Bin Laden is dead, official

[mookiemookie]

If Pakistan wants to make threats, I guess we can take our $1.5BN in foreign aid someplace else.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

If Pakistan wants to make threats, I guess we can take our $1.5BN in foreign aid someplace else.

[AVGWarhawk]

A U.S. acknowledgment that bin Laden was unarmed when shot in the head -- as well as the disposal of his body at sea, a practice rare in Islam -- have drawn criticism from the Arab world and Europe, where some have warned of a backlash against the West, even among Muslims who reject Qaida's violence.

The world acknowledged that the people in the twin towers, PA cornfield and Pentagon were unarmed and killed. Bodies disposed...not sure...many not recovered. This had drawn criticism from the US world where some (a lot) said there will be a backlash against those that perpetrated this act. Even amongst the bible huggers who have guns and reject violence.



-shrugs-

[tater]

The rationale for not publishing is lousy. It's to avoid offending people who are not even Americans. Quite frankly, who cares what muslims think? Not my problem. It's exactly the same rationale not to publish "offensive" cartoons. It's ridiculous, and sets a terrible precedent.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by tater

The rationale for not publishing is lousy. It's to avoid offending people who are not even Americans. Quite frankly, who cares what muslims think? Not my problem. It's exactly the same rationale not to publish "offensive" cartoons. It's ridiculous, and sets a terrible precedent.

Releasing the photo only accomplishes placating the skeptical. It would serve no other purpose. The skeptical will still be skeptical of the photos as well. It is a waste of good bandwidth.

[tater]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Releasing the photo only accomplishes placating the skeptical. It would serve no other purpose. The skeptical will still be skeptical of the photos as well. It is a waste of good bandwidth.

AVG, something can be a good idea, but still not be appropriate. Given the 1st amendment, and the FOIA, the onus is on the government (as it should be) to demonstrate why such otherwise public domain information should be held back. "Because they say so" isn't good enough.

I could be convinced that not publishing was the best thing, and still think that the government cannot hold the images back regardless.

What can they claim the reason is to NOT publish them? National security? That would basically require saying that we must censor any speech in the US that might offend muslims. That pretty much shuts up the entire society, because virtually everything offends muslims. So national security is off the table. Since they can redact any parts of an image that might contain, say, a classified weapon, or document next to the carcass, that won't cut it, either. There is basically no possible rationale for not publishing the images other than possibly "good sense." Good sense isn't enough, though, constitutionally.

[Freiwillige]

Originally Posted by tater

AVG, something can be a good idea, but still not be appropriate. Given the 1st amendment, and the FOIA, the onus is on the government (as it should be) to demonstrate why such otherwise public domain information should be held back. "Because they say so" isn't good enough.

I could be convinced that not publishing was the best thing, and still think that the government cannot hold the images back regardless.

What can they claim the reason is to NOT publish them? National security? That would basically require saying that we must censor any speech in the US that might offend muslims. That pretty much shuts up the entire society, because virtually everything offends muslims. So national security is off the table. Since they can redact any parts of an image that might contain, say, a classified weapon, or document next to the carcass, that won't cut it, either. There is basically no possible rationale for not publishing the images other than possibly "good sense." Good sense isn't enough, though, constitutionally.

Well put.

There is basically no possible rationale for not publishing the images other than possibly "good sense." Good sense isn't enough, though, constitutionally.

So you realise it may be good sense to not do something but want to do it anyway because you think an old piece of paper doesn't say you can't so you should

[UnderseaLcpl]

Dang! Late to the party again! Stupid work.


I'm not here to argue with anyone or comment on the building political crapstorm over this issue or offer shouldas or wouldas or couldas. I'm sure I'll get around to that later. I'm just here to say that when I heard of Bin Laden's death it felt like a great weight had been lifted off of my shoulders, in a personal sense. I wasn't even a part of the effort to find him, other than in the broader sense of the war on terror, but knowing that he is dead gives me a sense of mission accomplishment, and it is a great feeling.

I also want to give credit where credit is due. As much as I dislike Obama and consider him a socialist, he was the guy who made the call and I respect him for that. He came through for America and the world at a time when it really mattered and didn't wimp out because Pakistan would whine about it. Nice work, Chief

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by tater

AVG, something can be a good idea, but still not be appropriate. Given the 1st amendment, and the FOIA, the onus is on the government (as it should be) to demonstrate why such otherwise public domain information should be held back. "Because they say so" isn't good enough.

I could be convinced that not publishing was the best thing, and still think that the government cannot hold the images back regardless.

What can they claim the reason is to NOT publish them? National security? That would basically require saying that we must censor any speech in the US that might offend muslims. That pretty much shuts up the entire society, because virtually everything offends muslims. So national security is off the table. Since they can redact any parts of an image that might contain, say, a classified weapon, or document next to the carcass, that won't cut it, either. There is basically no possible rationale for not publishing the images other than possibly "good sense." Good sense isn't enough, though, constitutionally.

Consitutionally? I'm not sure if that applies here. Why bother with the Constitution and just use the Freedom of Information Act? Then again, the information can be freed at the governments behest. Like most of the information that is freed, There is no good sense/reason in releasing the photos IMO.

Hell, just sit back...Joe Biden will post the pictures on the net. Hell, he has spilled the beans on everything else.

[vienna]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110505/ts_yblog_thelookout/debate-confusion-on-bin-laden-photos

Meanwhile, three Republican senators yesterday said they'd seen the pictures--before walking back on those claims later in the day, raising the possibility that they had been duped by fake images on the Internet.
Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts told the cable station NECN: "I have seen the photos." But later he told the station that he now understood the photos weren't authentic.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence committee, also claimed to reporters that he had seen the photos, before backing off in an email to The Ticket. A spokeswoman blamed the slip on a "miscommunication."

And Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire told reporters: "I saw a photo of him deceased, the head area." But later she said in an email to The Ticket: "While I was shown a photo by another senator of what appeared to be a deceased Osama bin Laden, I do not know if it was authentic."

This is how so many various versions of "facts" come about; the press, in its fever to get the "scoop", seek comments from people who have marginal to no connection to those who really know what is going on and the broadcast the comments as reliable "fact". The "source close to the administration", the "government offical who asked to be unnamed", the "Pentagon official speaking on condition of anonimity", all contribute to the ongoing game of 'Telephone' where something is said and warped, transformed, and mutated to fill the purpose of whoever is reporting. Then, when the Administration tries to clarify or correct the "reports", they are accused of trying to coverup or backtrack. This is not a defense of the Obama White House; this has been going on with a vengeance since probably the Nixon Administration, if not longer. A probable good rule of thum is to regard initial reports in the media with large and several grains of salt. Here, in Los Angeles, a local radio station, when informed of a major coming announcement from the White House, spent the hour or so leading up to the actual announcement wildly speculating on the possible subject matter. The gamut of possible subjects was mind-boggling. The situation got so frenzied, the station was actually reporting Twitter tweets as if they were reports from wire services, press secretaries, or government spokespersons.

[Growler]

Ah, the Internet. Misunderstanding each other at near-real-time has never been so convenient.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Growler

Ah, the Internet. Misunderstanding each other at near-real-time has never been so convenient.

Right up to the BSOD!