I wrote today in the Wall Street Journal today that while the Obama administration is to be given all due credit for Sunday's daring raid to kill Osama bin Laden, it might have sacrificed an even more important victory in the war on terror: capturing bin Laden.  Capturing bin Laden would have been the intelligence coup of the century -- think of all the intelligence he would have shared.  But this administration's fear of the difficult detention, interrogation, and trial issues regarding terrorists, I fear, led it to decide to just kill him.

  • Comment Filters
Contributor Comments
Member Comments
Comment Popularity

Comments :

Caryn
Joined
May '10
Caryn

Sad to say, I had the same thought.

reidspoorhouse
Joined
Apr '11
reidspoorhouse

I'm not sure that they wouldn't have preferred capture; I'm not even sure that I prefer capture either. Now, at least, as you said we don't have to worry about how this Administration would have handled (screwed up) his detention. It was probably better that the Seals took this decision out of Eric Holder's hands.

Kenneth
Joined
Jul '10
Kenneth

I doubt Bin Laden would have given up any valuable information in between his halal meals and his 5-times daily prayers, unless we were willing to use enhanced interrogation techniques.

Besides, the image of half his skull being blown away is so....satisfying. 

Sisyphus
Joined
Jul '10
Sisyphus

The traditional battlefield treatment of illegal enemy combatants was to interrogate them and then kill them or release them. The Bush Administration recognized immediately following 9/11 that battling a terror war required better intelligence than that, and picked a fight with knee jerk civil libertarians for policies that supported that intelligence.

Obama, of course, was one of the jerking knees. Going forward, what is at stake is whole cities and millions of lives (see the DVD Unthinkable for a vivid depiction of the threat). Obama finds killing the enemy and reading prisoners their Miranda rights on the battlefield to be the way to go, blithely destroying intelligence sources along the way. He has gone so far as to criminalize the Bush approach, seeking CIA prosecutions for following presidential policy.

So one very good reason to defeat Obama in 2012 is national survival.

raycon
Joined
Oct '10
raycon

Doubtful that Eric Holder, or Obama, had any desire to deal with the political circus they have inflicted on our forces in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Nice and tidy, and all they have to deal with is the justice hostile faction of the left who would bellyache no matter what was done.  Now that OBL is dead, the argument is moot.  Don't think Obama and company give any consideration to American security.  It is all about electoral security.

anon_academic
Joined
Aug '10
anon_academic

I'm completely fine with shooting him on sight --- much better than the realistic alternatives. This isn't exactly ancient Rome where we can keep our prize captive half-starved in a cage until we ritually strangle him at the victory parade. 

Michael Labeit
Joined
May '10
Michael Labeit

How sure are we that bin Laden would have divulged useful information?

David Williamson
Joined
Mar '11
David Williamson

It's a pity Prof. Yoo is not still advising the President - well, I guess he is too smart to need advisors.

Quite likely, Mr Bin Laden was a doddery old fool, who didn't know much - the World has moved on. Rather like Bill Ayers, who moved on from blowing up buildings to working inside them, radical Islam is going the way of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hezbollah, rather than Al Qaeda.

Now would be a good time to re-read Lawrence Wright's "Looming Tower".


Joined
Feb '11
Hang On

Bin Laden was effectively dead soon after 9/11. Capturing him would have brought him back to life. So glad he was blown away. Should have happened to all the people at Guantanamo rather than having a Guantanamo. Take them up to 30,000 feet, open the cargo door, tell them Allah will catch them, and push them out rather than spending all the money keeping them alive.

flownover
Joined
Aug '10
flownover

Kenneth: I doubt Bin Laden would have given up any valuable information in between his halal meals and his 5-times daily prayers, unless we were willing to use enhanced interrogation techniques.

Besides, the image of half his skull being blown away is so....satisfying.  · May 4 at 10:20am

From the looks of Drudge, you'll have to content with the images of Michelle Obama dancing instead. 

No photos ! What is up with that ? Astounding that these people are so immobilized by indecision. Killing is an ugly thing, there are no good photos, this is not Ophelia.

and probably can't be as bad as what Assad is doing to his people right now, which this hubbub allows the press to ignore. 

Kenneth, please advise as to what you think the photos would do to the "muslim street" . Now that we've found only cartoons can inflame their ire ? Is Dearborn burning ? Fremont ? Dept of Justice ? 


Joined
Jan '11
BThompson

One thing Bin Laden could have shed light On, beyond the activities and plans of Al Quaeda, was how cozy the Pakistan military was with him. It would be very nice to have some first hand evidence against the sleazy powers running that country. Now we are left to speculate what they've been up to for the last 10 years and wonder how we best should deal with the slippery SOBs in Islamabad.

Mel Foil
Joined
Jun '10
etoiledunord

If Osama was just reaching for something next to the bed, it didn't have to be a gun. A reasonable assumption would be, he's reaching for a suicide bomb trigger.

AUMom
Joined
Jun '10
AUMom

The President has just announced there will be no release of pictures. Hello, conspiracy theories! With one audio tape, the Islamists will deny the whole thing and we look like knuckleheads. Has there been a more tone deaf president?

David Williamson
Joined
Mar '11
David Williamson
AUMom:  Has there been a more tone deaf president? · May 4 at 11:29am

Not that I recall. 

Having gone to all the risk of taking Mr Bin Laden out the hard way (re: Claire's thread), Mr Obama has squandered it all, outa Political Correctness - how appropriate.

Edited on May 4, 2011 at 11:41am
KC Mulville
Joined
Jan '11
KC Mulville

I'm not sure it actually went down that way. If I read it right, the SEAL team did have an order to take him if possible, which would have been fine. But no one expected OBL to give up easily, so they were told to take no chances. If there's any question, kill him ... and in the excitement, the circumstances gave them enough to question, so they killed him. 

That doesn't bother me. You take what you can get under the circumstances, but if you're not sure, you follow the rules of engagement for the operation.

Remember, this is all after-the-fact speculation, where we already know that the SEAL team operation went perfectly, and got out cleanly. But suppose they had to account for a scenario where the SEAL team was blocked from getting out cleanly. Would you have tried to keep OBL alive, and bring him along while you're trying to fight your way out? Militarily, it was probably smarter to kill him anyway. The mission was risky enough. 

Sunlight
Joined
Dec '10
Sunlight

Do any other Ricochet members think John Yoo is looking really good right now? It was one of the first things I thought of when the how's and why's came out... just sayin'.

Dan Hanson
Joined
Aug '10
Dan Hanson

A live bin Laden would have been the Mumia al-Jamal to the world's terrorist nutbags.  There would have been all sorts of attempts to force the U.S. to release him - probably using American hostages.   It's been done many times before.  

Live terrorist leaders in jail are dangerous things to have around.  I'm glad he's dead.

Karen
Joined
May '10
Karen

Killing him didn't make sense to me, either. It would have also put to rest those that believe justice wasn't really served, but instead OBL should have had a trial, etc. There are stories circulating that a great deal of valuable info was gathered from his hard drive, thumb drive and files. With that much incriminating evidence, having OBL in custody and knowing he would be made to squirm in an interrogation room gives me more pleasure than his quick death. He got off too easy if you ask me. There are worse things than death, and though it shames me to say it, part of me sure would've loved to have given a rendition team the opportunity to visit those upon him. 


Joined
Dec '10
Nickolas

For political reasons Obama could not allow Bin Laden to be captured and taken into custody.

Obama and Holder have painted themselves into a corner on the issue of capturing and detaining terrorists. This is why we do not capture many anymore. Instead they are assassinated using missiles or bombs. If we are capturing any it is unannounced and they are quietly incarcerated and buried away deep in other countries where the ACLU, Amnesty International, and the NYT will not learn of them.

To be true to their condemnation of the Bush admin and their self-righteous finger wagging lectures to the nation, Obama and Holder would have had to hold Bin Laden somewhere in the US, treat him with kid gloves, and give him a civilian trial. That would be political suicide.

It would also be political suicide to detain him in Gitmo  treat him as a POW (no aggressive interrogation), and try him in a military tribunal. This option was not worthy of even a nano-second of their consideration.

Obama could not afford to take Bin Laden into custody. He had to die.

Edited on May 4, 2011 at 7:14pm

Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading
Welcome Visitor

Already a Member?
Please Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Join Ricochet today!

Already a Member? Sign In