Comments on: Should the President Release the Photo of Osama?

By: rocketfingers

rocketfingers — Tue, 10 May 2011 09:40:16 +0000

Wrong. The photos didn’t create the resentment and anger; the actions they captured did.

By: BluegrassJack

BluegrassJack — Sat, 07 May 2011 15:35:05 +0000

So, we’re sure that Osama is dead?

By: TTFIO

TTFIO — Fri, 06 May 2011 13:43:52 +0000

The best argument, or at least the one most often articulated (which immediately makes me think it’s probably wrong), is just the one you made: releasing the photos would inspire anti-Americanism and endanger the lives of citizens abroad.

But why? Why would the photos inspire that? Will the people who plotted to kill Americans on Friday work harder to kill Americans after the photo? Or are you talking about people who didn’t hate America on Friday? If so, what about the photo would inspire that?

I don’t think PB is suggesting that we’re afraid of seeing what the photos might say about America, but maybe that we simply don’t want to be defined by this particular act (which, as usual, would get us into a discussion of how else we CAN be defined, but I’ll leave that to TLP).

I dunno, man. Personally, I just think seeing the photos would be bad for our soul.

By: JohnJ

JohnJ — Fri, 06 May 2011 12:58:58 +0000

You’re saying that we won’t release the photos because we are afraid of confronting the reality that we are either a nation of blind justice or brutal retribution. If the reason we don’t release the photos is because we’re afraid of that, then that’s cowardice. However, there are other perfectly valid reasons for not releasing the photos. So where you choose to see this as proof that we are either a nation of blind justice or brutal retribution, I don’t think it means that.

By: operator

operator — Fri, 06 May 2011 10:26:02 +0000

That’s the reality we aren’t ready to face.

Be careful, talk like that will get you tazered and shipped off to a secret prison for stress positions and waterboarding.

By: boeotarch

boeotarch — Fri, 06 May 2011 07:06:53 +0000

I wasn’t exactly at the point of partying over it, but I found the news pretty satisfying. He was our enemy and we killed him in a firefight. Regardless of what legal status we decide to give him retroactively, I’m sure he saw himself as a combatant, and I really can’t see any reason to feel there was anything unjust about how he was killed. We even went and gave the guy a decent burial. Now we can celebrate the end of an era and the death of a sworn enemy, even if in strategic terms little has changed.

Regarding the martyr issue: I really could not care less whether he’s a martyr to them or not.

Regarding the “violence only begets more violence” trope: this is only true up to the point where one side wins.

Also, @Pastabagel’s reply to JohnJ:
Avoiding tough questions because the answers might not be pretty definitely smacks of cowardice at worst and a general lack of principle at best. I’m against showing the pictures because it’s distasteful to show an enemy’s bullet-riddled corpse -we don’t let our soldiers do it and our administration shouldn’t do it either- but not doing it solely to put off answering legitimate and serious questions about what our country does? Cowardly.

By: Nik

Nik — Fri, 06 May 2011 04:42:27 +0000

Not everyone celebrated, I think most evaluated the event somberly in their homes. But there are no news cameras there.
To address your post, if the pictures are released and they some how prove that the SEALs acted “legally” it doesn’t open up the debate. It would actually help us ignore the questions, “Would we be the country of laws even when laws are inconvenient? Are we the country that defends itself at all costs using any tactics, legal and illegal, moral and immoral?” because we could say, “Look, we did everything by the book, case closed”. Now if it was a brutal assassination with the blood of innocents and a reprimand from Pakistan for breaking its laws, then we have a conversation. Right now, we’re some where in between.

By: Pastabagel

Pastabagel — Fri, 06 May 2011 04:15:47 +0000

I dont really understand how you get to cowardice from what i wrote, but I guess the criticism is that we don’t want to be called cowards by others? Or we don’t want to think of ourselves as cowards?

By: larrykoubiak

larrykoubiak — Fri, 06 May 2011 03:39:02 +0000

Well, it didn’t take long to reach the Godwin point it seems…
But to answer your question i wouldn’t celebrate, i might feel some kind of relief if he had died but i wouldn’t pop up the champagne over it.
I was merely pointing out the fact that maybe it isn’t wise to celebrate the death of someone, whoever it is. I’m ready to believe it could have happened legally, that he did shoot etc… fine.
But celebrating just shows that it was the outcome you wished for, and that doesn’t sit well with a country defending democracy, fair trial and whatnot.
You just elevated Osama to the martyr status, and he will be regarded as a hero back in Al-Qaeda.
I’m just not sure that will prevent them to take further action, it might just encourage them.
So party on if you want, but don’t act surprised if they are even more pissed off at the US than before.
You would be pissed at them too if they had assassinated Bush instead (ok maybe not a great example).

By: Leucrotta

Leucrotta — Fri, 06 May 2011 02:02:03 +0000

larrykouiak..are you insane with a mustache? Would you celebrate if Hitler was killed/died? Of course how is this different? When the Allies fire bombed Germany till nothing was left..should the 8th Airforce have stopped? No..this is war and this war had one face and it was UBL….ask Northern Ireland or England how is it like living with terrorists you need faces and image to rally around.