An article in the October 2012 edition of the ABA Journal titled “Detention Dilemma” describes legal problems created by continuing to hold detainees at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba. One very interesting part of the article is an argument whether “…the balance between gaining detainee intelligence and the high cost of defending detention decisions has precipitated a shift away from detentions and toward targeted killings.” The article then says, “Taking the judge at her word–that the high court hinted at the need for more killings–would be profoundly unsettling.”
The official policy seems to have accepted the “hint” given by the high court. We are killing terrorists with drones instead of trying to capturing them. Another point for that argument is given by the accounts of the night bin Laden was killed. Those accounts lead me to believe there was no intention of taking him captive. He was said to have been killed when he raised a hand and his rifle was nearby.
The political tension that was created when it was revealed some terrorists captured on the battlefield were “water boarded” led to outrage against the George W. Bush administration. Eventually we came up with a policy that requires terrorist captives to receive the treatment of captured enemy soldiers according to standards of the Geneva Convention. Intelligence agents are allowed to ask “name, rank, and serial number” types of questions. No aggressive or threatening behavior is allowed.
I believe the new policies created a pre-ordained outcome for bin Laden. The Seal Team soldiers could kill him or capture him. Consider what would have happened if he had been captured. Where would he have been held? Staying in Pakistan wouldn’t have been an option. Taking him to the Guantanamo Bay facility would have been a stark reminder that President Obama has failed to fulfill his promise to close that facility. The new standards for how he would be housed and interrogated apparently would have resulted in him being transported to some sort of U.S. federal prison as he was being read his rights and was meeting with his team of defense lawyers. I expect those unacceptable problems were considered when the plans for the raid were being finalized. The dialogue in the movie “Zero Dark Thirty” indicated the Seal Team was told to kill bin Laden. I expect that is accurate. We therefore had no opportunity to subject him to even a friendly interrogation, and it could easily be speculated that he could have been a valuable source of intelligence about threats to the U.S. if he had been taken alive.
As an aside, there was a picture released soon after bin Laden was confirmed to have been killed showing the Commander-In-Chief in the Situation Room. I haven’t seen pictures of the Situation Room the night of the Benghazi attack that killed the Ambassador and three other Americans. I wonder whether the Commander-In-Chief was in the room that night, and, if not, where was he? Mr. Obama selects who dies in drone attacks. However, he was either missing in action when Americans were being killed in Libya or he didn’t have any drones available to take out the terrorists attacking the Americans. When will anyone ask where he was that night?