Obama’s New Terror Strategy: Kill the Terror Suspects

Rather than capture terrorists and put them through controversial enhanced interrogation procedures…
The Obama White House has opted instead to just kill them.
In the mind of a leftist, it’s the humane thing to do.

Vice Adm. William McRaven told a senate committee last week that if they can’t prosecute the terrorists in a US court they let them go.

FOX News reported:

Usama bin Laden has been killed. The U.S. is poised to begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan. And the Obama administration’s shift in counterterrorism strategy from land wars to precision strikes and raids is raising concerns that the White House has adopted a policy of targeting killings for terror suspects.

With no new detainees at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay since March 2008, a top military commander told Congress recently that there is no clear policy for dealing with suspected terrorist leaders who are captured overseas.

In many cases, the suspects are taken to a ship offshore until a decision is approved by the White House.

Vice Adm. William McRaven, the commander of the Navy SEALs team that killed Usama bin Laden, said under questioning at a congressional testimony that the longest the U.S. can keep a suspect on the ship depends on whether the suspect can be prosecuted in a U.S. court or returned to a third-party country.

“If we can’t do either one of those, then we’ll release the individual,” McRaven said in response to questioning by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., “And that becomes the unenviable option, but it is an option.”

With no consistent policy on detention or prosecution, congressional and intelligence sources told Fox News that the preemptive option has apparently become the “kill” option.

Under President Obama’s watch, multiple Al Qaeda operatives have been killed by the CIA or military strikes, including Saleh ali Nabhan, a suspected planner of the U.S. Embassy bombings in East Africa in 1998; Sheikh Saeed al Masri, Al Qaeda’s top leader in Afghanistan, and most recently, Ilyas Kashmiri, an operational commander behind the commando-style attacks in Mumbai, who was reportedly killed in Pakistan.

At a news conference last week, Obama insisted that gaining intelligence remained the priority.

“Anytime we initiate a mission like this, our top priorities are making sure this person is not able to carry out attacks against the United States and that we’re able to obtain actionable intelligence from those individuals,” he said. “And so that mitigates this danger that you’re suggesting that our main goal is going to be to kill these individuals as opposed to potentially capturing them.”

Get news like this in your Facebook News Feed,
Gateway Pundit

Commenting Policy

Please adhere to our commenting policy to avoid being banned. As a privately owned website, we reserve the right to remove any comment and ban any user at any time.

Comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal or abusive attacks on other users may be removed and result in a ban.

Facebook Comments

Disqus Comments

  • regularguy

    The whole “close Gitmo” crap has had the “unintended” effect of getting enemy muslims killed, rather than have to face the prospect of watching them go free at the behest of such do-gooder liberals, while further tying up our legal system with nonsense that could always have been done by military tribunals. This has resulted, without any doubt, in intelligence losses that could have otherwise helped our cause. It’s practically treasonous, the undermining liberals have done to our cause.

  • Cracker Mike

    Get the hard drives and other info and THEN kill them.

  • lakewriter

    if you kill ’em before they are interrogated, they can’t talk, they can’t reveal potential plans to attack USA, they can’t identify other terrorists. Pure and simple. Kill ’em before we can gain info and possibly prevent attacks. All part of the Obama plan to bring down America.

  • I don’t have a problem with just killing them! zero has pretty much ruled out any effective interrogation methods.

  • bg



    sounds good to me..

    but will that make their supposed opposition look legally
    weak or in insufficiently compassionate?? uh, oh, wait..



  • Reconstitution

    Liberals were so mindlessly opposed to Bush that it becomes like a football game. They support their side no matter what, and began saying anything that was immediately expedient in their effort to turn public opinion against Bush. The problem with that tactic is that the things they decried were often the most sensible, safe, and effective path forward. Now, Obama has to kill the bad guys to avoid having the problem of putting them on trial. As is often the case, the liberal alternative to the conservative practices simply won’t work or don’t make sense.

  • lakewriter

    I agree that they should be killed, but only after they are interrogated.

  • ahem

    In the mind of a leftist, it’s the humane thing to do.

    Jim, you can’t have it both ways. It’s hypocritical to denounce the Left for doing what we, ourselves, have supported in the past—and support now. It’s absurd to read these murderers ‘rights’ they don’t have when they are, in reality, soldiers without a uniform. They’re not civilians. Kill them without any remorse where they stand. Don’t take prisoners and feed them and heal their wounds and allow them to fight another day. Kill them in the battlefield. Let our troops have at them without these burdensome rules of engagement. If we don’t descend to barbarity, let it be a matter of conventional warfare.

  • Arch

    Capturing and interrogating a high ranking member of a cellular organization is highly disruptive to future operations, much more so than killing him. Had we taken Bin Laden alive and implied that he was cooperating, al Qaeda would be killing their own people and cancelling every operation they had planned.

    Failing to allow the military a mechanism to interrogate enemy combatants and illegal combatants without giving them civil rights of a US citizen is a major deficiency in our military intelligence. Because the democrats demagogued military tribunals, they now face the option of releasing or killing high value targets. Stupid squared.

  • dunce

    The law of unintended consequences comes into operation again. The geniuses on the left in their effort to ban war and instead run our national security out of the justice dept. by lawyers instead our defense dept. by our military. This began by calling the korean war a “police” action, a war that after all these years is not over but only a truce that is not respected by the communists. If you were in the field and captured someone who was trying to kill you, would you really turn him loose after taking his weapon so he could get another gun and try again the next day or feel safer by killing him?

  • Gee. Doing exactly what the terrorists would do to their own if captured in order to keep them from being interrogated. Enabling the enemy while pretending not to.

  • kato

    For years, liberals and the left tried to tie the hands of the Bush administration with idiotic legalism. Now that a left-wing dope is in office, killing terrorists is suddenly back in fashion. The Cindy-Sheehan left is nowhere to be seen.

    Is there a single journolist who has the guts to ask the platitude-spouting blowhard why his policies now are diametrically opposed to what he advocated as a senator, and does he feel at all abashed for now following Bush-like policies? The question is rhetorical, of course, because most journolists are liars and asskissers.

  • BuddyG

    It’s easy to take the “kill option” when the media is on your side.

  • BuddyG

    Kato, yeah, what happened to all the righteous rage from the left?

    Victor Hanson articulates on this phenomenon better than I can:

    “Obama has utterly embarrassed the entire liberal attack on the Bush’s administration’s efforts in Iraq and against terrorism. The venom between 2003 and 2008 was both cruel and nasty, and yet it was always presented as principled rather than partisan, not a grasp for power but the product of deeper respect for the American civic traditions. Now we see that entire era as a complete fraud — on matters of dissent, skepticism of the War Powers Act, Guantanamo, renditions, tribunals, preventive detention, wiretaps, intercepts, Iraq, and predator targeted assassination. The hysterical commentary was never based on the merits of those acts, but simply because George Bush, a political opponent, embraced them. How do we know this? Through hypocritical couplets like those above — and the almost complete silence of the antiwar Left. Where now is Cindy Sheehan, the award-winning Michael Moore, the New York Times discounted ads to Moveon.org, the impassioned floor speeches from a Senator Reid or Kerry?
    That is the real legacy of the Obama administration: In a way the most extreme right-wing nut could not, Obama has humiliated, embarrassed, and rendered bankrupt seven years of prior dissent, showing it up for what it was all along.”

    The Evidence of a Bankrupt Populism

  • StrangernFiction

    #9 July 5, 2011 at 9:26 am
    Arch commented:

    If it was possible to capture Bin Laden alive, to not do so would have been insanity. So we can logically conclude based on the nature of the Obama administration that they didn’t have an option. /sarc

  • BaconBits

    “Dead terrorists.”

    Identify them, isolate them, kill them…. It all sounds short and sweet, until they start changing the rules of identity.

    Anti-abortionists = Medical Terrorists
    Conservative Activists = Social Terrorists
    Tea Party Activists = Political Terrorists
    Christian Activists = Anti-Islamic Terrorists

  • 11B40


    Once again, the POW calculus:

    1) You don’t ever want to fight anyone twice;

    2) Some POWs may have useful information;

    3) Capture, relocation and detention of POWs requires the
    use of scarce resources.

    If I catch them, I’ll do the math.

  • big L

    Sure you can have it both ways. Some terrists you kill. and some terrorists You capter to interrogate and then Imprison them.See How easy that is? both ways. Because we can be adults and make decisions…

  • Mark

    Obadummy has lots of al Qaeda war criminals in Gitmo that should be executed……never happen. Watching this drama queen faux President trim political sails is pathetic.

  • In the mind of a leftist.. the terrorists are not the Islamists but the tea party and conservatives in general.. think Ruby Ridge. Obviously Hussein bin Obama would prefer to simply kill his political opponents than put them on trial, for what?

  • So, Code Pink are one womyn’s freedom fighters, another womyn’s … maybe we can work with this after all.

  • We are within our rights under the Geneva Conventions to execute illegal enemy combatants, which is what terrorists really are. If we were actually serious about winning the WOT, it would be our policy to capture terrorists, extract information from them by any means available (in Jack Bauer style) and then execute them. They should be treated as no more than the rabid animals that they are.

    This would serve as an effective deterrent. We could then travel without the idiocy of grandmothers and young children being treated as potential terrorists at airports and concentrate our limited resources on those who actually fit the profile of our enemy.

    We will only win this war when we decide to get serious and stop trying to be politically correct.