Obama Policy: Kill Terrorists, but Don't Catch Them and Pump Them for Info

Although I do agree with the theory that the only good kind of terrorist is a dead terrorist, I've always felt that we should catch them, pump them for info, and then kill them off. The problem with this line of thinking is that it means that you have to be willing to take a couple losses in the attempt to capture them, you have to be willing and able to pump them for info, and then you have to have a reliable and honest means of killing them off. I'm not a monster, and I recognize that terrorists need to be given some rights, at least until it is established that they are in fact a terrorist, and that needs to be done in a delicate and sensitive manner. In other words, the policy of 'catching them, pumping them, killing them' is hard work that requires boldness, vision, and intelligence. Obama doesn't have these, so he instead just killing these terrorists.

Now, on one hand, I really do like the fact that Obama is killing terrorists. But on the other hand, I get the feeling that once again, Obama has demonstrated his lack of boldness, vision, and intelligence on this key issue. And this policy does not fit with Obama's desire to read Miranda rights to captured terrorists and give them civilian trials. It's like Obama has decided to shoot and kill them before talking to them, but if we do accidentally catch one, we can't do anything but release puppies and bunnies on them.

From powerlineblog post "Obama takes the easy way out, to the detriment of our national security":

The Washington Post reports that the Obama administration is increasingly opting to kill al Qaeda terrorists rather than capturing them and attempting to find out what they know. For example, when a window of opportunity opened to kill or capture Saleh Ali Nabhan, the leader of al Qaeda in East Africa, the White House opted to eliminate him by firing from helicopters rather than trying to take him alive.

According to the Post, these decisions are being driven in part by the "dwindling options" for placing U.S. captives. As one "senior military officer" put it, "when you don't have a detention politcy or a set of facilities," the balance tends to shift in favor of simply eliminating the terrorist.

But this entails an obvious cost -- lost opportunities to obtain important intelligence. Thus, says the Post, "some military and intelligence officials" are balking at the administration's "shoot the bastard" policy. The decision to eliminate Nabhan appears to have come in for particular criticism, as well it should. It's difficult to conceive that we might be more secure with the head of al Qaeda's East Africa operations dead and dumb than we would be with him sidelined and singing.