I’ve heard it said that we as a people should demand pictures as proof of bin Laden's death to have a properly transparent government.
I assert that adequate proof has, in fact, already been offered.
We are not relying simply on blind trust of the US Government.
Routinely in companies I’ve worked in my career, every one of which has had email going back to the 1970’s, a manager who has power that I do not have will give voice approval for me to do something that I don’t have the power to do on my own. No paper is ever traded. They don’t even send email. They just say “OK” verbally and I’m left wondering what to do. So I go to my console and send email saying “So-and-so approved this.” In the moment, this may seem like just taking my word for it, but it’s not. I add the person who approved it to the recipient list.
That then shows me on record saying something that could perhaps get me fired if I said it inappropriately. When they do not respond saying “Hey, I never said any such thing,” everyone on the recipient list counts it as if I offered proof.
Obama has made a similar statement. And he has added the whole world to the recipient list that they may call him out on it if he's wrong.
Silence gives consent.
Swearing on a Bible, at least to the religious, is nothing less. It says to God, “Hey, if I’m lying, do your worst.” And that’s why people believe people who swear on the Bible.
And, frankly, the retaliation of a deity is something some people debate, but the retaliation of the public if you do such a thing improperly seems quite a lot more reliable.
Obama did nothing less than swear before the entire world that “Bin Laden is dead.”
It is not our trust in him that makes this a proof. The proof is that Bin Laden does not go to the podium and say “Uh, sorry, Barack, old buddy. But I’m alive and well and no one shot me in the head."
That is the proof. The silence.
Pictures, in fact, would not be proof. I could make the pictures myself in Photoshop. Many people could. It probably wouldn’t be 3 minutes before the US media in the form of Limbaugh and Beck and Drudge and Hannity—alleged patriots—would sell out our national security by going on the air and claiming their own President had faked the pictures. Desperate politicians like Huckabee and Trump would be chanting “Give us the long form,” and demanding the video. It would be a circus. And the terrorists would have all the propaganda they needed. “See, even their own people say he is a liar.” Ignored at that point would be the fact of the real proof—that Bin Laden was still not speaking out. It would just spiral out of control.
Proof has been offered. The proof is that Obama has put himself on the line. If it were a lie, it’s a dead certainty (pardon the pun) that Obama would be caught in it. Since he is not, we can safely accept this as truth.
If you got value from this post, please "rate" it.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
RomanticPoetess
Sandra Stephens
old new lefty
marytkelly
oaxacangringa
CoyoteOldStyle
Salon.com
Comments
next?
,
Not that logic (or pictures or getting to piss on the corpse in person) would convince some people.
One possibility is that if Osama is alive, which I doubt, then he could be biding his time before speaking up. Another possibility is that he has been dead for a long time; in fact that is one of the theories going around.
I don’t consider these possibilities probable; but the way they handled it is suspicious and incompetent at best so I wouldn’t hold it against people who are skeptical. Rational skepticism is appropriate when they handle so many things in such an incompetent manner. To ridicule reasonable speculation under this circumstance or to declare dead certainty is not scientific.
Word up:
Once upon a time most of America subscribed to the notion that "a man's word is his bond". That's no longer the case even with our Presidents -- and with good reason. The word of our President isn't what it used to be, and hasn't been for some time.
I recall the shock when Americans discovered Good Ol' Ike lied about the U2. Can't recall JFK lying, perhaps because he wasn't around long enough to get caught, but LBJ was a habitual liar, most importantly and tragically about the Gulf of Tonkin.
Then came Nixon -- the Silent Majority was shocked to learn Nixon lied so brazenly, tho that wasn't news to those of us who had pegged him as a pathological liar ever since the Checkers speech.
Carter campaigned on the promise he'd never lie to us, and I don't know that he did, but Reagan certainly made up for that brief moment of honesty with everything from Voodoo Economics to Iran-Contra.
Bush the Elder coined Voodoo Economics and then fell victim to it when he was forced to break his "No New Taxes" promise when the chickens came home to roost and shit on Reaganomics. Bush paid for his "sin" when in a fit of pique, Grover "the Worm" Norquist gutted him for doing the right thing. But no one should feel sorry for Bush, his defeat was poetic justice for employing Lyin' Lee Atwater.
The lies of Slick Willie Clinton were so lame they aren't worth mentioning.
Texans are of course famous for their whoppers, and aping LBJ, Bush the Lesser lied to promote a war. WMD and the Saddam/Al Queda connection were horrendous lies, and history will make him pay for them. In fact, W made such a habit of deception, he couldn't think or speak straight, especially when it came to talking about deception:
"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again."
Well, the fact that W got re-elected proves you can get fooled again, and one reason there are so many doubters these days is because so many don't want to get fooled again. Then there are those who don't want to admit that anything good can come from having a Black Man in the White House.
In sum, Osama bin Laden may be dead in the water, but the controversy isn't.
Jimmy Hoffa is dead. Elvis is dead. bin Laden is dead.
Not to mention that the doubters would demand the 'long form' photos.
As far as winning, see my post: http://open.salon.com/blog/nick_carraway/2011/05/04/we_won_the_war_on_terror_--_yes_really
I actually like the Carly Simon “You're So Vain” style of this outcome because there's nothing that can be said at this point by the opposition that proves anything, and Obama knows it.
Still, there are the petulantly rigid right who disbelieve for the sake of disbelieving those who does not share their idealogies. It would be comical if it weren't so dangerous.
To play Devil's advocate, Bush and Cheney took the risk with duping us about the Sadam's WMD. Even though they made it the lynchpin that started this mess, we still don't have proof that they existed. If they did, we probably weren't the main target.
Of course, it's theoretically possible that bin Laden has been pushing daisies for quite a while now, but I'd think that someone somewhere would (a) know about it and (b) decide to profit off that knowledge.
No, even though I'm not an Obama supporter, I have no doubt that bin Laden died sometime over the past weekend in at least roughly the circumstances now being described, although I also believe that further details will come out that won't line up quite with the administration story.
the only real proof is doing the shooting yourself, and loading the shells.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The track record of previous presidential lying makes a verbal assurance alone of no probative value.
It is a simple claim and could easily be disproved. Sorry but the burden of proof is on those that doubt the claim.
But, we don't owe anyone ANY proof. They can chose to believe or not believe. And I'm sure they will.
Yes, he'd pay a terrible price if the claim was proven false, but it's still nothing more than a claim. The claim itself is not proof. I may steal a cookie and claim I never did, my claim is not proof that I did not do it and the mere fact that no one ever provides evidence that my claim is false does not turn my claim into proof.
Please explain what would constitute proof and why. Do you think what would pass as proof to you would work for others? How many people and how many means would be necessary?
I would turn the problem around differently: Why does this even matter at all? Ironically, Bush was right. It hardly matters. He no longer commands much of anything and has not been heard from in a while. So is even served by having an answer. I claim the only people who have a strong stake are the terrorists. It doesn't matter at all to the rest of us, since terrorism probably still exists whether or not bin Laden is dead. So we don't need strong proof. It's just a tabloid spectacle, which was Obama's point.
The one point on which I disagree with Obama is that I heard him quoted as saying something about we're not going to show the pictures because that's not the kind of people we are. In fact, I think we are a tabloid society and we are precisely the kind of people who would love to see them just for their tabloid/salacious value. And while ordinarily I don't like the government getting involved in what amounts to morality, I think this is a case where there is only a downside to the pictures and no upside.
So what if you don't believe he's dead? How will it affect your life? Probably not at all. Go on and disbelieve. But the terrorists know. And if they want to make a fuss, let them. They're going to make a fuss anyway, but would make more fuss if we showed the pictures. So that matters.
If there's an extraordinary claim being made that requires extraordinary proof it's that knowing what really happened even matters. The only reason this matters whatsoever is that for years the Republicans have made a sideshow of it. Obama has put that to rest. That was the only value. Now they can't make up stupid chest-thumping claims about how great they are and how weak Obama is. Beyond that, this matters not at all.
Oh, and it might matter because it will perhaps allow a few to stand down from the charade of thinking we need to still be in Iraq “fighting the terrorists there so we don't have to fight them here.” That was nonsense from the start. But if it takes a bold claim to allow us to save face and pull out, when just plain good sense was not enough to have us pull out, then let's say it. But frankly it doesn't make a bit of difference to me either way. We should come home. And if someone thinks we shouldn't, it's on them to say why. But I doubt it's worth a war because “bin Laden's aging heart might conceivably in some wild conspiracy story still be beating.” What nonsense.
jane, I'm glad I could give you some peace. :)
Kenny, I understand the idea of not trusting the CIA, but seriously—do you not think they have Photoshop over there? Why would your distrust change if you saw a photo? Could you even tell if it was Obama or a stunt double? How? I don't think anything would change.
aka, I agree that Occam's Razor is a good yardstick. I'm not paid by the administration to sell their story. I'm just like everyone else here trying to puzzle it out. And, indeed, the reason I believe this analysis is that it's simplest. If someone wants to show it wrong, they should feel free. But I suspect they'll have an even harder time convincing skeptics than Obama is having now.
ume, thanks for visiting. If the “next” is inviting other pieces on other issues, I'm trying to get back to that. If you have questions you want answered, I'm always looking for topics (though I have a few hundred piled up I've not yet had time to fully write up). If you meant something else, I might have misunderstood.
Myriad, you're right to point out that some people would be convinced by non-proof. But that in part shows the whole sideshow nature of this. Some people would probably be convinced by having their personal psychic tell them this was true. I tend to think that if such is the proof one needs, it's not worth caring if someone gets it or not. And since pictures would prove nothing, I think the same of that.
You're right, though, the controversy is understandable. But it would not be fixed by pictures. And my point is not that there is any way to be completely certain. Rather, I'm saying that there is more to the statement “he is dead” than blind faith belief. It has teeth to be wrong, and hence is not something a person utters casually just to be self-serving.
Lea, thanks for the support. I'm not his biggest supporter these days, but on this particular issue I agree with you that his decisions have been solid.
Nick, interesting point about the victors framing the message. :) I skimmed your post and it looks to make some interesting points. I'll try to come back to read and comment later if I have more time.
Mary, sorry about the trouble commenting. I know the problem you mean, as it's happened to me a number of times. Maddening. But thanks for persevering and for the supportive comment. And I agree with you about that spin issue. :)
On the issue of comparing it to the WMD claim, the interesting point there is that the cost of being wrong was a needless war. In this case, in the unlikely event there's been an error, the cost will be some egg on face. But if for example we were to stand down from war in the Middle East—well, budget called for that anyway. Or if you want to say part of the cost is that we ended up not hunting for him when we could have—well, Bush was already doing that. So I don't see a lot of downside of being wrong here, really.
Dienne, it may be lost in here, but I'm not Obama's biggest supporter either. He's way better than the Republicans are likely to field, but I'd still rather the Democrats field someone more progressive for 2012. My reason for writing this is not to show blind allegiance to him, in other words. I just think he's right on this. Will new facts come out that are at odds? Maybe. The public story often glosses some little detail. White lies are sometimes told and while no one likes to encourage such a thing, it's often understandable nevertheless.
al, if I did the shooting myself, I still could not be sure I was not shooting a stunt double. I'd have to send away the DNA for testing. And then the result would be done by someone I didn't know. I guess I could go to school and learn DNA testing so I could do it myself, but then how would I know the DNA I was given was the DNA I had stored away when I came back? Everyone has to sleep sometime, and you just can't always be watching your back. At some point you must trust.
And yes, I'm sure the Right will work up some videos showing why it didn't really happen. I don't even doubt they'll offer photos that show the real truth. That will prove what, exactly?
Nick, thanks for the help on the burden of proof issue. I think you've got it right.
Citizen, nothing is ever a proof at that level. But since you have Justice in your name, I should point out that courts often decide truth rather than proving it, and hence the Justice the manufacture is not real truth but I guess what I'll call “working truth.” Sometimes we are forced to live as if it were and simply to revise our position later if we need to. It's too important to have a consistent story. But if I were the sort to bet money on such questions, I'd be favoring this “working truth.”
Phew. I think I'm up-to-date.
As I said in my post and subsequent comments, the decision was made because the pictures may too gruesome for some people and make them angry. I’m sure that if he was shot in the chest and his face would still be ‘intact’, the pictures would have been released. It should be pointed out that all previous high value targets, such as Saddam Hussein’s sons and the #3 in Al Qaeda (I don’t recall his name) have been released days after they were shot and killed. Some of these pictures were also gruesome, if I recall correctly. Thus, showing picture of terrorists killed by a firearm is unprecedented.
I read somewhere this morning about how can the pictures of OBL be worse than the pictures of people jumping off the Twin Towers to escape the inferno on Sept. 11. Maybe this person has a point. I believe that if it was a European government that had to make a decision, they would have released the pictures. If you watch European news, they don’t hesitate to show what really happens in wars (e.g., dead and mangled bodies), unlike the news here (as I discussed in my post with the article from the Guardian). In the end, I think it may better to release them now and move on. It will create a lot of discussion for a few days, but then it will quickly die down. Even Panetta indicated that the pictures will eventually be released (officially or not I assume). I did not even remember that the U.S. released the pictures of the high value targets described above.
From what I read this evening, people are still divided on this issue.
And there you go. You are a smart man, my friend.
ELVIS PRESLEY DIES!
Is Elvis Alive?
wow, kent thats some pretty @#%& airtight logic there.
HAHAHAHAHA
But I certainly didn't mean to imply his changing his mind on taxes was a lie. I'm with you, I thot it was the right thing to do, which is why I decried Grover Norquist's gutting him for doing the right thing.
And obviously it wasn't just Norquist -- a substantial portion of the Republican base viewed his reneging on his pledge as a lie, just as a substantial portion of Liberals see Bush the Lesser's WMD pronouncements as lies, when they may have been simply incompetence.
But whether lies or otherwise, the consequence is the same -- people have lost their faith in the word of Presidents.
In some legal proceedings (adoptions, divorces, inheritances) permissions of or contact with individuals involved may be required. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that absent such a contact, notice is placed in a public place identifying the pending action and allowing time to respond. Failure to reply is taken as consent.
In a wedding, parties present are asked to “speak now or forever hold your peace.”
In A Man for All Seasons (both the play and the movie—they are different but both good), Sir Thomas More advises the court, “The maxim is "Qui tacet consentiret": the maxim of the law is "Silence gives consent". If therefore you wish to construe what my silence betokened, you must construe that I consented, not that I denied.” And indeed, there is such a maxim.
vzn, see my remarks to Citizen Justice earlier about “working truth.” But it's fine if you're just amused. I can live with that.
Tom, thanks for the clarification. My point here, of course, is that it's not as simple a situation as merely taking Obama's word. I am not making the argument “this is a trustworthy guy.” I'm instead making the argument that even Nixon would tend to tell the truth in a case like this, and not because I am oblivious to his record of lying; rather because I think he cared about whether he was caught in a lie. I don't have to believe that Obama would never lie to me, in other words; I only have to believe he wouldn't say something where there was a substantial chance of him getting caught. That's a much easier thing to believe.
I believe you may be interested in these two news items:
Osama Bin Laden Dead, Al Qaeda Confirms
Group Ready To Sue for Osama Photos
Kanuk, I know you say that they confirmed it, but do we have pictures of them confirming it? :)