Killing or Capturing a Terrorist?

Today, the CIA and U.S. military managed to kill Anwar al-Awlaki with a missile strike from an unmanned drone.  His death, and those of the terrorists/bodyguards with him in his convoy is another victory in the war against those who use a peaceful faith as an excuse to foment violence in pursuit of a political cause.

I noticed an article in the New York Times today that discussed the debate continuing in political, legal, and public forums about what the 'proper' course of action is in dealing with people like al-Awlaki.

The options for dealing with terrorists like al-Awlaki are pretty straightforward.  Kill or capture them.  The instance of al-Awlaki presents a different issue in the minds of some - he was an American citizen.

As an American citizen, some people offer the opinion that al-Awlaki should have been treated differently.  He should perhaps have been captured by local law enforcement, the civil rights we all enjoy as citizens preserved and protected.

The Obama Administration obviously thought differently, and as it has done since the beginning of President Obama's Presidency, it has continued (and argued for in court) most of the Bush Administration's policies in what is now called the War on Al-Qaeda.

Let's consider the premise of capturing al-Awlaki or another U.S. citizen operating overseas to further the aims of a terrorist organization carrying on a war against America.  If this terrorist is living and conducting his operations in the United Kingdom, then capturing him becomes a relatively simple thing, conducted within the rule of law.  The UK has an excellent police force, not to mention MI-5 (the domestic security service, a well established court system, and a system of government from the local to the national level that is largely uncorrupted and supported by the people.   All of this presents a permissive environment within the UK that would enable the arrest, interrogation, and trial of such a person, under the rule of law.  Nice and comparatively neat, isn't it?

Now we need to consider the more realistic scenario.  Most of these terrorists, be they Americans, Yemenis, Afghanistanis, or Iraqis, usually work in countries like Somalia, Yemen, the uncontrolled border of Afghanistan and Pakistan, etc.  In many of these cases, there is no rule of law as we understand and experience it here in the West.  No strong system of courts.  No well trained and professional modern police or internal security force with well trained forensic scientists to back them up.  Even worse, no supportive population of citizens to set the conditions to allow those kinds of institutions to flourish, and thus create a more supportive population of citizens.

Terrorists operate in these areas precisely because the conditions in these nations make it easier for them to operate and in some cases enable or aid them (like the Pakistani ISI).  It cannot be reasonably argued that the U.S. could approach the government or internal security services (assuming they exist at all) for assistance and permission to arrest, and then deport a terrorist.  It is likely the target of such an arrest would be tipped off by members of the government or internal security services (either for money or because of some ideological sympathy).  Further, attempting to make a case in a U.S. court room against such people, where the rules of evidence are very strict, would be impossible for a couple of reasons.  It would require the compromise of U.S. intelligence sources and methods, which would endanger American security; and collecting evidence on a battlefield or in a non-permissive environment in any country would never be able to meet the standards of evidence required in a U.S. courtroom. 

This issue will undoubtedly continue to be debated, but we are left with the only practical option, one the Bush Administration started, and the Obama Administration has expanded upon - send in the drones or the Special Forces and kill them.