Take No Prisoners

I have mixed feelings about the two recent high profile extrajudicial killings in the War on Terror. On the one hand, as you will have already noted, I do not consider this a law enforcement issue, one to be addressed through police work only after crimes are committed. Terrorism can and should be combated with all reasonable means and that includes military means. Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Alawki were waging war with the United States and had made themselves legitimate military targets. On the other hand it would appear that we had the option of taking both men prisoner and chose to kill them instead. I’m not sure that was the case but that’s how it looks. We wanted them dead.

Bin Laden appears to have been unarmed when he was killed. I would not second guess a navy seal who shot first and asked questions later but with the president and his staff watching a live feed, and the speed with which his body was taken to an aircraft carrier and disposed of at sea, it would seem reasonable to assume that all went according to plan. Circumstances were different with al-Alawki but news reports suggest a Marine Expeditionary Unit was prepared to go in on the ground. I wouldn’t criticize a decision not to put American troops unnecessarily at risk but it seems likely the intelligence to be gained would have been priceless had al-Alawki been taken alive. Or maybe not, water boarding would be out.

I can think of some very good reasons why the Obama administration wouldn’t want either man in custody. Bin Laden at Guantanamo would have been a public relations nightmare. He would have been headline news every night for months, maybe years. Pressure for a public trial would have been enormous. I can only imagine the spectacle that would have been. It would have probably been impossible to confine al-Alawki at Guantanamo. His citizenship would have entitled him to trial in a civilian court with all the constitutional protections that entails. The two men could conceivably have been more trouble as captives than as fugitives.

All of that said, I would rather we had taken them both alive, used any and all interrogation techniques likely to have been effective, and stood up to whatever political heat might have come. The idea that we may have killed them to avoid the complications of capture, if that is what happened, just doesn’t sit well. The position that harsh interrogation measures are morally indefensible in all circumstances, and killing is justifiable as a matter of preference is absurd. If water boarding has the potential to save innocents from wanton murder then we should water board. If there is valuable information we could have had but don’t because it was simpler just to kill these two men, then we have acted irresponsibly.

I know I’m putting a fine point on this. Many argue that terrorism should be treated as a police matter. A case can be made for that but I wouldn’t want those people in charge of the common defense. Others will argue that the men were enemy combatants and therefore fair game. A better case can be made for that but we can and commonly do disarm our enemies and take them prisoner. Where that can be done without undue risk to our own troops or to their mission it should be done, even with the likes of these two. Like I said, I have mixed feelings. Had I been Commander in Chief I don’t know what I would have done