Obama: No, we’re not going to release the Bin Laden death photos; Update: Reuters releases photos of dead OBL couriers

posted at 4:56 pm on May 4, 2011 by Allahpundit

I think this is the right call, actually, but not for the usual reasons.

Besides, O surely realizes that they’ll leak sooner rather than later.

In an interview with Steve Kroft for this Sunday’s “60 Minutes,” President Obama says he won’t release post-mortem images of Osama bin Laden taken to prove his death…

Republican House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers said Wednesday that the Obama administration should not release the gruesome post-mortem images, saying it could complicate the job for American troops overseas. Rogers told CBS News he has seen a post-mortem photo…

“Imagine how the American people would react if Al Qaeda killed one of our troops or military leaders, and put photos of the body on the internet,” Rogers continued. “Osama bin Laden is not a trophy – he is dead and let’s now focus on continuing the fight until Al Qaida has been eliminated.”

I can think of four arguments for releasing the photos. One: It’ll prove that he’s dead. Except, of course, that it won’t. Conspiracy cranks will screech about the pic being doctored or the victim being an impostor (“those aren’t his eyebrows!”) within five minutes of it being posted. There’s no such thing as “proof” anymore; the Internet age is proof-proof. If anything, the more evidence you provide, the more pretexts you create for kooks to pose moronic challenges to it. If the White House wants to reassure people that the photos exist, they can show them to Republican leaders, to members of the press, and maybe to 9/11 families for their satisfaction. (Scott Brown apparently has already seen them.)

Two: It’ll warn the jihadis of the world of what awaits if they mess with America. Didn’t the Zarqawi death photos already warn them of that, though? How about killing scores of Al Qaeda commanders with drone strikes in Pakistan and elsewhere? The fact that Bin Laden and Zawahiri were in hiding for 10 years is pretty solid evidence that they know what happens when you mess with Uncle Sam.

Three: Turnabout is fair play. If we had to endure photos of U.S. troops doing wrong at Abu Ghraib, let’s celebrate the photos of U.S. troops doing right by taking down a monster. I think that’s a better argument for why the Abu Ghraib photos shouldn’t have been released, though, than for why the Bin Laden photos should be. And in fact, Obama agrees: Remember when he broke his promise to the left to release photos of detainee abuse and filed suit to keep them suppressed in the name of national security? Also, Abu Ghraib was a case of exposing government malfeasance, which the public has a right to know about. They may not have a right to the photos, given the propaganda value of those photos to the enemy, but it’s not an apples and apples comparison with a national high-five like killing Bin Laden.

Four: It’s a trophy. People want to see dead Osama’s face because they want to revel in it. They’d put it on t-shirts and coffee mugs even though, according to one of CBS’s sources, it’s beyond gruesome (the “bullet opened his skull, exposing the brain, and it also blew out his eye”). After watching Americans forced to choose between burning alive or jumping to their deaths on 9/11, the thinking goes, we deserve to plaster images of Bin Laden’s cortex on billboards. Fair enough, but I have to say, just knowing how the raid went down and that his skull ended up being popped like a balloon is already … deeply satisfying. I keep thinking of him in his bedroom, listening to the SEALs banging around downstairs and hyperventilating at the thought of what would happen when they opened the door. I don’t need an extra scoop of sugar on that hot fudge sundae. It’s already tastier than I could have hoped for.

So those are the arguments in favor. The obvious argument against releasing the photo, per Bob Gates and Hillary, is that it’ll “inflame anti-American sentiment” and put troops in the field at greater risk. Didn’t we already cross that bridge, though, by … killing Osama Bin Laden? And haven’t we heard that same argument used before by our political leaders to pressure people like Terry Jones on free speech? The argument the administration could/should have made is that sometimes we have to accept a greater operational risk in the interest of protecting core values like the First Amendment — and that this isn’t one of those times, since there’s really no core value that would be served by releasing a “suck it, jihadis” Bin Laden death photo. It would feel great, but as I said above, it already feels great. And the “suck it” message has, I take it, already been received by all the important people via the fact that Osama now literally sleeps with the fishes.

The reason I think this is a good call is that I like the idea of Bin Laden being reduced to an afterthought, even in death. He had already reduced himself to that status after 10 years of hiding like a rat and churning out the occasional audio message that no one paid much attention to. Then, on Sunday, in the span of 12 hours, he went from quietly doing whatever he was still doing for Al Qaeda to quietly having a chunk of his head blown off to quietly being kicked off the deck of a U.S. carrier into the sea. Just like that, gone from the face of the Earth; I’ll bet the carrier crew didn’t even hear the splash. That’s a sweet ending for a messianic fanatic. Release the photo and you undo some of that, though, by treating him like a big enough deal that the world should gawk at his fate. Why give his followers that satisfaction? He wasn’t a big deal. He was to us because we had unfinished business with him, but nearly everyone else — possibly even Al Qaeda — had moved on. And now we get to move on too. Next.

Update: Ah, looks like Scott Brown only saw one of the fake photos circulating online. I’m sure the GOP leadership can view the real thing if it asks Obama to make them available. Although Boehner says he doesn’t need to:

“That’s a decision for the administration to make,” Boehner said when asked if it was necessary to release any of the bin Laden photos, which U.S. officials have described as carrying the gory imprint of a gunshot wound to the head. “They have to decide what to do. I’m convinced. I have no doubts.”

Update: A Pakistani security official showed up at the compound shortly after the raid ended and snapped a few pics, which he then sold to Reuters. If you want to see what happens to jihadis when they come face to face with SEALs, brace yourself and click here.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

And rather than tamping down the scandal situation, they’ve only fanned with flames with another week’s worth of questions and denials to come.

Sweet. How sweet it is.

Finally, Obama’s chikkinzzz are coming home to roost.

petefrt on May 19, 2013 at 8:22 PM

“We’re not crooks – we’re incompetent” is their battlecry. The water is circling the drain, Barry.

Philly on May 19, 2013 at 3:46 PM

This.

When you have to plead incompetence to defend against charges of malfeasance, you know you might be in trouble.

petefrt on May 19, 2013 at 8:36 PM

ear relevant…

driguana on May 19, 2013 at 8:59 PM

Flush this lying tudd down the drain with the rest of the Obamacrap.

kemojr on May 19, 2013 at 9:34 PM

This was Dan Pfeiffer’s week in the barrel, like Susan Rice he was given the White House talking points and sent on a mission. He really needs to get copies of these tapes and watch them and see how foolish and unbelievable he looked and sounded. The White House is losing the little credibility it still had by sending these shills out every week trying to do damage control. Community organizers make poor leaders.

savage24 on May 19, 2013 at 9:42 PM

Pfeiffer’s statement that the law is irrelevant because the IRS conduct was “outrageous” and “inexcusable”, tells us all we need to know about this administration.

However, the follow-up should have been, “On what standard do you judge their conduct to be outrageous and inexcusable since the law is apparently not an appropriate standard?” (At least in Pfeiffer’s mind.)

What this comes down to is this: “if the Administrative deems something “outrageous” and “inexcusable,” then it is declared such. As we have seen in so many other areas, if the Administrative deems something to not be “outrageous” and “inexcusable,” then it is declared such.

In their mind, the law is – in fact – irrelevant. That’s what makes this situation so dangerous.

It’s not socialism. It’s worse.

EdmundBurke247 on May 19, 2013 at 10:36 PM

Irrelevant = “What Difference Does It Make?”

jaydee_007 on May 19, 2013 at 10:41 PM

In their mind, the law is – in fact – irrelevant. That’s what makes this situation so dangerous.

It’s not socialism. It’s worse.

EdmundBurke247 on May 19, 2013 at 10:36 PM

A fitting capstone to Ed’s story about loss-prevention (aka employee theft) and management’s “permission structure” in this post.

(Not to mention the jaw-dropping statements of Eleanor Clift in this one.)

AesopFan on May 19, 2013 at 11:40 PM

I enjoy popcorn and hope it is a long week.

Drill and Fill on May 20, 2013 at 12:41 AM

Hey give Barky a break. He had to get his sorry ass out to Vegas.

tbear44 on May 20, 2013 at 4:49 AM

Of course they sent Pfeiffer out to do the Sunday shows. He was the most senior expendable staff member they had . . .

BigAlSouth on May 20, 2013 at 5:39 AM

BigAlSouth on May 20, 2013 at 5:39 AM

Pfeiffer… The guy with the red shirt in the landing party…

Boudica on May 20, 2013 at 5:53 AM

Irrelevant = “What Difference Does It Make?”

jaydee_007 on May 19, 2013 at 10:41 PM

Perfect!

lea on May 20, 2013 at 7:11 AM

Does anybody else remember the campaign in 2008 when Obama defended his lack of administrative experience by saying he was just so smart and tuned in that his instincts were better than experience. Someone needs to dredge up these sound bites and play then with the current line about the government being too large to control and that the White House only knows what it reads in the newspaper.

bartbeast on May 20, 2013 at 8:43 AM

If where the president was during the Benghazi crisis is “irrelevant”, then he wasn’t where one would expect the Commander-in-Chief to be. So, where was he? Was he watching a movie in the residence? Was he bowling? Or was he having a bi-curious outing with his good buddy Reggie Love? If Obama was AWOL, as I suspect he was, it is he who is irrelevant. This entire stinkin’ criminal Obama Regime must go and now!

SpiderMike on May 20, 2013 at 9:31 AM

If this continues all week, it will be ‘O’ himself doing the rounds on the Sunday talk shows – except for Fox, of course. (‘O’ can do everything better than everyone else as he has been known to say.)

He then gets the extra benefit that no one will challenge him like they have begun to do with his minions.

Carnac on May 20, 2013 at 11:00 AM

Comment pages: 1 2