If it was considered critical to have documentation, why wouldn’t that be part of “carrying out their mission”? Isn’t “their mission” whatever their superiors say it is?
They’d want documentation of the dead body, not the killing. During a firefight is not a time to be worrying about taking pictures.
They didn’t need to have a designated cameraman. Helmet- (and helicopter-) mounted cameras would have worked just fine.
The LA Times is reportingthat the raid was monitored through a live video feed at CIA headquarters.
If Obama really were going to hold onto bin Laden as his own personal “One free bump in the polls” card, I would hope he’d have the good sense to hang onto it until a more opportune time. I think that pulling it out, say, right in the middle of the Republican nominating convention would be pretty sweet. Or right before the polls, so the voters would still have the taste of heroism in their mouths as they bellied up to the voting machines.
Yes, yes, I know … I’ve put far too much thought into it. But it is kind of fun to imagine the guards at the special bin Laden freezer getting THE CALL to start thawing.
:: shrugs ::
I’m always willing to be corrected when if it turns out I’m wrong. That means I’ve just learned something new, which is generally good.
I don’t know enough about the technology of helmet-mounted cameras to have an opinion on how practical it was to use them during a firefight. But if they’re heavy or unwieldy enough to noticably affect the agility of the servicemember wearing them, then they shouldn’t be used.
Helicopter cams sound more practical, but present an obvious problem if the target is indoors when the kill occurs.
A story in the Los Angeles Times says “Additionally, such special ops are typically videotaped by mini-helmet cams to document a sensitive mission and assist in debriefing and future training.” (Kinda like in Aliens I guess.) So there could well be a video of the fight (though it sounds like it would have been taken more or less automatically, not by a cameraman carefully framing his shots and so on).
NOTE: If you scroll down on that page from MSNBC, there are some gory but fake pictures that are being circulated on the Internet that were being claimed to be a head shot of bin Laden’s head shot.
They only weigh a few ounces, and are fairly common. Google “helmet cam Iraq” and you can find plenty of videos shot by soldiers wearing them.
No, that’s not how journalism works. Journalism is not “letting” people announce news when you already know what the news is. The job is to report the news accurately and quickly. What did happen last night is that some reporters were told there was going to be very big news (many of them assumed they were going to be told that Moammar Ghadafi was dead) and some were directly told what had happened. They were asked to keep this on hold (which basically means their sources said ‘here’s what happened, but we’re not verifying it for you’). The news leaked out when Congress was informed and staffers started telling people. Once they had someone who would verify the news on record, they reported it, which is what they should have done. I realize this state of affairs - reporting that someone is going to announce something before they announce it - looks pretty ridiculous sometimes. But it’s rare that someone makes an announcement and you have no idea what they’re going to say. Mark Sanford was a rare exception. I remember during his news conference, it was not obvious that he was going to admit his “hiking the Appalachian Trail” disappearance was actually the result of an affair until a couple of seconds before he admitted on camera that he’d had this relationship.
It’s true that there was an extended period of time last night when it was clear Obama was going to announce that bin Laden was dead, but there were few other details and the reporters were just killing time until Obama provided more information. That’s annoying to watch, but that’s how it goes.
The smallest helmet cameras seems quite small–for example, on this page, scroll down to the bottom and the picture of the guy in the military-style helmet.
You realize I already conceded that, if they were practical (read: small & light enough), I’d be okay with their use, right?
I am not – well, I won’t name names. It doesn’t bother me to admit when I’m wrong. I shan’t trouble myself to check what you suggested, because I trust that you & MEBuckner are speaking the truth.
Then your problem is with the aids who leaked the news, and Obama for not getting to the podium in a timely manner. Reporters report what they get when they get it. That’s their job.
Holy crap, but armchair quarterbacking has become the new national pastime.
Are you upset that they didn’t announce “SPOILER ALERT!” first?
‘buried at sea’ is a polite way of saying ‘fed the remains to the sharks’
Sharks, worms - not much difference. Given the apparent speed desired in a Islamic funeral (before the next prayers?) - I doubt there is a tradition of embalming - so, pretty much a circle of life thing.
Or, “tossed the shit-stain overboard.”
Well, they could wait until they actually get the President’s feed, as opposed to interrupting to sit on their thumbs. I mean, that’s an option.
Look, my complaint is this: How can the President make an announcement if the news makes it first? It’s already made. All the President can do is deliver a speech. He can give the details, but the announcement is over. Do you not get the incongruity of that? He was going to announce it, but you just did.
Instead of continuing to call it an announcement, say, “This just in, the President will be addressing the nation shortly about the killing of Osama Bin Laden.”
To me, it’s like the word “reveal”.
TV guy: “The President is going to reveal a major development about Osama Bin Laden. The President is going to reveal that OBL is dead. President Obama will reveal that we have his body.”
me: 
But you just revealed it!
I don’t see the problem. People announce things that other people already know all the time. And regardless of your quibbles over the use of the terms “announce” or “reveal,” how does this make anyone a “fucknugget”?
The media doesn’t owe anyone – certainly not any government official – the privilege of being the first to make public a fact that they already know. It’s not their job to help the president in this way. Facts about the world aren’t spoilers.
It annoyed me, and I wanted to post it in the Pit.