Obama tried it all. Closing Guantanamo. Ending the war. Civilian trials for terrorists. The surge.
Now he’s just killing, with a remarkable lack of dissent from his own side (remember: “Bush lied. People died.”).
So we learn from drone operatives (literally) that Obama is, after all, and for solid ‘political’ reasons… a stone killer.
Some counterterrorism experts say that President Obama and his advisers favor a more aggressive approach because it seems more practical—that administration officials prefer to eliminate terrorism suspects rather than detain them. “Since the U.S. political and legal situation has made aggressive interrogation a questionable activity anyway, there is less reason to seek to capture rather than kill,” wrote American University’s Kenneth Anderson, author of an essay on the subject that was read widely by Obama White House officials. “And if one intends to kill, the incentive is to do so from a standoff position because it removes potentially messy questions of surrender.”
Read the whole thing. Personally, I’d trust a soldier on the spot more (even with the messy question of surrender) than a highly paid antiseptic atty on the seventh floor of the CIA.
Besides, some recalcitrant attys are already arguing that the attys with their fingers on the launch button are unlawful combatants because they are not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and are not uniformed themselves. Hmmmmmm. Did someone else make that same argument in another context? Issa? Issa?