Tim LeVier elaborates on the ethical awkwardness of President Obama’s stated rationale for not releasing Osama’s death photos, the topic of the post, Death Photo Ethics:
“It seems there ought to be a commentary about the distinction between a statement of pragmatism bolstered by ethics and a statement of ethics bolstered by pragmatism.
“It’s important for us 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. That’s not who we are. We don’t trot out this stuff as trophies.” [Statement of Pragmatism, bolstered by ethics]
“That’s not who we are. We don’t trot out this stuff as trophies. Besides, it’s important for us 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.” [Statement of Ethics, bolstered by pragmatism]
In the first above, it sounds like the speaker doesn’t have any ethics, just trots them out when they serve the purpose. In the second above, it sounds like the speaker is trying to justify the ethics, because he’s not completely sure the ethics are right.
I think the rule of thumb should be to not combine the two, especially since both statements above will likely be translated the same way in other languages and the nuances will be lost.
Ethics Alarms 
I personally don’t care for the idea of showing graphic photos of violent death where unnecessary. Not even for the most evil of men. My prime objection would be the harm it does to children to see such representations, much less just common decency. However, the government’s apparent contention that such photos incite further violence is not only foolish, but hypocritical. Kids, via TV, films, rap videos and, particularly, video games are exposed to virtually non-stop enactments of such things. Not the “sanitized” violence once presented when the “bad guy” gets shot or knocked over the bar by the good guy, but violence against the innocent to elaborate degrees and in such a manner that it becomes violence for the sake of violence, not for any sense of justice. AND it now allows children- via games- to perpetrate violence with no sense of responsibility. There lies the real danger. All the government was doing was playing politics with their Moslem constituency. It would have been equally disturbing had the government, after WWII, refused to release any death photos of Adolph Hitler; not out of decency, but to mollify voters from the German-American Bund.