Obama opting to kill terrorists rather than capture them

posted at 10:12 am on February 15, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

When Barack Obama ordered the closing of Gitmo and began pressing for criminal trials for captured terrorists, many of us assumed that the military and intelligence personnel on the front lines of the war would simply begin to kill terrorists rather than capture them.  After all, a dead terrorist may not give us the critical intel we need to stop attacks, but arresting them and reading them Miranda rights wouldn’t, either — and would be more likely to expose critical secrets in the war.  The Washington Post reported yesterday that the Obama administration has reached the same conclusion, and for the same reasons:

When a window of opportunity opened to strike the leader of al-Qaeda in East Africa last September, U.S. Special Operations forces prepared several options. They could obliterate his vehicle with an airstrike as he drove through southern Somalia. Or they could fire from helicopters that could land at the scene to confirm the kill. Or they could try to take him alive.

The White House authorized the second option. On the morning of Sept. 14, helicopters flying from a U.S. ship off the Somali coast blew up a car carrying Saleh Ali Nabhan. While several hovered overhead, one set down long enough for troops to scoop up enough of the remains for DNA verification. Moments later, the helicopters were headed back to the ship.

The strike was considered a major success, according to senior administration and military officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the classified operation and other sensitive matters. But the opportunity to interrogate one of the most wanted U.S. terrorism targets was gone forever.

This was no isolated decision.  The Post reports that “a number” of similar choices have been made since Obama took control of the war on terror.  Instead of attempting to get intel and unravel future attacks and present networks, the White House has simply chosen to kill terrorists as they present themselves.

And the reason that the “just shoot the bastard” impulse has grown greater in the Obama administration is the same reason it started in the Bush administration — controversy over detention and adjudication:

One problem identified by those within and outside the government is the question of where to take captives apprehended outside established war zones and cooperating countries. “We’ve been trying to decide this for over a year,” the senior military officer said. “When you don’t have a detention policy or a set of facilities,” he said, operational decisions become more difficult.

The administration has pledged to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; Congress has resisted moving any of the about 190 detainees remaining there, let alone terrorism suspects who have been recently captured, to this country. All of the CIA’s former “black site” prisons have been shut down, and a U.S. official involved in operations planning confirmed that the agency has no terrorism suspects in its custody. Although the CIA retains the right to briefly retain terrorism suspects, any detainees would be quickly transferred to a military prison or an allied government with jurisdiction over the case, the official said [emphasis mine -- Ed].

In other words, rendition remains an option, but not Gitmo or CIA detention.  For a while, we took them to Bagram, but the US has pledged to turn Bagram back to the Afghanis at the end of next year.  We have almost 800 detainees in Bagram, some of whom were captured elsewhere.  Karzai no longer allows us to do that, though, which means that anyone captured will have to get sent to a regular military prison, transferred to our criminal-justice system, given to another country with some interest in the detainee, or released altogether.  Since capturing a prisoner entails a lot of risk to the personnel that attempt the mission, the US has increasing opted to shoot from a distance and eliminate all of the other headaches.

What do we lose in this transaction?  With a network leader like Nabhan, we lose the ability to get information on a wide range of important issues, like funding, network nodes, communications techniques, and of course plots in the pipeline.  Killing Nabhan makes it difficult for AQ to operate, but capturing and interrogating Nabhan would have put us in AQ’s OODA loop for a short but critical period of time, which would have led us to more terrorists and a better picture of AQ’s operations.

We could restore the ability to get that kind of intel if we just admitted we need Gitmo to remain open.  The goal in the war on terror is to dismantle the al-Qaeda network and stamp out the ability of radical Islamists to conduct major terrorist operations against the US and our allies, not to kill terrorists one at a time and then try to go after their replacements.

Update: Of course, this policy sets up some interesting questions.  Is it more humane to house detainees at Gitmo than to kill them outright, the direct result of the decision to close detention centers like Gitmo?  What about the collateral damage done when killing terrorists rather than capturing them?  Is the loss of life among civilians worth the elimination of the detention option?  If Obama and his allies are so concerned about due process that they want to reject the military commission system that Congress has authorized three times now, what kind of due process comes at the end of a Hellfire missile aimed at a target who hasn’t had an opportunity to issue a habeas corpus demand?

When a window of opportunity opened to strike the leader of al-Qaeda in East Africa last September, U.S. Special Operations forces prepared several options. They could obliterate his vehicle with an airstrike as he drove through southern Somalia. Or they could fire from helicopters that could land at the scene to confirm the kill. Or they could try to take him alive.

The White House authorized the second option. On the morning of Sept. 14, helicopters flying from a U.S. ship off the Somali coast blew up a car carrying Saleh Ali Nabhan. While several hovered overhead, one set down long enough for troops to scoop up enough of the remains for DNA verification. Moments later, the helicopters were headed back to the ship.

The strike was considered a major success, according to senior administration and military officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the classified operation and other sensitive matters. But the opportunity to interrogate one of the most wanted U.S. terrorism targets was gone forever.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Perfect example of true demonrat/liberal ethics and morality not to mention that it hinders our intelligence gathering to the hurt of our own soldiers.

cjk on February 15, 2010 at 11:11 AM

Personally, I have no qualms about this decision. However, it is illegal to issue a “take no prisoners” order (or follow one) on the part of a commander, or a subordinate.

ted c on February 15, 2010 at 11:09 AM

So, you have to deal with prisoners one way or the other, then.
Unless you kill them before they can offer to surrender.

Count to 10 on February 15, 2010 at 11:13 AM

I’m not complaining.

Rightwingguy on February 15, 2010 at 11:14 AM

If they are dead we don’t have to hide their confessions that Iran or some other state is backing them. That would be a very “inconvenient truth” for this White House.

rockmom on February 15, 2010 at 11:16 AM

Count to 10 on February 15, 2010 at 11:13 AM

Until they actually wave a white flag, they are considered hostile….and only then when they say “olle olle oxen free” three times and do the hockey-pokey.

Rightwingguy on February 15, 2010 at 11:16 AM

hawkdriver on February 15, 2010 at 11:08 AM

Excellent! And might I had that it blows to hell their chances of procreation….Kind of an advanced model plan for the crotch bomber…

lovingmyUSA on February 15, 2010 at 11:18 AM

If I were Pres. I would much rather kill terrorists than capture them. I would call my policy “Code Pink”.

GardenGnome on February 15, 2010 at 11:22 AM

Libtards do not care about waterboarding and Gitmo etc. They only used it to hurt a Republican President.

Speedwagon82 on February 15, 2010 at 11:22 AM

lovingmyUSA on February 15, 2010 at 11:18 AM

Dang, I didn’t even think of that part. I believe together we might be able to advance this theory and win us a join Nobel Prize.

hawkdriver on February 15, 2010 at 11:23 AM

hawkdriver on February 15, 2010 at 11:08 AM

LOL. The military is eco-friendly donchaknow.

Rightwingguy on February 15, 2010 at 11:25 AM

Very clearly everything about Bozo’s approach to the war and its related issues is incorrect, stupid and fraught with peril.

One must capture illegal enemy combatants for information, use strident means of interrogation if necessary and keep them locked up until they’re hanged.

Terrorists are worse than pirates and deserve no mercy or comfort.

dogsoldier on February 15, 2010 at 11:26 AM

So, you have to deal with prisoners one way or the other, then.
Unless you kill them before they can offer to surrender.

Count to 10 on February 15, 2010 at 11:13 AM

and Question of the Day is now…..What if Bush did it?

ted c on February 15, 2010 at 11:27 AM

hawkdriver on February 15, 2010 at 11:08 AM

+1000 and might I add (canditaylor68 on February 15, 2010 at 10:29 AM) they provide 100% of the US daily recommended allowance of fiber to our soldiers,sailors, marines and airmen. Dead Taliban, the breakfast of champions.

canditaylor68 on February 15, 2010 at 11:28 AM

hawkdriver on February 15, 2010 at 11:08 AM

now that’s humor that can only be gleaned by copious hours of flying under NODS.

+2

ted c on February 15, 2010 at 11:29 AM

Why no war crimes inquiry??

That Nobel isn’t a get out of jail pass too is it?

snaggletoothie on February 15, 2010 at 11:30 AM

… and then comes the official leak from the Administration …

U.S. intelligence officials appear to have obtained access to what could turn out to be a significant trove of phone numbers, photographs and documents detailing the links between Al Qaeda’s leaders in northwest Pakistan and the terror group’s increasingly menacing affiliate in Yemen, two counter-terrorism sources tell Declassified.

J_Crater on February 15, 2010 at 11:31 AM

the biggest jobs program that the POTUS has stimulated is improved targeting systems for USMIL weapons systems…Whoda thought he was a leftist? He’s exercising his inner defense hawk.

I’ll give him a props on this one as long as our guys are defended when there’s a little *whoops* (ie, errant round) that unfortunately dispatches a wayward Afghani who strayed too far into the range.

ted c on February 15, 2010 at 11:31 AM

***
A lot of “good guys” will die when trying to capture an armed and suicide vest wearing “target” in a group. And the Jihadi may get Miranda rights and civilian trials.
***
But a dead Jihadi is one less person able to kill somebody. Keep shooting, Comrade Obama. This is the only thing he does that I like.
***
John Bibb
***

rocketman on February 15, 2010 at 11:35 AM

Personally, I have no qualms about this decision. However, it is illegal to issue a “take no prisoners” order (or follow one) on the part of a commander, or a subordinate.
ted c on February 15, 2010 at 11:09 AM

True, I think there should be standing Presidential orders to take captives–after subjecting their clothing to a 4000 psi shockwave. Kills lice, you know. Lice spread typhus among POWs.

Chris_Balsz on February 15, 2010 at 11:37 AM

Chris_Balsz on February 15, 2010 at 11:37 AM

Hah! Overpressure….it gets sh!t done. Consider it “preventive medicine.”

ted c on February 15, 2010 at 11:43 AM

I say we carpet-bomb them with Shite House advisors.

Of course, then some NGO would claim that’s worse than white phosphorus…

JEM on February 15, 2010 at 11:45 AM

“Diplomatic Immunity!!!!”

…has been revoked.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwB5SCpQv9U

Dario on February 15, 2010 at 11:45 AM

Obama opting to kill terrorists rather than capture them

Second look at Bambi!

misterpeasea on February 15, 2010 at 11:49 AM

the biggest jobs program that the POTUS has stimulated is improved targeting systems for USMIL weapons systems…

ted c on February 15, 2010 at 11:31 AM

Well, that and continuing with the Bush Administration Stop Loss Program in the first year of his term. Heck, I would have been retired last year, but he sure saved my job.

BTW Mr President. Remember that 500 smackers a month you said you were going to pay us Stop Losed folks as compensation and incentive for the hardship? You’re administration is exactly 3,500 dollars behind in your promises to ole hawkdriver.

hawkdriver on February 15, 2010 at 11:55 AM

We could restore the ability to get that kind of intel if we just admitted we need Gitmo to remain open.

If the Mid-Term Elections in November prove to be the rout of Democrats that many in the MSM are now predicting, perhaps we’ll also get lucky enough for the Republicans to gain enough numbers to put forth legislation making it mandatory for Gitmo to remain open for the imprisoning and interrogation of enemy combatants.

With so many Congressional Dems seeing the handwriting on the wall, the latest rude awakening being Evan Bayh’s decision not to run for re-election again, perhaps the Dems would even support such legislation in an attempt to bolster their failed image regarding national security issues of late.

KendraWilder on February 15, 2010 at 11:58 AM

Er, “Your” Administration…

hawkdriver on February 15, 2010 at 11:59 AM

Well, when will the UN and the International Criminal Court declare Obama a war criminal and issue a warrent for his arrest?? Of is that only for Jews???

georgealbert on February 15, 2010 at 12:01 PM

Well, if Brennan over here brags about 20% recidivism being hunky-dory, a dead terrorist has 0% recidivism which sure can’t be beat.

kurtzz3 on February 15, 2010 at 12:05 PM

Chris_Balsz on February 15, 2010 at 11:37 AM

Hey, we put them in a “hyperbaric chamber” for our health! Not our fault they forgot to make their decompression stop!

Mini-14 on February 15, 2010 at 12:05 PM

C’mon Ed, if it was Allah you know he would have tagged this “Second look at Obama?”.

madne0 on February 15, 2010 at 12:06 PM

Well, we are at war with terrorists…they wouldn’t hesitate to kill one of our operatives driving around in the desert. Hellfire missiles send as good a message as an IED or a homicide vest.

scalleywag on February 15, 2010 at 12:08 PM

Why did we question the underwear bomber? Should we just have killed him on the spot? What did we learn and why did we think it was important to know what he knew?
Even though the information we got from him was probably out-dated, we did learn something about our enemies interior structure. We are not fighting a common enemy, we are fighting an enemy that has many leaders and followers all across the land; not confined to any political border. Many have said that we are breeding terrorists but what does that really mean? To understand how a person becomes a terrorist, you have to know what is happening behind enemy lines, enemy lines that can spring up anywhere as these cells are so scattered across a large area.
Killing all that we can on the battlefield sounds good but as we have seen, there will be replacements.

Electrongod on February 15, 2010 at 12:23 PM

Is the loss of life among civilians worth the elimination of the detention option?

You mean to tell me, Obama is bombing, and air raiding villages in the dark of night, killing innocent women, and children????? :o

Renditions are far worse than a water poured on the face as well. So it’s more humane to send these dudes to God knows where, stand them naked in a pan of water, and shock the hell out of them, or beat them, or …..?

This man is such a hypocrite. It’s easy to condemn Bush, but when Obama does it, it’s ok? Bah!!!

capejasmine on February 15, 2010 at 12:26 PM

For people so concerned about waterboarding, they sure take a cavalier attitude towards killing.

I, on the other hand, am in favor of both.

Scrappy on February 15, 2010 at 12:33 PM

Know what I say?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-tvJcTPxHc

OxyCon on February 15, 2010 at 12:39 PM

Okay lefties… with all that fake outrage… tells us the moral thing to do here… since you have muddied the waters beyond any sense.

Obama is just so dang much smarter than Bush!

American called the left’s bluff in 2008. Now they fold.

I hope there is even a winner in this stupid game.

petunia on February 15, 2010 at 12:41 PM

Wait for it… {shoe drop}…

I support this 100%. While the argument for capture-interrogation makes sense, it hasn’t been working. Killing the enemy disrupts planning and leads to more cell isolation.

Increasingly cells will not have information, and our attacks will be more frequent as we won’t wait for just the right time to strike in an elaborate capture. Play whack-a-mole long enough and you will break the game.

Agrippa2k on February 15, 2010 at 12:44 PM

For people so concerned about waterboarding, they sure take a cavalier attitude towards killing.

I, on the other hand, am in favor of both.

Scrappy on February 15, 2010 at 12:33 PM

When a republican orders water boarding, or air strikes, it’s immoral, unethical, and murder.

When a Dem orders these same things, it’s doing what’s necesary for the security of our country.

Now I need to go dry heave.

capejasmine on February 15, 2010 at 12:45 PM

All of this hand-wringing over potentially lost intel is a joke. If Obama was interested in intel from combatants, he’d have solid policies for obtaining it, and those policies would not involve Miranda rights and potential incarceration on U. S. soil. Killing terrorists works for me.

CantCureStupid on February 15, 2010 at 12:45 PM

However, I expect Obama will fail to exploit this strategy.

He will likely stop capture operations completely, but not expand kill operations, even with a greater presentation of opportunities.

Leaving us worse off.

{shoe drop}

Agrippa2k on February 15, 2010 at 12:47 PM

Agrippa2k on February 15, 2010 at 12:44 PM

And then what? You break the game and then go home? Maybe we just send home most of our troops and leave some present in these troubled areas. Hasn’t this been done before?
There is more to our enemy then demoralizing and reducing headcount. They seem to always get more recruits and firepower. They live by a different ideology then we are familiar with. This will not go away because in part, we are responsible for it.

Electrongod on February 15, 2010 at 12:52 PM

Also don’t forget, what happens when the target is an American citizen?

I think Obama should announce that he is not going to close Gitmo and blame it on Congress for not funding the transfer. He gets off the hook with the left, throws someone else under the bus, and does just what W did, the Obama trifecta.

Kafir on February 15, 2010 at 12:55 PM

War criminal Obama!

HusseinHitler!

(Channeling BDS sufferers having withdrawal flashbacks.)

profitsbeard on February 15, 2010 at 12:57 PM

However, I expect Obama will fail to exploit this strategy.

He will likely stop capture operations completely, but not expand kill operations, even with a greater presentation of opportunities.

Leaving us worse off.

{shoe drop}

Agrippa2k on February 15, 2010 at 12:47 PM

I won’t be holding my breath. Obama simply hasn’t the stones to take any action that would end the conflict one way or the other.

Dark-Star on February 15, 2010 at 12:57 PM

What’s wrong with some attrition? Take out the operators, the planners, the money people, disrupt them, cause them chaos while continuing the hunt…this doesn’t have to be an either or thing.

Dr Evil on February 15, 2010 at 1:01 PM

I thought a “take no prisoners” strategy was a definite war crime. Someone needs to notify a Spanish judge about this ASAP, but keep it on the QT. Then get the Spanish government to invite Obama for some big award in Barcelona.

ray on February 15, 2010 at 1:03 PM

Also don’t forget, what happens when the target is an American citizen?

Drop a voter registration blank after the bomb.

Chris_Balsz on February 15, 2010 at 1:11 PM

it is never a bad idea to link to Whittle’s excellent essay on the topic.

RushBaby on February 15, 2010 at 10:56 AM

Thanks.

rogerb on February 15, 2010 at 1:16 PM

what Ed fails to understand is that if you kill enough of them it doesn’t matter what plans they have a hatching.

unseen on February 15, 2010 at 10:28 AM

What you fail to understand is that some terrorists are more important than others. Killing a low level guy rather than interrogating him means you’ve stopped one low level guy from ever threatening you again, but the bank account that paid him is still open, the guy who commanded him can still recruit and train new low level guys…

unclesmrgol on February 15, 2010 at 1:39 PM

I don’t care if it’s more humane. They’re unlawful combatants, and they don’t wear a uniform. Technically, we could shoot the ones captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan as spies. It would be better to scoop them up for intelligence purposes, but since it exposes our people to greater risk of getting killed, getting sued, and being second-guessed – this is probably the best compromise. The rabid left-wing folks can thank their intransigence about handling this issue for the shoot to kill vs. capture mentality.

Jill1066 on February 15, 2010 at 1:40 PM

Good plan. As the pirates used to say: “Dead Men Tell No Tales!”

Dandapani on February 15, 2010 at 1:52 PM

Oh, so their taking the PETA Alternative to Domestication.

- The Cat

MirCat on February 15, 2010 at 2:01 PM

When everything else fails, do something constructive. How novel is that?

volsense on February 15, 2010 at 2:17 PM

Of course, there are other organizations that kill their enemies using assassination methods rather than capturing them and then having to process them administratively.

They’re called crime syndicates. As I wrote at Commentary’s contentions this weekend, Obama’s methods go a little further than raising interesting questions about being humane.

Obama has made it clear he is not trying to bring about better conditions in the nations where terrorists find sanction. He’s just out to hunt down terrorists and put bullets in their brains (metaphorically speaking). Doing that in the name of the American people doesn’t confer moral superiority on what is basically a gangland practice. “He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue,” yada yada.

Sounds real fun, until the bystanders start being caught in the crossfire. At any rate, the fact that this is a downward spiral of kill for kill doesn’t hurt the recruiting effort for criminal gangs. Why would it put a dent in recruiting for the Islamists?

Those who have successfully fought gangs have learned that the biggest effect comes from empowering the honest citizens and getting them out to reclaim their streets for commerce and peaceful life. That’s what Petraeus did with the surge in Iraq. It’s what McChrystal wanted to do in Afghanistan. It’s exactly what Obama doesn’t want to do.

J.E. Dyer on February 15, 2010 at 2:21 PM

I called this on Jan 21, 2009, although I thought it would be an on-scene commander’s call, not all the way at the top.

See, Palin Steele (if you’re reading)? This is what you get when you don’t think things through. Military detention at Guantanamo, abhorrent in your mind, was a compromise. One that allowed for intelligence gathering, appropriate due process, and limiting the loss of human life – even if it were the enemy’s. This new, enlightened (in your mind) policy does none of that.

No wonder they called you “Dum Dum” at Ace of Spades.

JeffWeimer on February 15, 2010 at 2:30 PM

The President changes his mind as much as he changes his clothes…next week he will be saying the opposite.

yoda on February 15, 2010 at 3:29 PM

Don’t think it’s the “due process” part they are worried about.

I think it’s the “torture” part they are seeking to avoid.
The inhumane confinement thing with a “bug in your cell” thing.
The “sleep deprivation” thing.
The too “cold” air-conditioning” thing.
The being “questioned by a woman” thing, oh the horror!
The “simulated water boarding” thing.

Remember Mock Execution is a War Crime! A crime against humanity!

Real Execution? Not so much.

BTW give credit where credit is due!
To the left, you won, you have gotten what ya asked for!

DSchoen on February 15, 2010 at 3:30 PM

No wonder they called you “Dum Dum” at Ace of Spades.
JeffWeimer on February 15, 2010 at 2:30 PM

Is that because his points are hollow?

DSchoen on February 15, 2010 at 3:43 PM

i have no problem with this. the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist. If bush would have fought the war like this the wars would be over by now.

unseen on February 15, 2010 at 10:27 AM

Again,the double standard between Democrats and Republicans. Obama can get away with almost anything with his base, even if they hate his policies, not Bush, the Democrats would have had his head for this kind of strategy. He would probably have loved to kill all of the terrorists, but the lefties in this Country would have never allowed it. Look at the hell he got just trying to interrogate them.

As for the war being over by now, killing or not, this war will go on for many years. When Al Qaeda is gone, there will be other Islamist terrorists to deal with. They love to fight for their cause, and until they eradicate all Jews and Christians, or we eradicate them, or change their hearts, (not going to happen), it will not stop.

Susanboo on February 15, 2010 at 4:13 PM

Ed is right. Kill a terrorist, and he’s gone. Capture a terrorist, and they now have to worry about what we might have learned. Plans suddenly have to be re-worked. Other people are suddenly compromised.

Killing the terrorist is half a loaf. Capturing the terrorist not only lets us pump him for intel, but also makes the terrorists left behind start worrying about which of their secrets we might know.

tom on February 15, 2010 at 5:11 PM

I’m happy with those type of results

the thing is is that the reason appears to be that they killed the scum because of the complications that are being caused by capturing them politically moreso than if they if they felt they deserved it

obamas throwing terroristscum u der the bus basically

Sonosam on February 15, 2010 at 5:50 PM

i have no problem with this. the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist. If bush would have fought the war like this the wars would be over by now.
unseen on February 15, 2010 at 10:27 AM

obamas going to have to kill alot of scum before he reaches georges mark

it’s most likely that nobody has ever put the hurt on these vermin like George has and I love him for it

get some

Sonosam on February 15, 2010 at 5:56 PM

I’d double up on the air-to-ground missile order. This plan will save the taxpayers and troops untold dollars and blood.

joe btfsplk on February 15, 2010 at 6:53 PM

…US has pledged to turn Bagram back to the Afghanis at the end of next year.

They may have pledged. But the reality is that RFPs for 5 year contracts involving further support and expansion came out less than 2 months ago. They aren’t going anywhere.

Suihei Deloi on February 15, 2010 at 7:00 PM

I’m not complaining, either.

In fact, take all of the gitmo detainees and release them with GPS trackers ‘installed’ – so we can find them and kill them in the field at a later time.

If Obamao wants to close gitmo, then the ‘take no prisoners’ approach is all he has left – unless he just wants to quit hunting the terrorists completely.

Oh, crap. Do you think Obamao heard that last part?

Timothy S. Carlson on February 15, 2010 at 9:12 PM

You lie! happened.

“I’m Mao/Lenin; no wait, I’m Ronald Reagan.” Obama.

Lies

How do we know Terrorists are being killed?

Maybe its faking that we are not a paper tiger?

father on February 16, 2010 at 12:00 AM

“We’ve been trying to decide this for over a year,” the senior military officer said.

Uh, this is a little worrisome. Senior military officers not knowing what to do with those captured because the White House has no plan.

What do we lose in this transaction? With a network leader like Nabhan, we lose the ability to get information on a wide range of important issues, like funding, network nodes, communications techniques, and of course plots in the pipeline.

Possibly, but somehow I suspect this was lost long ago when the left made it well known no jihadi captured needed to cooperate.

If the senior jihadis get whacked, I wonder if the lower ranking ones would have the same discipline regarding intel as they jockey for position.

91Veteran on February 16, 2010 at 12:10 AM

Comment pages: 1 2