Although there is a great deal of controversy about mirandizing suspected terrorists, the Obama Administration has opted for a much more lethal form of warfare using remote control drones.
Avoiding the problems associated with getting information from high ranking detainees, the current administration has increased the number of drone strikes against Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders. The administration has denied that a policy determination has been made to emphasize kills over captures, several factors appear to have tipped to just that. The effectiveness of the drones have increased while logistic problems such as where the administration could even hold high value detainees have become problematic.
Avoiding the problems associated with getting information from high ranking detainees, the current administration has increased the number of drone strikes against Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders. The administration has denied that a policy determination has been made to emphasize kills over captures, several factors appear to have tipped to just that. The effectiveness of the drones have increased while logistic problems such as where the administration could even hold high value detainees have become problematic.
Although this is one of those cognitive dissonance situations (it isn't alright to use enhanced interrogation techniques, but it is okay to kill terrorists) the strategy appears to be paying off.
Of course it is not without consequences. "A senior commander connected to the Afghan Taliban and involved with the attack against the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency that left eight people dead said Saturday the bombing was retaliation for U.S. drone strikes in the Afghan-Pakistan border region"
And the usual suspect are weighing in as well. "In a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed today, the American Civil Liberties Union asked the government to disclose the legal basis for its use of predator drones to conduct "targeted killings" overseas. In particular, the ACLU seeks to find out when, where and against whom drone strikes can be authorized, and how the United States ensures compliance with international laws relating to extrajudicial killings."
Of course it is not without consequences. "A senior commander connected to the Afghan Taliban and involved with the attack against the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency that left eight people dead said Saturday the bombing was retaliation for U.S. drone strikes in the Afghan-Pakistan border region"
And the usual suspect are weighing in as well. "In a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed today, the American Civil Liberties Union asked the government to disclose the legal basis for its use of predator drones to conduct "targeted killings" overseas. In particular, the ACLU seeks to find out when, where and against whom drone strikes can be authorized, and how the United States ensures compliance with international laws relating to extrajudicial killings."
I guess my answer to the ACLU is the legal basis for the use of drone strikes is that we are at war and are trying to kill the enemy (if not why in the world would army's all over the globe be given guns?).
Also complaining about this policy are far leftist as exemplified by the people on the Democratic Underground.
All in all, I can't say that I disapprove of the Obama Administration in this regard. It appears our Nobel Peace Prize recipient is not a bad warrior.
No comments:
Post a Comment