I think this is the right call, actually, but not for the usual reasons. 
 
 Besides, O surely realizes that they’ll leak sooner rather than later. 
 
 In an interview with Steve Kroft for this Sunday’s “60 Minutes,” President Obama says he won’t release post-mortem images of Osama bin Laden taken to prove his death… Republican House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers said Wednesday that the Obama administration should not release the gruesome post-mortem images, saying it could complicate the job for American troops overseas. Rogers told CBS News he has seen a post-mortem photo… “Imagine how the American people would react if Al Qaeda killed one of our troops or military leaders, and put photos of the body on the internet,” Rogers continued. “Osama bin Laden is not a trophy – he is dead and let’s now focus on continuing the fight until Al Qaida has been eliminated.” 
 
 I can think of four arguments for releasing the photos. One: It’ll prove that he’s dead. Except, of course, that it won’t. Conspiracy cranks will screech about the pic being doctored or the victim being an impostor (“those aren’t his eyebrows!”) within five minutes of it being posted. There’s no such thing as “proof” anymore; the Internet age is proof-proof. If anything, the more evidence you provide, the more pretexts you create for kooks to pose moronic challenges to it. If the White House wants to reassure people that the photos exist, they can show them to Republican leaders, to members of the press, and maybe to 9/11 families for their satisfaction. (Scott Brown apparently has already seen them.) 
 
 Two: It’ll warn the jihadis of the world of what awaits if they mess with America. Didn’t the Zarqawi death photos already warn them of that, though? How about killing scores of Al Qaeda commanders with drone strikes in Pakistan and elsewhere? The fact that Bin Laden and Zawahiri were in hiding for 10 years is pretty solid evidence that they know what happens when you mess with Uncle Sam. 
 
 Three: Turnabout is fair play. If we had to endure photos of U.S. troops doing wrong at Abu Ghraib, let’s celebrate the photos of U.S. troops doing right by taking down a monster. I think that’s a better argument for why the Abu Ghraib photos shouldn’t have been released, though, than for why the Bin Laden photos should be. And in fact, Obama agrees: Remember when he broke his promise to the left to release photos of detainee abuse and filed suit to keep them suppressed in the name of national security? Also, Abu Ghraib was a case of exposing government malfeasance, which the public has a right to know about. They may not have a right to the photos, given the propaganda value of those photos to the enemy, but it’s not an apples and apples comparison with a national high-five like killing Bin Laden. 
 
 Four: It’s a trophy. People want to see dead Osama’s face because they want to revel in it. They’d put it on t-shirts and coffee mugs even though, according to one of CBS’s sources, it’s beyond gruesome (the “bullet opened his skull, exposing the brain, and it also blew out his eye”). After watching Americans forced to choose between burning alive or jumping to their deaths on 9/11, the thinking goes, we deserve to plaster images of Bin Laden’s cortex on billboards. Fair enough, but I have to say, just knowing how the raid went down and that his skull ended up being popped like a balloon is already … deeply satisfying. I keep thinking of him in his bedroom, listening to the SEALs banging around downstairs and hyperventilating at the thought of what would happen when they opened the door. I don’t need an extra scoop of sugar on that hot fudge sundae. It’s already tastier than I could have hoped for. 
 
 So those are the arguments in favor. The obvious argument against releasing the photo, per Bob Gates and Hillary, is that it’ll “inflame anti-American sentiment” and put troops in the field at greater risk. Didn’t we already cross that bridge, though, by … killing Osama Bin Laden? And haven’t we heard that same argument used before by our political leaders to pressure people like Terry Jones on free speech? The argument the administration could/should have made is that sometimes we have to accept a greater operational risk in the interest of protecting core values like the First Amendment — and that this isn’t one of those times, since there’s really no core value that would be served by releasing a “suck it, jihadis” Bin Laden death photo. It would feel great, but as I said above, it already feels great. And the “suck it” message has, I take it, already been received by all the important people via the fact that Osama now literally sleeps with the fishes. 
 
 The reason I think this is a good call is that I like the idea of Bin Laden being reduced to an afterthought, even in death. He had already reduced himself to that status after 10 years of hiding like a rat and churning out the occasional audio message that no one paid much attention to. Then, on Sunday, in the span of 12 hours, he went from quietly doing whatever he was still doing for Al Qaeda to quietly having a chunk of his head blown off to quietly being kicked off the deck of a U.S. carrier into the sea. Just like that, gone from the face of the Earth; I’ll bet the carrier crew didn’t even hear the splash. That’s a sweet ending for a messianic fanatic. Release the photo and you undo some of that, though, by treating him like a big enough deal that the world should gawk at his fate. Why give his followers that satisfaction? He wasn’t a big deal. He was to us because we had unfinished business with him, but nearly everyone else — possibly even Al Qaeda — had moved on. And now we get to move on too. Next. 
 
 Update: Ah, looks like Scott Brown only saw one of the fake photos circulating online. I’m sure the GOP leadership can view the real thing if it asks Obama to make them available. Although Boehner says he doesn’t need to: 
 
 “That’s a decision for the administration to make,” Boehner said when asked if it was necessary to release any of the bin Laden photos, which U.S. officials have described as carrying the gory imprint of a gunshot wound to the head. “They have to decide what to do. I’m convinced. I have no doubts.” 
 
 Update: A Pakistani security official showed up at the compound shortly after the raid ended and snapped a few pics, which he then sold to Reuters. If you want to see what happens to jihadis when they come face to face with SEALs, brace yourself and click here. ||||| Updated 6:19 p.m. Eastern Time 
 
 In an interview with Steve Kroft for this Sunday's "60 Minutes" conducted today, President Obama said he won't release post-mortem images of Osama bin Laden taken to prove his death. 
 
 "It is important to make sure that very graphic photos of somebody who was shot in the head are not floating around as an incitement to additional violence or as a propaganda tool," said the president. 
 
 "We don't trot out this stuff as trophies," Mr. Obama added. "The fact of the matter is, this is somebody who was deserving of the justice that he received." 
 
 The president said he had discussed the issue with his intelligence team, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and that they agree with the decision. White House press secretary Jay Carney said Wednesday that Mr. Obama made the decision today. 
 
 
 
 President Obama interviewed on "60 Minutes," May 4, 2011. / CBS 
 
 In explaining his choice not to release the photo, Mr. Obama said that "we don't need to spike the football." He said that "given the graphic nature of these photos it would create a national security risk." 
 
 
 
 The president told Kroft he saw the photos following the raid on the compound and knew that bin Laden had been killed. 
 
 
 
 "We discussed this internally," he said. "Keep in mind that we are absolutely certain that this was him. We've done DNA sampling and testing. And so there is no doubt that we killed Osama bin Laden." 
 
 When Kroft noted that there are people in Pakistan and elsewhere who believe bin Laden is still alive, the president said "we we monitoring worldwide reaction." 
 
 "There is no doubt that Osama bin Laden is dead," he said. "Certainly there is no doubt among al Qaeda members that he is dead. So we don't think that a photograph in and of itself is going to make any difference." 
 
 
 
 "There are going to be some folks who deny it," he added. "The fact of the matter is, you will not see bin Laden walking on this earth again." 
 
 TRANSCRIPT: Obama discusses decision not to release images on "60 Minutes" 
 
 Asked about the decision Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Carney said "there are obviously arguments to be made on either side." 
 
 "The fact of the matter is, as the president described, these are graphic photographs of someone who was shot in the face -- the head, rather," he said. "It is not in our national security interests to allow those images, as has been in the past been the case, to become icons to rally opinion against the United States. The president's number one priority is the safety and security of American citizens at home and Americans abroad. There is no need to release these photographs to establish Osama bin Laden's identity. And he saw no other compelling reason to release them, given the potential for national security risks. And further, because he believes, as he said so clearly, this is not who we are." (See video at left.) 
 
 
 
 "He wanted to hear the opinions of others, but he was very clear about his view on this," Carney added. "And, obviously, his decision is categorical." He said it applied to "all visual evidence" of bin Laden's death, including video of his burial at sea. 
 
 Bin Laden news gives Obama 11-point approval bump 
 
 Bush declines Obama invitation to ground zero 
 
 Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC, called the decision a "mistake." 
 
 President Obama interviewed on "60 Minutes," May 4, 2011. / CBS News 
 
 "The whole purpose of sending our soldiers into the compound, rather than an aerial bombardment, was to obtain indisputable proof of bin Laden's death," he said. 
 
 Neil Livingstone, Chairman and CEO of Executive Action and author of nine books on terrorism, also disagreed with the decision. 
 
 
 
 "If we can't conclusively demonstrate that indeed he is dead there will be those who say he is still out there," he told CBS News. "Al Qaeda might even try to keep his legacy going and say 'they got someone else, they didn't really get him.'" 
 
 Sarah Palin registered her disapproval on Twitter. 
 
 "Show photo as warning to others seeking America's destruction. No pussy-footing around, no politicking, no drama;it's part of the mission," she wrote. 
 
 Palin to Obama: Stop pussyfooting, release photo 
 
 Osama bin Laden had cash, phone numbers sewn in clothes 
 
 
 
 White House changes story: Bin Laden unarmed 
 
 Cables: U.S. near bin Laden in '08, didn't know it 
 
 Republican House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers said earlier in the day that the Obama administration should not release the gruesome post- mortem images, saying it could complicate the job for American troops overseas. Rogers told CBS News he has seen a post-mortem photo. 
 
 "The risks of release outweigh the benefits," Rogers said. "Conspiracy theorists around the world will just claim the photos are doctored anyway, and there is a real risk that releasing the photos will only serve to inflame public opinion in the Middle East." 
 
 "Imagine how the American people would react if Al Qaeda killed one of our troops or military leaders, and put photos of the body on the Internet," Rogers continued. "Osama bin Laden is not a trophy - he is dead and let's now focus on continuing the fight until Al Qaeda has been eliminated." 
 
 Many in Congress happy bin Laden photos won't be released 
 
 President Barack Obama delivers a statement in the East Room of the White House on the mission against Osama bin Laden, May 1, 2011. / White House/Pete Souza 
 
 Skeptics have called on the United States to release photos of bin Laden, who officials say was shot in the face during a raid on his compound, in order to prove that the al Qaeda leader is really dead. 
 
 
 
 The White House had said it was debating whether to release the photographs. CIA director Leon Panetta told CBS News Tuesday that he thought a photo would be released, though he said the White House would make the final decision. 
 
 CBS News national security correspondent David Martin has been told the photographs are "very gruesome" and won't be for the "squeamish." 
 
 "I've had it described to me and it does sound very gruesome," he said. "Remember, bin Laden was shot twice at close range, once in the chest and once in the head, right above his left eye, and that bullet opened his skull, exposing the brain, and it also blew out his eye. So these are not going to be pictures for the squeamish." 
 
 Two Republican senators -- Saxby Chambliss, R-GA, Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Armed Services Committee, and Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-NH, a member of the Armed Services Committee - told CBS News Wednesday they had seen post-mortem photographs of bin Laden. No Democrats have said they have seen the images. 
 
 
 
 Photoshopped images purporting to show bin Laden after he was killed have already surfaced on the Internet. Sen. Scott Brown, R-MA, who had claimed to have seen the actual post-mortem photos, said Wednesday that he had been fooled by one such false image. It appears Ayotte and Chambliss may also have been duped. 
 
 
 
 Special Report: The killing of Osama bin Laden ||||| Elsewhere in Slate, William Saletan explains why the human-shield myth was a bad idea, Dave Weigel talks about how Osama's death proved everyone right, John Dickerson looks at Obama's secret meetings, Dahlia Lithwick says it's time to end the war on terror, Chris Beam explains the mood in Pakistan, Heather Murphycompiles a slideshow of the elite Navy SEALS, and Maura O'Connor looks at how the war still continues in Afghanistan. For the most up-to-date-coverage, visit theSlatest. Slate's complete coverage is rounded up here. 
 
 In a world where every form of splatter, dismemberment, and slaughter has found a home on the Web—a place in which tens, perhaps hundreds, of millions have watched blood bubble out of Neda Salehi Agha Soltan's face and pool on the asphalt beneath her head—it seems nuts that President Barack Obama has decided not to release the photos of Osama Bin Laden's bullet-dented cranium.* 
 
 In a 60 Minutes interview to be aired Sunday, Obama said he thought it important that "very graphic photos of somebody who was shot in the head are not floating around as an incitement to additional violence or as a propaganda tool." 
 
 White House Press Secretary Jay Carney spoke yesterday about the "sensitivities involved" in releasing the "gruesome" and potentially "inflammatory" photos, and mused about whether allowing their publication would "serve or in any way harm our interests" at home and abroad. Today, he said the administration didn't want the photos to become "icons" that would help rally support against the United States. 
 
 Advertisement 
 
 
 
 Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., the chairman of the House Intelligence panel, opposes making the photos public for similar reasons, saying he doesn't want the images to "make the job of our troops serving in places like Iraq and Afghanistan any harder than it already is. The risks of release outweigh the benefits." 
 
 Obama and Rogers' idea that news should be calibrated by the government to ease the job of the U.S. military makes for a First Amendment loophole you could drive a motorized regiment through. If al-Qaida and its supporters are more irate with the United States this week than they were last week, it's because U.S. commandos killed Bin Laden. Obama should never have marked him for death if tending the "sensitivities" of al-Qaida and its allies was U.S. policy. 
 
 It's hard to imagine that a death photo of Bin Laden would elevate al-Qaida and its supporters to some fury that his killing didn't. Or, as @knifework tweeted this afternoon, "Who hasn't shot someone in the face, fed their corpse to the sharks, and then fretted over how their followers would feel about the photo?" 
 
 I don't advocate the photos' release because I think it will convince the unconvincible that Bin Laden is dead or because I desire a "trophy" or a football "spiked," as Obama puts it in his 60 Minutes interview. I'm for the publication of the pictures because they're an essential part of the war on al-Qaida. Withholding the photos and couching their suppression in the name of national security misjudges what makes al-Qaida tick and infantilizes the nation. It also sets a precedent for "news that's too gruesome to reveal." 
 
 Here's how CBS News reporter David Martin describes the photos, based on a description provided to him: 
 
 It does sound very gruesome. Remember, bin Laden was shot twice at close range, once in the chest and once in the head, right above his left eye, and that bullet opened his skull, exposing the brain, and it also blew out his eye. So these are not going to be pictures for the squeamish. 
 
 Barbie Zelizer, author of the recent book About To Die: How News Images Move the Public, finds it paradoxical that the administration would recoil from releasing the photos but gladly provides verbal descriptions of the spectacular raid and Bin Laden's killing. 
 
 "You can't have it both ways," Zelizer told me in an interview. 
 
 The Bin Laden photos, Zelizer says, are "part of the record, part of the news event" and locking them away ascribes "magical powers" to the photos that wouldn't otherwise exist. If we conceal them from public view, we board a slippery slope that flows toward ignorance, timidity, doubt, and conspiracy-mongering. 
 
 
 
 Part of the ambivalence about releasing the photos, Zelizer says, is that a universally accepted narrative for Bin Laden's killing has yet to emerge. As I wrote the day after the raid, the press and the government had huge trouble agreeing exactly how the operation unfolded. Did Bin Laden make a human shield of his wife? Was she killed? Did he shoot at the SEALs? Or did the SEALs summarily execute an unarmed man? 
 
 If such an accepted narrative existed, it might be easier for the administration to predict how the photos would be received at home and overseas. But it's not the White House's business to control and manage news for the good of the nation based on some imagined worst-case reaction to events. That's Soviet thinking. 
 
 If a nation can be trusted to view the horrors of 9/11 in real time, flip through the Abu Ghraib picture book, witness the made-for-video murder of Daniel Pearl, see images of dead Uday and Qusay on the evening news, and gaze upon pictures of dead soldiers coming home as air freight (photos that President Bush, incidentally, tried to ban in the name of managing the news), then it can be trusted to stomach the last photos of Osama Bin Laden—and whatever turmoil those photos might cause. Why? Because that's what sort of country the United States is. 
 
 ****** 
 
 What about the helmet-cam video of the operation? Yeah, I'm for its release, too, although I can see the case for why it should be edited to withhold secret operational details that led to the mission's success. Make the case for the release of the unexpurgated video in email to . Expurgate my Twitter feed. (Email may be quoted by name in "The Fray," Slate's readers' forum; in a future article; or elsewhere unless the writer stipulates otherwise. Permanent disclosure: Slate is owned by the Washington Post Co.) 
 
 Track my errors: This hand-built RSS feed will ring every time Slate runs a "Press Box" correction. For email notification of errors in this specific column, type Dead Laden in the subject head of an email message, and send it to . 
 
 Correction, May 5, 2011: This article originally misspelled the last name of Neda Salehi Agha Soltan. (Return to the corrected sentence.) 
 
 Like Slate on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter. 
 
 Like This Story Follow Slate's Press Box
– Reactions to President Obama's decision not to release the Osama bin Laden death photos are rolling in—and most seem to disagree with the prez: "While gory photographs would have inflamed some jihadists and wannabes, I believe they would have disillusioned and deflated others," writes Eugene Robinson in the Washington Post. "A heroic myth of invulnerability had been built around bin Laden," which the photos would soundly refute. "The reason to display the photos is to show bin Laden for what he really was: not a holy warrior, not a holy anything, but a deluded mass murderer who met the end he so richly deserved." But, writing on Hot Air, Allahpundit disagrees with Robinson. The Zarqawi death photos, not to mention the numbers of al-Qaeda commanders killed by drone strikes, already warned jihadists "of what awaits if they mess with America." Releasing the photos means treating bin Laden "like a big enough deal that the world should gawk at his fate." By not releasing them, he is "reduced to an afterthought." Many have argued that releasing the photos would put American troops in greater danger from al-Qaeda, but the "idea that news should be calibrated by the government to ease the job of the US military makes for a First Amendment loophole you could drive a motorized regiment through," writes Jack Shafer on Slate. "It's hard to imagine that a death photo of bin Laden would elevate al-Qaeda and its supporters to some fury that his killing didn't." In the Wall Street Journal, Alan Dershowitz calls the decision not to release the photos "only the last in a series of terrible mistakes" in handling bin Laden's body. He's more aghast that the corpse was not subjected to routine forensic techniques, which could have answered many of the lingering questions: "Was he shot in cold blood? Was he shot in the back or in the front? Were his hands raised in surrender? Was he actively resisting?" Burying bin Laden at sea "naturally gives rise to suspicions that there was something to hide."