President Obama has won reelection, so it seems appropriate to revisit the politically sensitive question about the treatment of “terrorist prisoners.” First and foremost, it seems the policy of refusing to use the term “terrorism” resulted in the Obama administration putting out false information about what happened in Libya. I’ve read that there was an official policy issued to the State Department after Mr. Obama’s first election that they were not allowed to use the words “terrorism” or “terrorist.” Perhaps that’s why the term “spontaneous riot” was used in the misleading reports. I speculate the desire to not have a national security scandal just before the election also had something to do with it.

What changes to national security policies will we see now that Mr. Obama is safely re-elected? Perhaps we will now what he had in mind when he was recorded telling the Russians he would “have more flexibility” after the election. I’m also wondering whether the policy of targeting terrorists (perhaps he calls them “rioters”) with drones will be continued. It is reported that he meets with a select group of military, national security, intelligence, and political advisors each Tuesday morning to review a list of enemies called the “kill list.” He is then said to personally decide who is to be killed by a drone. The CIA probably operates the drone, because federal law would require public reporting and congressional approval if the military is involved. Drone strikes have killed people in Pakistan and Yemen. Of course people who have misfortune to be near the targeted person are also killed.

It fascinates me that Mr. Obama vilified George W. Bush for allowing terrorists taken captive to be water boarded and confined at Guantanamo. Apparently killing someone, perhaps while that someone is with their family, is acceptable while water boarding or imprisonment in Guantanamo is not. Of course people are still being held at Guantanamo. Some have been released, and several of them have rejoined their terrorist groups.

I’ve believed since Osama bin Laden was killed that there was no intention of taking him captive. The reports I’ve seen indicate that he did very little to present a threat to the team that approached him. He raised a hand, and there was a rifle nearby. Was he reaching for the rifle, or surrendering?

I have no complaint about what the Seal Team did, because I’m confident they completed the assigned mission. It would have been a political nightmare if bin Laden had been captured alive. Would they really only have asked him name, rank, and serial number, and where would they have kept him?