(01-31-2010 11:03 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Cool. Took out one of Robert's friends.

(01-31-2010 11:22 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-31-2010 11:03 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Cool. Took out one of Robert's friends.

He is NOT my friend.

Quote:But a close aide to Hakimullah Mehsud called the report of his death "government propaganda" and said he was "doing well."
"We will try in a day or two to give you proof that he is alive," the commander told The Associated Press by telephone from an undisclosed location. He spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of government retribution.
The Pakistani Taliban issued similar denials after former leader Baitullah Mehsud was killed, only admitting his death after the group chose Hakimullah Mehsud as his successor three weeks later.

(02-01-2010 12:53 PM)I45owl Wrote:  No need to cry, Robert...

Pakistani Taliban promise proof leader is alive

Quote:But a close aide to Hakimullah Mehsud called the report of his death "government propaganda" and said he was "doing well."
"We will try in a day or two to give you proof that he is alive," the commander told The Associated Press by telephone from an undisclosed location. He spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of government retribution.
The Pakistani Taliban issued similar denials after former leader Baitullah Mehsud was killed, only admitting his death after the group chose Hakimullah Mehsud as his successor three weeks later.

In the meantime, you can hedge your bets and start campaigning for your favorite martyr in waiting...

(02-01-2010 09:43 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Death by drone is too quick and easy for a guy like this.......

(02-01-2010 06:34 PM)NIU05 Wrote:  WILD ASS PREDICTION for 2010...... This is Osma Bin Ladens last year on earth. A CIA drone will dispatch his ass the from the tepid desert to raging flames of hell. The drones are knocking the $hit out of them.

(02-09-2010 12:04 PM)I45owl Wrote:  I guess they've gotten tired of sitting around his corpse waiting for instructions.

MARC A. THIESSEN Wrote:...
The problem is that Obama is increasingly using drone strikes as a substitute for operations to bring terrorist leaders in alive for questioning -- and that is putting the country at risk. As one high-ranking CIA official explained to me, in an interview for my book Courting Disaster, "In the wake of 9/11, [the CIA] put forward a program that had a lethal component to strike back at the people who did this. But the other component was to prevent this kind of catastrophe from happening again. And for that, killing people -- especially killing senior al Qaeda leaders -- is potentially counterproductive in that we can't know or learn of future attacks. You can't kill them all, and you don't want to kill them all from an intelligence standpoint. We needed to know what they knew."
...
Today, the Obama administration is no longer attempting to capture men like these alive; it is simply killing them. This may be satisfying, but it comes at a price. With every drone strike that vaporizes a senior al Qaeda leader, actionable intelligence is vaporized along with him. Dead terrorists can't tell you their plans to strike America.
...
Obama's drone campaign is costing the United States vital intelligence, and it has also exposed him to the charge of hypocrisy. The president has claimed the moral high ground in eliminating the CIA's enhanced interrogation program, saying that he rejects the "the false choice between our security and our ideals." Yet when Obama orders a Predator or Reaper strike, he is often signing the death warrant for the women and children who will be killed alongside the target -- individuals whose only sin is that they are married to, or the children of, a terrorist. Is this not a choice between security and ideals? And why is it a morally superior choice? Is it really more in keeping with American ideals to kill a terrorist and the innocent people around him, when the United States might instead spare the innocent, capture the same terrorist alive, and get intelligence from him that could potentially save many other innocent lives as well?
...
It is true that Obama's predecessor George W. Bush also reportedly increased the use of drone strikes against senior terrorist leaders toward the end of his term. But the Bush administration also maintained and exercised the CIA's capability to capture and interrogate such leaders. Obama has now dramatically escalated drone strikes while eliminating what is arguably the most important and successful intelligence programs in the war on terror. This is not a sign of Obama's seriousness. To the contrary, he is using drones as cover for his dangerous decision to eliminate the CIA's capability to take terrorist leaders in alive and question them effectively for actionable intelligence. That is nothing to praise.

When Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was located in 2003, the United States did not send a Predator to kill him. It captured him alive and got him to give up the details of the plots he had set in motion. That decision saved thousands of lives. The fact that Obama's administration no longer does this when it locates senior terrorist leaders today means the president is voluntarily sacrificing intelligence that could protect the American people -- and that the U.S. homeland is at greater risk of a terrorist attack.

(02-09-2010 10:20 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  But does the threat of death from above dissuade more than an all expense paid vacation to Gitmo?

(02-01-2010 10:50 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(02-01-2010 06:34 PM)NIU05 Wrote:  WILD *** PREDICTION for 2010...... This is Osma Bin Ladens last year on earth. A CIA drone will dispatch his *** the from the tepid desert to raging flames of hell. The drones are knocking the $hit out of them.

The should have got him last year because during the campaign Obama said he knew where he was.

(02-09-2010 10:10 PM)I45owl Wrote:  Dead Terrorists Tell No Tales
Is Barack Obama killing too many bad guys before the U.S. can interrogate them?

New grounds to criticize Obama?

MARC A. THIESSEN Wrote:...
The problem is that Obama is increasingly using drone strikes as a substitute for operations to bring terrorist leaders in alive for questioning -- and that is putting the country at risk. As one high-ranking CIA official explained to me, in an interview for my book Courting Disaster, "In the wake of 9/11, [the CIA] put forward a program that had a lethal component to strike back at the people who did this. But the other component was to prevent this kind of catastrophe from happening again. And for that, killing people -- especially killing senior al Qaeda leaders -- is potentially counterproductive in that we can't know or learn of future attacks. You can't kill them all, and you don't want to kill them all from an intelligence standpoint. We needed to know what they knew."
...
Today, the Obama administration is no longer attempting to capture men like these alive; it is simply killing them. This may be satisfying, but it comes at a price. With every drone strike that vaporizes a senior al Qaeda leader, actionable intelligence is vaporized along with him. Dead terrorists can't tell you their plans to strike America.
...
Obama's drone campaign is costing the United States vital intelligence, and it has also exposed him to the charge of hypocrisy. The president has claimed the moral high ground in eliminating the CIA's enhanced interrogation program, saying that he rejects the "the false choice between our security and our ideals." Yet when Obama orders a Predator or Reaper strike, he is often signing the death warrant for the women and children who will be killed alongside the target -- individuals whose only sin is that they are married to, or the children of, a terrorist. Is this not a choice between security and ideals? And why is it a morally superior choice? Is it really more in keeping with American ideals to kill a terrorist and the innocent people around him, when the United States might instead spare the innocent, capture the same terrorist alive, and get intelligence from him that could potentially save many other innocent lives as well?
...
It is true that Obama's predecessor George W. Bush also reportedly increased the use of drone strikes against senior terrorist leaders toward the end of his term. But the Bush administration also maintained and exercised the CIA's capability to capture and interrogate such leaders. Obama has now dramatically escalated drone strikes while eliminating what is arguably the most important and successful intelligence programs in the war on terror. This is not a sign of Obama's seriousness. To the contrary, he is using drones as cover for his dangerous decision to eliminate the CIA's capability to take terrorist leaders in alive and question them effectively for actionable intelligence. That is nothing to praise.

When Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was located in 2003, the United States did not send a Predator to kill him. It captured him alive and got him to give up the details of the plots he had set in motion. That decision saved thousands of lives. The fact that Obama's administration no longer does this when it locates senior terrorist leaders today means the president is voluntarily sacrificing intelligence that could protect the American people -- and that the U.S. homeland is at greater risk of a terrorist attack.

Besides that there's the issue of Miranda rights ... I think that article is on The New Republic website, but I lost the link.