To See, Or Not to See

From Album3

I feel like I've seen more than enough shots of the gory, bloody reality of war; however, Steve Clemons and Jon Stewart both make cases to release the Kracken picture...

Comments

[aimai]

No, ridiculous. There's no case to be made at this point. The pictures Clemons is talking about--the "washing the body" style respect pictures would inflame Obama's domestic critics while not silencing his foreign ones; while the shot in the face pictures wouldn't satisfy Obama's domestic critics while they would inflame our foreign allies and enemies. There's really no point hashing this topic over and over again as though all that matters in the universe is what Americans feel, or don't feel. This killing took place in the same maelstrom of domestic crazy and international war as everything else. Just as we despise Bush for saying "Bring It" to our enemies recklessly we should back this president up with his very considered conclusions on the matter of the photo.

What is it with even the left that they simply can't grasp that reality is different from fantasy and that although we are citizens in a democracy you don't FUCKING HIRE A DOG AND BARK YOURSELF. Some decisions get made by the people we delegated those decisions to.

aimai

[Tom Allen]

"Just as we despise Bush for saying "Bring It" to our enemies recklessly we should back this president up with his very considered conclusions on the matter of the photo."

So, it's wrong to criticize the government, except when it's right? What's your point, aimai? I mean, besides "STFU, even the left!"

[aimai]

I think my point, based on a day of reading everybody and his dog weighing in on this one, is that its right to criticize government actions that are wrong, or are heedless. But the government, in this case, has laid out a very compelling rationale for not showing the pictures. Everyone else who is still agitating to see the pictures is explicitly making the case that one half of the balancing act outweighs the other. The fucking Republicans are arguing that concerns about a muslim backlash shouldn't "trump our first amendment rights." Steve Clemons (as far as I saw in the part of the essay I read) is making a considered argument that absent strong reasons not to show the most violent pictures showing the least violent/most respectful ones might, from an arabist perspective, be politically savvy.

Obama has explicitly made the argument that while there is merit in all approaches: showing the pictures and not showing the pictures each version has potential pitfalls and, on balance, he considers the dangers of showing the pictures to be greater than not. You can criticize the decision and say "oh, I personally would like to see the pictures" or, as a lot of commenters do "I don't need to see the pictures but I respect the right of the lunatic down the street to masturbate to pornographic images which he will also assert are faked" or shout "transparency! transparency!" as though we don't sit on a pile of classified documents of much greater import than this every day.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't criticize the government when it acts badly, or acts without thought. But Obama hasn't done that. The decision was a pretty good one, all things considered. There is a huge potential downside to showing the pictures and the upside, he thinks, is not so likely to redound to anyone's good. Argue that point directly. Why is Obama's compromise not good enough?

aimai

[Taylor]

Wouldn't be an issue if we actually stuck to our principles about rule of law and justice and all that and gave him an actual trial before shooting him in the head. He "resisted arrest, unarmed," and yet our soldiers felt that bullet to the eye was necessary? Naw, my bet is, it was basically a race through the compound between these trigger-happy Special Ops boys to see who could shoot this man first. There was always a 0 percent chance that they were taking him alive.

Remember how we handled the Nazis, who, imho, were a LOT WORSE than al-Qaida, in both actions and ideology? We actually held international trials in courts of law to prove to the world they were guilty of the things they did before the punishments were meted out. We didn't raid their houses at night, murder them and then secretly dump their bodies at sea within 24 hours. Justice done outside the law is hardly justice at all, plus you've got to deal with all these stupid issues about photos and deathers and whatnot. The more we try to circumvent the law, the worse our country looks, even when we're doing "the right thing."

[MichaelF]

My initial reaction was scorn towards people who want the photos released so they can gloat and satisfy their inner blood lust...but Clemons makes a good point, and Stewart notes that it's pretty hard to be shocked by much of anything on TV these days.

OK.

Eugene Robinson also weighed in on the side of releasing a picture

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/why-i-wouldve-released-the-bin-laden-photos/2011/03/04/AFztulpF_blog.html

As for me, I've seen enough pictured death, real or dramatized.

Otherwise, good riddance to bin Laden. And yes, Taylor, I'd MUCH rather have seen him captured, put in trial, presumably convicted, and left to languish/rot in some miserable little sterile white noise jail cell for a long, long time. But, as I've mentioned to a friend recently, the "good" news is that we no longer have to worry about creeping authoritarianism...because (the bad news is) the country has already crossed that bridge.

[pansypoo]

georgee and his ilk would save it for oct.

[pansypoo]

oh wait, they ain't smart enough. obama would. like the birth certificate.

[joejoejoe]

It's easier to be shocked than you think. I remember being convinced that watching the Daniel Pearl video was worthwhile. My imagination pretty much had it covered but after watching it I wish I had not watched the video. My response was to follow things less closely because I was overwhelmed and physically sick from the imagery. And I believe I had good intentions. I believe most people who want to see the photos either A) want a trophy or B) are arguing for a transparency that never was and never will be.

You can't see autopsy photos of Dale Earnhardt, even though the autopsy was done by a govenment agency in FL. You don't get to see pictures of Bill Clinton's distinctive penis no matter if it's mentioned in court or not and you don't get to see half of Osama Bin Laden's exploded head. Idealism only goes so far. If you want to see more than we already see in modern life, get some wisdom or get a crystal ball. You don't get to see every still photo ever taken and it's silly to think otherwise.

[BlackSheep0ne]

and just now over twitter from @ alqaeda:
alqaeda Al-Qaeda
by maddow
Not happy about being hastily buried at sea, but at least the Westboro Baptist Church couldn't picket the funeral.