Should the U.S. release photos or video footage of Osama bin Laden's body?

If Obama doesn't wanna release the evidence, then why was the need to use the SEALs instead of bombing the place outright? After all, the motive for the SEAL option was for proof

You mean the proof that's currently residing down in Davy Jones' locker? Let's see the photos already...

Hai, if they did with Saddam and his son's body, why is it any different?

When I ask myself which would be better - to show or not to show ...

The USA government knows he is dead (or at least will never be seen again. What is to be gained by sharing photos or videos of this? I can't think of anything good. Curiosity seekers? Conspiracy theories? Definitely nothing good.

If video or photos are made public in the next 10 years, they will certainly be used by terrorist to rally for their cause. I don't want that. Perhaps in 20 or 40 years, release would be ok. The photos AND video should be released, just not now.

Bin Laden is a religious figure, Saddam was not. There are vastly different expected outcomes.

At least some of the navy seals had helmet cameras. Obama, Biden, Clinton and others were in the Whitehouse "situation room" watching this event live as it was occuring. If they could stand it, so can I.

In the US we have the right to see any info we want. I believe that pictures of his body (atleast one) should be released. This is like Obama and his birth cirtificate all over again. People will not believe you unless you show proof.

Photographs "prove" nothing nowadays. The CIA surely has software MUCH better than PhotoShop - and could generate any photographic "proof" it wants on demand. George Washington rode a dinosaur ? Sure. A photo SO good that nobody could ever find a flaw could be created overnight.

Video is more difficult to fake because of the sheer volume of material and changing 3-D relationships among other things but that can be faked too. Just might take a little longer.

As a rule of thumb, if you don't see the photo within one hour of an event, or a video within a day, don't be 100% convinced that pictures tell no lies.

So then what's the POINT of a dead bin-Laden photo except "morbid interest" ? They say he was killed at that place, at that time, in that way - and that's the official truth from now on whether it's true or not.

MC72,

I think the idea of using SEALs was to avoid or minimize collateral damage because it was an urban area.

Personally, I wouldn't show the pictures. Not only do I find it morbid and in bad taste, I think it's in the country's best interest for them to remain TOP SECRET for a very long time.

Taka

apparently SEALS didn't have helmet cams. no live pictures of the raid. Proof was proff for the m,ilitary, not for the public. Why do people want to see a picture of him with his head blown off - just gruesome voyeurism. Photo doesn't prove anything - heard of doctored pictures??

They shouldn't release as will just inflame islamic loonies.

After listening to Rachel's show, I now think it was a good move not to release the pics. I backtrack

I don't see any point in releasing the photos. They might have used bombs but they wanted Obama, dead or alive, (preferably dead?) so that they knew they got him. They probably didn't want to drop bombs on a house when they had only a 60% chance that Obama was there. As far as conspiracy theorists go, they will have a field day in any case. And it was the Iraqis who published the photos of Saddam and the video was unauthorized.

No point in being officially ghoulish. Dead is dead.

What's with Obama's desire to withhold documentation (BC, school and health records, etc.) and now photos of a dead terrorist?

Didn't this guy campaign on a promise of having the most transparent administration in U.S. history?

Oh, that's right, I forgot. That was last week's lie. Never mind.

RR

If picture does not prove anything then word will not mean anything either. Imagine from now on news will become just words ,no picture.

This is a no-win situation for Obama: he is criticized for not showing the photos as proof of death, but then if he shows the pics, he will be criticized for exploiting the situation and showing such a graphic photo (two head shots? Ugh.). If the world can stomach it, I say show them...

Are we going to see another "senkaku islands" type situation where some insider leaks it?

no need to show the pix. al qaeda & the taliban have confirmed the death. if you don't believe it then that's just too bad.

3rd option dont care

Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. People should try a little harder to restrain their morbid curiosity.

I do not understand this morbidity thing. Could the pictures be more morbid than what we see on TV and in movies all the time?

The vote is not to splash the pictures on the front pages of every newspaper. Nobody is asking that. The vote is whether the pictures should be released. Nobody has to print them. If some sicko gets a thrill out of it, so what? Knowledge is far more important. Responsible politicians worked very hard for the Freedom of Information Act, and people shrug and worry more that the pictures might be morbid?

And I don't think anyone said it was definitive proof of anything. But when it comes to proof, less is not more. How can a government be accountable if it keeps secrets? Its not even only about this time. Its also about next time. This road leads to the Soviet States of America and I don't want that. They disposed of his body lickity split. And now they won't release pictures? And people think its okay because it might be morbid? You will surely get the government you deserve that way. And it will maketh you to hang on hooks in high places!

What could be more morbid than dancing in the streets that somebody got shot to death anyhow?

I didn't vote on this thing because I don't particularly care one way or the other on the subject.

I believe lots of folks have short attention spans and have to be constantly entertained. Whether they realize it or not, for a great many it's just another spot of something to pique their interest for the next four minutes.

Classic doublespeak - we are told over and over Osama bin Laden was not a true Muslim, but in dealing with his burial and photographic proof of justice executed we must not offend Muslim sensibilities blah blah blah.

It doesn't matter what someone with a mike in front of them says. Of course Bin Laden was a Muslim. He was a Muslim of the Wahabbi sect outta Saudi Arabia and he had over a hundred million Muslim fans.

These same guys wanna see me dead whether Bin Laden's still breathin' my air or not. Of course he was a Muslim. -Silly to say or believe otherwise.

One billion Muslims and over a hundred million were fans? That comes out to about ten percent. Is this a minorty rules deal now?

Before OBL was killed, Barak Obama was more popular than OBL among Muslims in the majority of Muslim countries.

So why am I supposed to believe there would be a great outcry if they hung on to his body longer or released the pictures? Of course, that presumes they are not hiding anything.

And as someone who would not think twice of dancing in the streets because someone was executed, accusing me of being morbid or wanting entertainment is just plain silly.

I read that Osama's brains were protruding from one of his eyes as he wasa shot in the back of his head. This is probably too gruesome for a lot of people.

Not having any kind of proof at all is very, very suspicious.

From a PR point of view, it's very, very bad.

Some people think they are lying. That it wasn't really OBL.

After all, one of the things we know for sure about OBL is that he was on a dialysis machine for kidney failure in 2001. Not a great body condition to have if you are going to run around hiding in the mountains.

One photograph could squash this.

It wouldn't matter how gruesome it was.

But the bigger thing underneath all this is the question of why he was killed and not brought to trial.

Surely a person is innocent until proven guilty.

Or is that all "old-fashioned" nowadays?

I think the idea of using SEALs was to avoid or minimize collateral damage because it was an urban area.

Since when has collateral damage been a concern of the self appointed 'world police'?