can best be used to hand wave away a semi-legitimate question.

The extraordinary claim, I would argue, is that OBL was found and killed.

Extraordinary if for no other reason than they couldn't do it for 10 years.

At this point, what evidence do we have? The word of our President. Well, even though I more or less support this one, the former one proved that they can and will tell bold faced lies (though, honestly, the WMD lies weren't the only proof that presidents can/will lie).

The govt. absolutely has an incentive to lie about this, and could likely (to my mind) get away with it indefinitely. If OBL releases a video, you have the CIA expert go on the Sunday morning talk shows and explain that it is an impostor.

Perhaps the photos would not be air-tight evidence anyway, and I don't even know how I feel about the OP (though I do lean slightly towards releasing them), but I don't think we are seeing excellent skepticism in this thread.

If I have missed some evidence, then nevermind. I haven't really been combing the news.

(ETA: I do think he is dead, for the record. I just think that questioning this is absolutely valid, and shouldn't be hand-waved away).

If you're suggesting "they lied", which is possible, photos don't mean squat because they could "fake" the photos. It would take a good photoshopper less time to fake photos than write a speech.

You either believe or you don't. If you don't believe, in my experience over in the CT section, it doesn't matter what evidence you're presented with you will deny it. Photos won't change anyone's mind one way or the other.

 

[geni]

Government react? I don't understand they are supposed to be representing *us* not themselves. All government actions should be taken from a caretaker perspective, not a "we are the government so we decide".

Again I just think about this stuff different from "normal" people I guess.

Actualy no. You are represented by congress and the president (your state is represented by a couple of senators). The goverment does not represent you it mearly answers to your representatives.

To put in a form you might prefer a janitor will decide within set limits how to clean a floor but they won't think they are representing the company in doing so.

In this case the problem is that there is no way to to force someone to write down the stuff they are holding in their head.

So what? If the information is of no interest why does that department even exist?

To put out fires. Or to keep sea defences intact (aparently an average of 2.3 people a year are interested enough in portsmouth's plans for it's sea defences over the next 50 years to take the book out of the libiary) or make sure that court buildings don't fall down too often. The reality is that there are a lot of goverment tasks that that the general public have little interest in unless they go wrong.

Bottom line, information should by default automatically get released to the public unless there is a very compelling reason to keep it secret. The process to keep things secret should also have cross checks and a balance of powers between different branches to prevent abuse.

Automatically releasing creates problems. Governments hold a lot of personal information on people and stuff generally needs to be anonymised before released which costs money. So a school can release it's accounts automatically but minutes of staff discussions about pupils present more of a problem.

The current FOI system is probably the best you are going to get.

 

[NewtonTrino]

Actualy no. You are represented by congress and the president (your state is represented by a couple of senators). The goverment does not represent you it mearly answers to your representatives.

To put in a form you might prefer a janitor will decide within set limits how to clean a floor but they won't think they are representing the company in doing so.

In this case the problem is that there is no way to to force someone to write down the stuff they are holding in their head.

I have no problem with any of that. Yet the fact remains that they have the photos and barring any kind of good reason they should be released. Our representatives should be open and transparent in their work, period.

To put out fires. Or to keep sea defences intact (aparently an average of 2.3 people a year are interested enough in portsmouth's plans for it's sea defences over the next 50 years to take the book out of the libiary) or make sure that court buildings don't fall down too often. The reality is that there are a lot of goverment tasks that that the general public have little interest in unless they go wrong.

So some people are looking at it, and it's useful? Good keep it up. Now what was your original point? Was there a reason not to release? I didn't think so.

Automatically releasing creates problems. Governments hold a lot of personal information on people and stuff generally needs to be anonymised before released which costs money. So a school can release it's accounts automatically but minutes of staff discussions about pupils present more of a problem.

The current FOI system is probably the best you are going to get.

I would argue that the government holding all of this personal information is the problem. The current FOI system is laudable but still fairly pathetic and IMHO not good enough.

Again, I think different from most. Unlike the average person I actually care about things like liberty and transparency. I prioritize information sharing over hurting peoples feelings or security. It seems like most people are fairly willing to trade freedom for security. I'm not, making me an oddball. In the long run we need to make sure our checks and balances are working well and that government isn't running amok. At the current point it's pretty obvious that our government has too much power.

 

[NewtonTrino]

I think it should be released but people shouldn't look at it.

I'm serious. Government should be open and transparent. At the same time, death should not be gawked at as entertainment.

I completely agree. I have no intention of looking but I think all the photos should be released.

 

[I Am The Scum]

I say they should post everything they have that proves Obama is dead.

Obama is not dead. Don't tell me that post was wishful thinking.

I don't see what's pathetic to want the final tape/image to be the taunter/perpetrator also dead.

Do you have a rational basis for wanting to see it, or do you just think it would "feel good?"