Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 1:51 PM ET, 12/ 2/2010

Obama's false choice on interrogation

By Marc Thiessen

My Post colleague David Ignatius has an important column today on the costs of not having a coherent detention and interrogation policy. The U.S. has dramatically escalated the targeted killing of terrorists, Ignatius writes, while efforts to capture senior al-Qaeda leaders have "virtually stopped." This new reluctance to capture terrorists comes with an intelligence cost, he points out, as "The United States and its allies lose the information that could have come from interrogation, along with the cell phones, computers and other communication gear that could be seized in a successful raid."

Ignatius notes that one reason for the paucity of live captures is that many of the terrorists we target are hiding out in tribal regions of Pakistan -- and that sending elite CIA or Special Operations teams into these regions puts them at risk of being surrounded and captured themselves. It is true that there are times when terrorists are discovered hiding out in areas that are dangerous or inaccessible, and thus killing them is the only feasible option. But this does not explain the decision by President Obama in September 2009 to kill rather than capture Saleh Ali Nabhan -- the top leader of al-Qaeda in East Africa. As The Post reported earlier this year:

When a window of opportunity opened to strike the leader of al-Qaeda in East Africa last September, U.S. Special Operations forces prepared several options. They could obliterate his vehicle with an airstrike as he drove through southern Somalia. Or they could fire from helicopters that could land at the scene to confirm the kill. Or they could try to take him alive.

The White House authorized the second option. On the morning of Sept. 14, helicopters flying from a U.S. ship off the Somali coast blew up a car carrying Saleh Ali Nabhan. While several hovered overhead, one set down long enough for troops to scoop up enough of the remains for DNA verification. Moments later, the helicopters were headed back to the ship.

The strike was considered a major success, according to senior administration and military officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the classified operation and other sensitive matters. But the opportunity to interrogate one of the most wanted U.S. terrorism targets was gone forever.... "We wanted to take a prisoner," a senior military officer said of the Nabhan operation. "It was not a decision that we made."

Nabhan could have provided the U.S with a wealth of information on al-Qaeda in East Africa, and its new affiliate -- the Somali terror group al-Shabab -- whose merger with al-Qaeda Nabhan had recently supervised. This group has recruited at least 20 American citizens to train as foreign fighters -- a sign that they have designs to the attack the American homeland. Nabhan could have filled in the gaps in our knowledge about al-Shabab's capabilities and intent. But that information was vaporized when President Obama ordered him killed.

The fact that the Obama was able to send helicopters to kill Nabhan, rather than using missiles, means he was reachable and might have been taken alive. And at this moment there are many other terrorists hiding out in East Africa, North Africa, Yemen, Pakistan, and other areas where capturing them alive is feasible. But the Obama administration has made a conscious decision to kill, rather than capture, these individuals -- and thus forgo the intelligence they could have provided us on the intent and capability of various al-Qaeda to attack the homeland. They have made this decision in part because, as Ignatius notes, even if we captured someone alive, today we have nowhere to put them. The CIA's black sites are closed and, Ignatius writes, "agency officials have been advised that Guantanamo is closed for new business."

What is puzzling is how, after eloquently laying out the costs of Obama's restrictions on detention and interrogation, Ignatius ends by defending them -- while arguing that our policy of killing rather than capturing terrorists "needs a clearer foundation in law and public understanding than it is today." But the choice Obama has presented between following the Bush administration approach to interrogation and doing nothing is (as the president likes to say) a "false choice." As I pointed out in The Post in February, there is a middle ground on interrogation that would allow the U.S. to capture and question senior terrorist leaders without employing waterboarding and other techniques with which Obama disagrees. The CIA interrogation program Obama inherited and dismantled included none of those techniques. He could simply restore that scaled-down program, which was successful in eliciting important intelligence from high-value al-Qaeda leaders in the waning years of the Bush administration. Or he could follow the advice then-CIA Director Mike Hayden gave him when he issued his executive order restricting all interrogation to the techniques in the Army Field Manual, by adding six simple words to that directive: "unless otherwise authorized by the president."

This would be less than ideal. But it would be far better than the situation we face today, where we vaporize terrorists from 10,000 feet and let them take their secrets to the grave. That approach is morally and strategically indefensible.

By Marc Thiessen  | December 2, 2010; 1:51 PM ET
Categories:  Thiessen  | Tags:  Marc Thiessen  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Give Lieberman some credit on don't ask, don't tell
Next: A time to govern


The liberal hypocrisy evident on the current policy is astonishing...

- Killing suspected terrorists and likely innocent bystanders OK

- Capturing, detaining,interrogating and learning possibly actionable intelligence is NOT OK ?

And the Left still calls Bush a criminal ? while giving Obama a pass ?


Posted by: pvilso24 | December 2, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Marc Thiessen continues to be WAPO's chief propagandist and resident liar but let's go to the current piece of BS filed and promoted by the once great newspaper, now corporate promoting, neo-con apologist tabloid sheet.
In response to pvilso24 :

"And the Left still calls Bush a criminal ? while giving Obama a pass ? "
It's obvious you wouldn't know a leftist or liberal if you gave birth to one....NO one on the left is giving Obama a pass, we are confronting him daily, hourly, on his continuation of the corrupt war criminal policies of Thiessen's favorite HATE-Fest headliners, Cheney-Bush and the neo-con barbarians.
Just because one chooses to read tabloids & buy fake news to get their ration of fantasy, doesn't mean he/she knows the Left.
We, on the left, don't tolerate corruption, corporatist blather or war crimes. We HAVE moral compass, unlike Mr Thiessen, here, who promotes the myth of BUSH as the holy man of the US Constitution.
BUSH, Cheney and Thiessen along with their cohorts from Rove to Yoo, Rice to Rumsfeld, have been shown time & again to be lacking in basic humanity (and with any luck and a trip outside the country, Cheney, Rummy and friends might actually get their due). They conspired, APPROVED, and manipulated to cover up, the kidnap and torture of hundreds, if not thousands of free men and women (and children) throughout the world, sticking them in black sites and committing crimes of torture (waterboarding, rape/sodomy, starvation, sensory deprivation and a sadist's playbook of heinous acts): they attacked a sovereign nation without cause or justification and manipulated to lie to the American public, Congress, UN and the WORLD as to that attack; they outed a CIA operative leaving a hole in the intelligence gathering and threatening the lives of REAL operatives in Iran,Iraq, Yemen, and other nations; they destroyed an economy by selling their (and OUR) souls for a lining for their buddies in oil, war machinery and procurement...just some of the MANY crimes of the BUSH machine of which Thiessen is the Goebbels .
As far as OBAMA - Most of the LEFT has been confronting the continuation of the patriot act, the refusal to close the black sites , of which Thiessen is so enamored, his refusal to hold ANYONE accountable for the crimes against the people of the US, the Constitution and free people everywhere; the refusal to admit to his own lack of transparency in those issues and the perpetuation of MANY of those same crimes.
The LEFT is not happy with Obama - he was the only choice in a year offering he or the lunatic, womanizer from AZ who would roll over for a vote.
And for Thiessan...anything to cover your particular criminal butt, right? Your description of what Obama SHOULD be doing is as corrupt as you but then what can one expect - TORTURE is proven not to work but you promote it; Using our soldiers as so much cannon fodder another unethical and immoral stance...
A real piece of work for a neo-con shill

Posted by: REALCosmicSurfer | December 4, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.

characters remaining

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company