Targeted Killing Comes To Define War On Terror -- New York Times
WASHINGTON — When Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, a son-in-law of Osama bin Laden, was taken into American custody at an airport stopover in Jordan last month, he joined one of the most select groups of the Obama era: high-level terrorist suspects who have been located by the American counterterrorism juggernaut, and who have not been killed.
Mr. Abu Ghaith’s case — he awaits a federal criminal trial in New York — is a rare illustration of what Obama administration officials have often said is their strong preference for capturing terrorists rather than killing them.
“I have heard it suggested that the Obama administration somehow prefers killing Al Qaeda members rather than capturing them,” said John O. Brennan, in a speech last year when he was the president’s counterterrorism adviser; he is now the C.I.A. director. “Nothing could be further from the truth.”
Read more ....
My Comment: A rare admission from the New York Times on this administration's approach in combating terror groups ....
.... Though no official will publicly acknowledge it, the bottom line is clear: killing is more convenient than capture for both the United States and the foreign countries where the strikes occur.
As to what is my take .... in the past capturing these terror leaders and commanders was preferable for the simple reason that intelligence can then be gleamed. But today .... this is not so easy .... especially in view of the legal roadblocks that have now been set up to prosecute these individuals .... which will all but guarantee limited intelligence and information.
Update: The Trouble With Drones -- New York Times editorial
