Obama Administration Going For The Kill Option For Terrorists
More often than not, when a terrorist is ripe for the taking, the Obama administration is issuing kill orders rather than attempt a capture.
Although senior administration officials say that no policy determination has been made to emphasize kills over captures, several factors appear to have tipped the balance in that direction. The Obama administration has authorized such attacks more frequently than the George W. Bush administration did in its final years, including in countries where U.S. ground operations are officially unwelcome or especially dangerous. Improvements in electronic surveillance and precision targeting have made killing from a distance much more of a sure thing. At the same time, options for where to keep U.S. captives have dwindled.
The response from Republicans on this is to condemn the practice as each kill represents a lost opportunity for interrogation. This view is echoed by the military. I am of two minds on this, though.
I generally prefer that, where practicable, the President defer to military recommendations. If a commander on the ground wants to try and capture a target, possibly because he is believed to have vital intellligence, go for the capture. However, in a climate in which terrorists are being treated like criminals rather than enemy combatants with all the rights to attorneys and trials as afforded by our legal system, I wonder if killing them outright isn’t the better path. The idea behind the military capturing a terrorist is to let the military conduct an interrorgation. If, as seems to be the case, we’re going to treat terrorists as common criminals, I’d just as soon seem them dead and spare the U.S. taxpayer the cost of housing, counsel and trial (not to mention the appeals).
What do you think? Is a dead terrorist better than a live defendant?
