This is the second article I've seen today providing evidence that Obama has deliberately shifted US strategy away from capturing terrorists, focusing on assasination instead.
Seems to me this is a strategic error whose consequences will be felt in the years to come. By assisinating rather than capturing, we are losing the opportunity to pump terrorists for information. Without that information, how will we be able to capture the new terrorists who take the place of the ones we kill?
As Yoo points out in today's WSJ, the killing of Obama would not have been possible had we not pumped KSM for information.
If it is really true that the Seals could have taken OBL alive, but did not because of orders from the administration, then we probably missed an once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to saves hundreds, if not thousands of lives.
The very thought that we could have waterboarded the bastard, but didn't, just plain makes me angry.
I agree. Also, let’s not forget the “humiliation” factor. We could have gotten a huge amount of closure out of that. I know it seems silly, but I do feel a bit cheated.
The problem is, and I tell you this having worked in this field, interrogations no longer work like they used to. Our ability to operate under strict legal requirements, when the host country has a say in prosecution, cripples this effort. It leads to very little interrogations of value, and a revolving door of terrorists that spend little time in prison before being released to kill again.
Killing them loses potential information, but it was information we weren't going to get anyway. It also cuts down on repeat offenders delightfully. It's a much better way to operate against terrorists. In this day and age, I'd rather interrogate a man's cell phone and computer than the man itself.