UBL pics or GTFO.

The consiparcy theories will exist...with or with out the photos.

The only reason I see to release photos were to answer those aboard that question
the killing. Did you see where 500 of Pakistan bar members are stating that they will not believe w/o photos.

But ultimately I would not release them. Those that are consiparcy advocates will still find reasons to question. Thoses oversea that question the truth, will not believe anything...and to them, since there is no winning them over, it's not worth it.

Seems like most of the militant websites are acknowledging his death.

So, again I think it would not serve any purpose, plus this stuff will probably leak out
as way too many people on the Hill are having access to them

However, I think WE ALL can agree...props to intelligence and military folks.

Interesting question that is building, is that the info that began this journey was perhaps obtained thru
water-boarding techniques.

I hate Cheney and his thugs, but this is an interesting side note to consider

Come on, you have to admit that this administration can't get it's story straight. Lets see...
Usama killed while resisting apprehension in a capture or kill raid.
Usame killed while using a woman as a shield during a capture of kill raid.
Usame killed unarmed using a woman, his wife, as a shield in a kill raid.
Usame killed unarmed when a woman gave her life to protect him during a kill raid.
Usame killed unarmed when his wife was shot in her leg while attacking the SEALs.
If this was a capture raid then why wasn't Usama captured. He was unarmed and he would have been full of information.
If this was a kill raid then why was the wife left alive?
Why was Usama given nearly military honors in his burial at sea when the White House has said that he was a terrorist and not a soldier.
Why has the Justice department insisted that terrorists are nothing more than criminals deserving of lawyers and rights (which would include the right to surrender).

I think we all agree that Usama being killed is a good thing but aren't there some questions raised by this omissions?

Come on, you have to admit that this administration intentionally...can't get it's story straight. Lets see...
Usama killed while resisting apprehension in a capture or kill raid.
Usame killed while using a woman as a shield during a capture of kill raid.
Usame killed unarmed using a woman, his wife, as a shield in a kill raid.
Usame killed unarmed when a woman gave her life to protect him during a kill raid.
Usame killed unarmed when his wife was shot in her leg while attacking the SEALs.
If this was a capture raid then why wasn't Usama captured. It was an assassination mission with a theoretical option for Osama to surrender. The initial reports are disinfo. The subsequent reports are for CYA legal reasons.He was unarmed and he would have been full of information.
If this was a kill raid then why was the wife left alive?How many people were in the compound at the start of the raid...and how many were left alive at the end of the raid? It sounds like Obama's decision to not use missiles saved the lives of many women and children in the house.
Why was Usama given nearly Nearly? Bullshit!military honors in his burial at sea when the White House has said that he was a terrorist and not a soldier.
Why has the Justice department insisted that terrorists are nothing more than criminals deserving of lawyers and rights (which would include the right to surrender).

I think we all agree that Usama being killed is a good thing but aren't there some questions raised by this omissions? Originally Posted by john_galt

I look forward to Fox News pushing the "...but Obama sent an assassination hit squad into a sovereign nation. War crimes! Felonies! Arrest him!".

As far as the pictures of Osama Bin Laden, President Obama appears to be holding on to his trump cards (pun intended!) for now.

You might eventually see the photos released when they won't cause as much harm and, as a bonus, can help Obama politically. (see: long form birth certificate release)

Interesting question that is building, is that the info that began this journey was perhaps obtained thru water-boarding techniques. Originally Posted by vkmaster

Perhaps? Began this journey...?

This has not been established as a fact. It is disputed. So far, none of the Republicans that desperately want it to be so...can't prove a thing. They can only suggest that torture was part of the info. They'd like to say that it was the key piece of info. As always, they choose the simple lie over the complex truth.

NEVER was in favor of these type of "advanced techniques", but I thought with all
the "feel good" moments we are having right now...it might be an interesting subject to throw out for discussion.

I guess the reverse is also true; the democrats want desperately want it NOT to be true that water boarding resulted in information but the proof is otherwise. Leon Panetta himself said that waterboarding got some information. Of course he didn't run for office denying the obvious.

Most lawyers are repubs always remember that money hungry and will defend any peace of shit for green backs. Give it a rest jg Obama did what I always said send in the best and kill any fucker that mess with USA does not take 50k or more troupes to do this kill the head or their fam and call it a day

Osama's alive, for now. They have him in a secret prison in the Balkans feeding him extasy,truth serum, and one Lay potato chip at a time - now that's torture. And they're sending teeny, tiny shocks to his balls until he skeets, skeets, skeets on the walls.

I guess the reverse is also true; the democrats want desperately want it NOT to be true that water boarding resulted in information but the proof is otherwise. Leon Panetta himself said that waterboarding got some information. Of course he didn't run for office denying the obvious. Originally Posted by john_galt

I saw his NBC interview. He answered questions like a CIA man.

LEON PANETTA:
10:47:53:00 It-- you know, Brian, in the intelligence business you work from a lot of sources of information and that was true here. We had a multiple source-- a multiple series of-- sources that provided information with regards to the situation. Clearly some of it came from detainees and the interrogation of detainees but we also had information from other sources as well.
10:48:18:00 From Sigent intelligence, from imagery, from other sources that we had-- assets on the ground. And it was a combination of all of that that ultimately we were able to put together that led us to that compound. So-- it's-- it's a little difficult to say it was due just to one source of information that we got.
BRIAN WILLIAMS:
10:48:36:00 Turned around the other way, are you denying that water boarding was, in part, among the tactics used to extract the intelligence that led to this successful mission?
LEON PANETTA:
10:48:48:00 No, I think some of the detainees clearly were, you know, they used these enhanced interrogation techniques against some of these detainees. But I'm also saying that, you know, the debate about whether-- whether we would have gotten the same information through other approaches I think is always gonna be an open question.
BRIAN WILLIAMS:
10:49:07:00 So finer point, one final time, enhanced interrogation techniques, which has always been kind of a handy euphemism in these post-9/11 years. That-
LEON PANETTA:
10:49:16:00 Right.
BRIAN WILLIAMS:
10:49:17:00 --in-- includes water boarding?
LEON PANETTA:
10:49:20:00 That's correct.

1) I can easily understand why someone would draw the conclusion that Panetta admitted that water boarding got some information. But, that's assuming Spook #1 is telling the truth and knows the facts. He should know, but he wasn't with the CIA back then.
2) Panetta went to great pains to squash the idea that torture resulted in the key piece of intel. From what I've seen torture resulted in the tortured person denying knowledge of a courier, which raised eyebrows. The nickname and real name weren't learned as part of torture. Put another way: If I claimed that I didn't know who John Galt was under torture, it wouldn't be the same as giving them the name 'John Galt' or his real name.
3) ...and this might be the important part...when I watched the video and read the transcripts they didn't match up. What the HELL is 'Sigent'?!?!

EDIT: SIGINT=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signals_intelligence

Signals intelligence

Watch the Panetta interview and see how they edited out the part about SIGINT. Pretty slick!