PDA

View Full Version : Bin Laden death photos might not see the light of day



ELVIS
01-14-2013, 07:27 AM
WASHINGTON (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/01/10/179536/bin-laden-death-photos-might-not.html) — Skeptical-sounding federal judges on Thursday considered whether the public can see pictures of terror mastermind Osama bin Laden, taken after he had been shot dead by U.S. Navy SEALs in a raid on his hideout two years ago.

The 52 pictures, some described as "graphic” and “gruesome" by a top CIA official, highlight a Freedom of Information Act fight that climaxes just as Hollywood’s version of bin Laden’s death hits movie theaters. But while Hollywood’s depiction has attracted both critical acclaim and political heat, and was accomplished with the CIA’s help, the real world pictures snapped by elite commandos seem destined to remain secret.

“They’re telling us it’s a risk . . . that Americans will die if we release these documents,” Judge Merrick Garland said Thursday, adding that “when the government tells us this is likely to lead to death, shouldn’t we defer to that (even) more than when they say it will result in the release of secret information?”

Judge Judith Rogers, who like Garland was appointed by a Democratic president, further cited “the concern that these images could be used as propaganda.” Echoing arguments made by Obama administration officials, Rogers suggested that the propaganda concern is aggravated by the late bin Laden’s prominence as al Qaida’s leader

“Almost anything associated with him is necessarily of concern,” Rogers said.

The explicit fears raised by two members of a three-judge appellate panel during oral argument provided a strong indication, though no guarantee, that the court will side with the Obama administration in keeping the bin Laden photos secret.

Rejecting the Freedom of Information Act bid from a legal advocacy group called Judicial Watch would add to the cloak already draped around other politically sensitive U.S. military and spy actions since the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

The Pentagon long sought to keep secret certain incendiary photos of U.S. soldiers abusing prisoners at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. An estimated 2,000 other prisoner abuse photos taken in Iraq and Afghanistan also have been withheld by the Obama administration. A former top CIA officer ordered the destruction of videotapes showing captured al Qaida leader Abu Zubaydah being interrogated under the simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding.

The photos currently in question – which, theoretically, could include videotapes as well – depict a dead bin Laden at four distinct moments during and after the May 2, 2011, raid. Some pictures show him shortly after he was shot at close range by a member or members of the secret direct action unit known as SEAL Team Six.

“They depict the fatal bullet wound to (bin Laden’s) head and other similarly gruesome images of his corpse,” John Bennett, director of the CIA’s National Clandestine Service, stated in a 22-page declaration filed in 2011.

Other pictures or video show bin Laden’s corpse as the commando team flew by helicopter away from his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. Some show bin Laden’s body being washed and tended by U.S. personnel, and some show his post-midnight burial in the North Arabian Sea by the crew of the USS Carl Vinson.

“The government fails to appreciate that these are various types of images,” Judicial Watch attorney Michael Bekesha stated Thursday, noting that some of the photos being sought show what the government itself refers to as a “dignified” burial service.

Bekesha argued, in part, that the Obama administration failed to individually specify how each of the 52 photographs or videotapes pertains to the kind of weapon system, intelligence operation or foreign relations activity that can properly be withheld under the Freedom of Information Act. Justice Department attorneys countered that officials provided sufficient specific detail and that, in any event, other priorities trump the public’s right of access to government information.

“Release of these materials could reasonably be expected to harm national security,” Justice Department attorney Robert Loeb argued Thursday.

As it happened, the 45-minute oral argument Thursday occurred only about one block away from the Washington museum where the Oscar-nominated Hollywood version of the bin Ladin raid, “Zero Dark Thirty,” received its D.C. premiere Tuesday night. Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has formally asked the CIA for all information provided to the filmmakers by agency officials.

The help provided by the CIA included detailed information about the floor plan of bin Laden’s compound, as well as meeting with the moviemakers, documents obtained by Judicial Watch under a separate FOIA request show.

“I can’t tell you how excited we all are . . . about the project,” the CIA’s then-public affairs director George Little wrote the screenwriter in a November 2011 e-mail. “It’s been a real pleasure to help facilitate things.”


:elvis:

ELVIS
01-14-2013, 07:30 AM
“They’re telling us it’s a risk . . . that Americans will die if we release these documents,”

LAUGHING MY FUCKING ASS OFF !!


:mad2:

Nickdfresh
01-14-2013, 09:24 AM
I actually agree with Elvis here, I want to see the photos of his pumpkin head gourd with brain matter and blood sprawled out all over. Fuck him!

Seshmeister
01-14-2013, 09:27 AM
It was widely warned that the video of Saddam being hanged would cause widespread bloodshed and it never did.

I'm not sure that Bin Laden is seen as some great Islamist martyr either.

ELVIS
01-14-2013, 09:31 AM
If it was OK to see Gadaffi take a bullet in the head on CNN, but the Bin Laden pics are too gruesome to show to our "violent society" ??

The only real problem is that the real Bin Laden photos don't exist...

I'm quite certain that the body double which was depicted as Obama hiding in the Pakistani compound was killed, but releasing those photos would prove once again that it's not Bin Laden...


:elvis:

ELVIS
01-14-2013, 09:34 AM
I'm not sure that Bin Laden is seen as some great Islamist martyr either.

He's not, that's US propaganda...

DLR Bridge
01-14-2013, 09:36 AM
What really sets the baddies off is cartoons/comic strips. Draw and publish a strip featuring Osama's air conditioned gourd. There's your sleeper cell dog whistle.

Seshmeister
01-14-2013, 09:55 AM
A letter to Kathryn Bigelow on Zero Dark Thirty's apology for torture

By peddling the lie that CIA detentions led to Bin Laden's killing, you have become a Leni Riefenstahl-like propagandist of torture


Naomi Wolf
guardian.co.uk, Friday 4 January 2013 17.40 GMT


http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2010/3/8/1268041325173/Kathryn-Bigelow-001.jpg
Director Kathryn Bigelow holds her 2010 Academy Award for The Hurt Locker. Photograph: Paul Buck/EPA



Dear Kathryn Bigelow,

The Hurt Locker was a beautiful, brave film; many young women in film were inspired as they watched you become the first woman ever to win an Oscar for directing. But with Zero Dark Thirty, you have attained a different kind of distinction.

Your film Zero Dark Thirty is a huge hit here. But in falsely justifying, in scene after scene, the torture of detainees in "the global war on terror", Zero Dark Thirty is a gorgeously-shot, two-hour ad for keeping intelligence agents who committed crimes against Guantánamo prisoners out of jail. It makes heroes and heroines out of people who committed violent crimes against other people based on their race – something that has historical precedent.

Your film claims, in many scenes, that CIA torture was redeemed by the "information" it "secured", information that, according to your script, led to Bin Laden's capture. This narrative is a form of manufacture of innocence to mask a great crime: what your script blithely calls "the detainee program".

What led to this amoral compromising of your film-making?

Could some of the seduction be financing? It is very hard to get a film without a pro-military message, such as The Hurt Locker, funded and financed. But according to sources in the film industry, the more pro-military your message is, the more kinds of help you currently can get: from personnel, to sets, to technology – a point I made in my argument about the recent militarized Katy Perry video.

It seems implausible that scenes such as those involving two top-secret, futuristic helicopters could be made without Pentagon help, for example. If the film received that kind of undisclosed, in-kind support from the defense department, then that would free up million of dollars for the gigantic ad campaign that a film like this needs to compete to win audience.

This also sets a dangerous precedent: we can be sure, with the "propaganda amendment" of the 2013 NDAA, just signed into law by the president, that the future will hold much more overt corruption of Hollywood and the rest of US pop culture. This amendment legalizes something that has been illegal for decades: the direct funding of pro-government or pro-military messaging in media, without disclosure, aimed at American citizens.

Then, there is the James Frey factor. You claim that your film is "based on real events", and in interviews, you insist that it is a mixture of fact and fiction, "part documentary". "Real", "true", and even "documentary", are big and important words. By claiming such terms, you generate media and sales traction – on a mendacious basis. There are filmmakers who work very hard to produce films that are actually "based on real events": they are called documentarians. Alex Gibney, in Taxi to the Dark Side, and Rory Kennedy, in Ghosts of Abu Ghraib, have both produced true and sourceable documentary films about what your script blithely calls "the detainee program" – that is, the regime of torture to generate false confessions at Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib – which your script claims led straight to Bin Laden.

Fine, fellow reporter: produce your sources. Provide your evidence that torture produced lifesaving – or any – worthwhile intelligence.

But you can't present evidence for this claim. Because it does not exist.

Five decades of research, cited in the 2008 documentary The End of America, confirm that torture does not work. Robert Fisk provides another summary of that categorical conclusion. And this 2011 account from Human Rights First rebuts the very premise of Zero Dark Thirty.

Your actors complain about detainees' representation by lawyers – suggesting that these do-gooders in suits endanger the rest of us. I have been to see your "detainee program" firsthand. The prisoners, whom your film describes as being "lawyered up", meet with those lawyers in rooms that are wired for sound; yet, those lawyers can't tell the world what happened to their clients – because the descriptions of the very torture these men endured are classified.

I have seen the room where the military tribunal takes the "testimony" from people swept up in a program that gave $5,000 bounties to desperately poor Afghanis to incentivize their turning-in innocent neighbors. The chairs have shackles to the floor, and are placed in twos, so that one prisoner can be threatened to make him falsely condemn the second.

I have seen the expensive video system in the courtroom where – though Guantánamo spokesmen have told the world's press since its opening that witnesses' accounts are brought in "whenever reasonable" – the monitor on the system has never been turned on once: a monitor that could actually let someone in Pakistan testify to say, "hey, that is the wrong guy". (By the way, you left out the scene where the CIA dude sodomizes the wrong guy: Khaled el-Masri, "the German citizen unfortunate enough to have a similar name to a militant named Khaled al-Masri.")

In a time of darkness in America, you are being feted by Hollywood, and hailed by major media. But to me, the path your career has now taken reminds of no one so much as that other female film pioneer who became, eventually, an apologist for evil: Leni Riefenstahl. Riefenstahl's 1935 Triumph of the Will, which glorified Nazi military power, was a massive hit in Germany. Riefenstahl was the first female film director to be hailed worldwide.


It may seem extreme to make comparison with this other great, but profoundly compromised film-maker, but there are real echoes. When Riefenstahl began to glamorize the National Socialists, in the early 1930s, the Nazis' worst atrocities had not yet begun; yet abusive detention camps had already been opened to house political dissidents beyond the rule of law – the equivalent of today's Guantánamo, Bagram base, and other unnameable CIA "black sites". And Riefenstahl was lionised by the German elites and acclaimed for her propaganda on behalf of Hitler's regime.

But the world changed. The ugliness of what she did could not, over time, be hidden. Americans, too, will wake up and see through Zero Dark Thirty's apologia for the regime's standard lies that this brutality is somehow necessary. When that happens, the same community that now applauds you will recoil.

Like Riefenstahl, you are a great artist. But now you will be remembered forever as torture's handmaiden.