Elsewhere in Slate, William Saletan explains why the human-shield myth was a bad idea, Dave Weigel talks about how Osama's death proved everyone right, John Dickerson looks at Obama's secret meetings, Dahlia Lithwick says it's time to end the war on terror, Chris Beam explains the mood in Pakistan, Heather Murphy compiles a slideshow of the elite Navy SEALS, and Maura O'Connor looks at how the war still continues in Afghanistan. For the most up-to-date-coverage, visit the Slatest. Slate's complete coverage is rounded up here.
In a world where every form of splatter, dismemberment, and slaughter has found a home on the Web—a place in which tens, perhaps hundreds, of millions have watched blood bubble out of Neda Salehi Agha Soltan's face and pool on the asphalt beneath her head—it seems nuts that President Barack Obama has decided not to release the photos of Osama Bin Laden's bullet-dented cranium. *
In a 60 Minutesinterview to be aired Sunday, Obama said he thought it important that "very graphic photos of somebody who was shot in the head are not floating around as an incitement to additional violence or as a propaganda tool."
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney spoke yesterday about the "sensitivities involved" in releasing the "gruesome" and potentially "inflammatory" photos, and mused about whether allowing their publication would "serve or in any way harm our interests" at home and abroad. Today, he said the administration didn't want the photos to become "icons" that would help rally support against the United States.
Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., the chairman of the House Intelligence panel, opposes making the photos public for similar reasons, saying he doesn't want the images to "make the job of our troops serving in places like Iraq and Afghanistan any harder than it already is. The risks of release outweigh the benefits."
Obama and Rogers' idea that news should be calibrated by the government to ease the job of the U.S. military makes for a First Amendment loophole you could drive a motorized regiment through. If al-Qaida and its supporters are more irate with the United States this week than they were last week, it's because U.S. commandos killed Bin Laden. Obama should never have marked him for death if tending the "sensitivities" of al-Qaida and its allies was U.S. policy.
It's hard to imagine that a death photo of Bin Laden would elevate al-Qaida and its supporters to some fury that his killing didn't. Or, as @knifework tweeted this afternoon, "Who hasn't shot someone in the face, fed their corpse to the sharks, and then fretted over how their followers would feel about the photo?"
I don't advocate the photos' release because I think it will convince the unconvincible that Bin Laden is dead or because I desire a "trophy" or a football "spiked," as Obama puts it in his 60 Minutes interview. I'm for the publication of the pictures because they're an essential part of the war on al-Qaida. Withholding the photos and couching their suppression in the name of national security misjudges what makes al-Qaida tick and infantilizes the nation. It also sets a precedent for "news that's too gruesome to reveal."
Here's how CBS News reporter David Martin describes the photos, based on a description provided to him:
It does sound very gruesome. Remember, bin Laden was shot twice at close range, once in the chest and once in the head, right above his left eye, and that bullet opened his skull, exposing the brain, and it also blew out his eye. So these are not going to be pictures for the squeamish.
Barbie Zelizer, author of the recent book About To Die: How News Images Move the Public, finds it paradoxical that the administration would recoil from releasing the photos but gladly provides verbal descriptions of the spectacular raid and Bin Laden's killing.