Freedom of the Press vs. National Security (the bin Laden death photos)

S

speedracer

Banned
Reuters and someone else (I forget) has sued the government to release the photos after being rejected on FOIA grounds. Should the government be able to claim national security in this instance?

I'm torn. I think when in doubt, release dox to the public. But this is something that in my mind genuinely falls in that grey area.
 
I'm not familiar enough with the Freedom of Information Act to know what the burden of proof is. Does anyone know what an individual bringing suit has to prove up to compel to government to release the requested information?
 
I haven't exactly been following it to know the reasoning, but how would pictures of a dead person threaten national security?
 
[quote name='SpazX']I haven't exactly been following it to know the reasoning, but how would pictures of a dead person threaten national security?[/QUOTE]

Because it might anger some of Bin Laden's supporter and increase attack on USA
 
[quote name='62t']Because it might anger some of Bin Laden's supporter and increase attack on USA[/QUOTE]

But aren't they already angry since he's dead? I dunno, I guess that makes sense, but I feel like attacks on the US would already be at a maximum at this point.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']I'm not familiar enough with the Freedom of Information Act to know what the burden of proof is. Does anyone know what an individual bringing suit has to prove up to compel to government to release the requested information?[/QUOTE]

The complainant just has to properly ask for a record that exists. If it ever comes before a court the government has the burden of proving that a 5 USC 552(b) exemption applies (e.g. the record is classified). The Obama administration has a stated policy to waive most exemptions that would otherwise be available to it, as well.
 
Maybe I'm mellowing out in idealism (some) - but it seems to me there is a legitamite reason to do this.

Frankly I'd like to see more honest reporting as far as war in the middle east wars are concerned, and less photos of terrorist leader corpses.

If you ever watch foriegn reporting like the BBC those guys truly embed themselves in the middle of the story and the news stations broadcast the raw feeds right to air. It's something else to see a Libyan rebel firing his AK47 at a tank. Takes it out of the realm of COD and into the blood-and-guts tragedy that it really is.
 
[quote name='camoor']Maybe I'm mellowing out in idealism (some) - but it seems to me there is a legitamite reason to do this.

Frankly I'd like to see more honest reporting as far as war in the middle east wars are concerned, and less photos of terrorist leader corpses.

If you ever watch foriegn reporting like the BBC those guys truly embed themselves in the middle of the story and the news stations broadcast the raw feeds right to air. It's something else to see a Libyan rebel firing his AK47 at a tank. Takes it out of the realm of COD and into the blood-and-guts tragedy that it really is.[/QUOTE]

Your comment reminded me of this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtGSXMuWMR4
 
I'm not that knowledgeable of FOIA law specifics either, but I'd hope this is a case where the pics don't have to be released.

The government has already been very forthcoming with details of the raids--including correcting earlier mis-information that came out in the hours after the raid. We know pretty much exactly how it went down etc.

So I just don't see some big secrecy issue here in them not showing gruesome pictures that would risk national security by riling up Al Qaeda supporters and giving even more martyr power to bin Laden's death.
 
At first I was in the camp of keeping it under wraps, then I was convinced, by Jon Stewart I'm somewhat ashamed to say, that we need to release this and every other photo that involves war. War ain't pretty and the more we move away from the propaganda that we have now, the better.
 
I don't think anyone who actually knows a veteran needs to be reminded of the gravity of a war, much less with the image of a man with half his face blown off on broadcast television. If you want people to get a better understanding of war, fine. But there's got to be a better way than turning the nightly news into a theater of the macabre.

And turning to bin Laden, haven't we spat on the man's grave enough already? Apart from that, what other purpose does releasing the death photos serve? All it would do at this point is further inflame terrorist sympathizers. Beyond that, if we can't trust the President to belive Osama bin Laden is dead, then our problems go way deeper then whether society can fully grasp the nature of war. I'll put it this way: FDR didn't have to publish photos of the corpse of Isoroku Yamamoto for people to believe he was dead. How is this any different?
 
In principle, I really don't disagree with you. Unfortunately, the problem is that society can't fully grasp the nature of war because we've been engineered not to. It's all about "feeling good about our heroes" and not reflecting on the losses.

I personally don't need to be convinced that Bin Laden is fish food and it does me no good to see a picture a man's face half shot off. Hell, I wish we lived in a society in which we wouldn't need to parade around pictures of dead people we "hate," but let's be honest, we're not that civil to begin with. Like you said, our problems run much deeper.
 
[quote name='Magus8472']I don't think anyone who actually knows a veteran needs to be reminded of the gravity of a war, much less with the image of a man with half his face blown off on broadcast television. If you want people to get a better understanding of war, fine. But there's got to be a better way than turning the nightly news into a theater of the macabre.[/QUOTE]

Current active duty personnel make up less then 1% of the overall population. So I don't think your "ask a veteran" strategy is an effective way of spreading the word about what we've really signed up for in the Middle East.

Got any other bright ideas?
 
There are plenty of gruesome war photos out there. They aren't ending up in the newspapers much, but you see them in magazine and websites. I've seen several bloody pics from Libya for instance.

So I don't think that's a strong enough rationale to risk backlash over Bin Laden's pics, providing photos to be used to aid his martyrdom etc.
 
[quote name='camoor']Current active duty personnel make up less then 1% of the overall population. So I don't think your "ask a veteran" strategy is an effective way of spreading the word about what we've really signed up for in the Middle East.

Got any other bright ideas?[/QUOTE]

I wasn't advocating for an "ask a veteran" strategy. But rather than responding, I think I'm gonna wait and see how long it takes you recognize the comical factual error you made in this post.

[quote name='dohdough']In principle, I really don't disagree with you. Unfortunately, the problem is that society can't fully grasp the nature of war because we've been engineered not to. It's all about "feeling good about our heroes" and not reflecting on the losses.

I personally don't need to be convinced that Bin Laden is fish food and it does me no good to see a picture a man's face half shot off. Hell, I wish we lived in a society in which we wouldn't need to parade around pictures of dead people we "hate," but let's be honest, we're not that civil to begin with. Like you said, our problems run much deeper.[/QUOTE]

I think we're on the same page. But in any event, "educating" people about war is going to take a lot more than the publication of some gory photos.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']There are plenty of gruesome war photos out there. They aren't ending up in the newspapers much, but you see them in magazine and websites. I've seen several bloody pics from Libya for instance.

So I don't think that's a strong enough rationale to risk backlash over Bin Laden's pics, providing photos to be used to aid his martyrdom etc.[/QUOTE]
Very true. Not to say that I'm not conflicted about this or that my opinion is the correct one, it's more of an all or nothing deal for me.

I learned a long time ago that I wasn't desensitized to this stuff and hope never to be.
 
[quote name='Magus8472']I wasn't advocating for an "ask a veteran" strategy. But rather than responding, I think I'm gonna wait and see how long it takes you recognize the comical factual error you made in this post.[/QUOTE]

Of course you didn't advocate for anything, your posts are rambling incoherent drivel.

At this point I regret even humoring you. Never wrestle with a pig, you both get all dirty and the pig likes it.
 
[quote name='camoor']Current active duty personnel make up less then 1% of the overall population. So I don't think your "ask a veteran" strategy is an effective way of spreading the word about what we've really signed up for in the Middle East.
[/QUOTE]

While I don't disagree with yourpoint, the 1% active duty stay isn't an valid one to use as veterans are people who served before, not currently--and that number would be higher than current active duty obviously.

Overall, your point stands for another reason. I know a decent amount of veterans, as well as having a brother currently in the military, but very few of them ever saw combat. Even my dad who was in the Air Force during Vietnam was only in Thailand working on planes as a mechanic etc.

So yeah, the "ask a veteran" idea doesn't work so well as most people probably don't have friends/relatives who saw combat.
 
[quote name='camoor']Of course you didn't advocate for anything, your posts are rambling incoherent drivel.

At this point I regret even humoring you. Never wrestle with a pig, you both get all dirty and the pig likes it.[/QUOTE]

You wound me, sir.

But it's all good, dmaul bailed you out. Though even he assumed that the only real wars are American wars.
 
[quote name='Magus8472']
But it's all good, dmaul bailed you out. Though even he assumed that the only real wars are American wars.[/QUOTE]

I didn't assume that at all. Just using the US context given the thread topic/discussion of American's being too desensitized to war.
 
I think that it's funny (not funny "ha ha" but "this smells funny") that there is a serious effort to get a pic released of a dead man we've deemed an "enemy", but there was (still is?) a ban on pictures of flag draped caskets of people we called "heroes".

The only reason I see to release the pic is blood-lust/vengeance. I cant imagine any person who is unconvinced by the reporting being suddenly swayed by an image. It'd be the 'birth certificate' debacle all over again. But this time you run the risk of also (needlessly) inflaming potential terrorists.
 
Yeah I don't buy the argument that it should be released b/c of conspiracy theorists. If they're crazy enough to believe the conspiracies then the pictures won't convince them. YOu can't fight irrationality with empirical evidence.

Curious what people think of the argument that 'we released Abu Ghraib pics, why can't we see bin Laden's dead bod?' I read an article stating that the Abu Ghraib decision might've influenced the bin Laden pic decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top