After much speculation, President Barack Obama has declined to release photographs of Osama bin Laden's corpse.
Some wanted photos of the dead terrorist, who was shot in the chest and in the head in a daring raid Sunday night in Pakistan, released. The point was to prove that we'd actually killed him.
Mr. Obama said that the move could inflame the insurgency, and that there's no need to "spike the football."
Rep. Bill Owens, a Plattsburgh Democrat, agrees with Mr. Obama on that, and cites similar reasons, his spokesman said.
"If releasing the photo even has an ounce of potential to increase anti-American sentiment in the Middle East, it's not worth it," said Sean Magers. "It won't make bin Laden any more dead. We need to continue to focus on further defeating al Qaeda."
Some have questioned the move to keep the pictures private, including Sarah Palin, who said so in the same linguistic way that I did when I said I had an ear infection in middle school.
"Show photo as warning to others seeking America's destruction. No pussy-footing around, no politicking, no drama;it's part of the mission"
That's an interesting argument that Mrs. Palin is making. It's not, "Prove we killed him." It's, "Send a warning sign." Like how we used to put heads on stakes outside castles.
To the first point (because the second one is a little weird), Mr. Magers said that even releasing the photo wouldn't convince the doubters.
"Releasing them won't convince conspiracy theorists that believe he's still alive," he said.
Mr. Owens' opinion, by the way, has broad bipartisan support.
Here's Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, on the matter, in the Detroit Free Press:
"The risks outweigh the benefits."
Simple and too the point.
In fact, I haven't heard too many people who are in the Palin camp on this one.