Blog Entry 5

Many Americans thought that with the demise of Osama Bin Laden and new American ways being born that the major terrorism and threats would vanish. All Americans have been proven wrong.
In a recent article from The New York Times, Marisa L. Porges made a statement that after Sept. 11 when an Ambassador was killed, Al Qaeda made a statement that they would kill more American diplomats in the region, and all over Arabia. The killing and threatening was far from over. Al Qaeda is not just confined to Afghanistan, which is the scariest part. They are stationed in Pakistan, North Africa, Yemen, and beyond. Last week, it was stated that "new evidence emerged suggesting that an attack had been planned by Al Qaeda — and was linked to Sufian bin Qumu, a Libyan who had been detained at the American prison camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. In 2007, Mr. Qumu was transferred to Libyan custody and held in a Libyan prison; he was later freed by the Qaddafi government and rejoined terrorist groups." If this is true, how do we know what other countries do with captured terrorists who remain a threat? Especially America. America has been known to be a bit of a failure in keeping terrorists contained and unharmful to the citizens. Many terrorists have escaped and we have lost many lives because of the escapes.
The article also talks about the ways of terrorism and killing. "It’s true that drone strikes and other tactics that aim to kill, rather than capture, terrorists are an effective tool for combating serious threats. They increase America’s ability to quickly attack targets in remote regions where American troops cannot easily operate. Such strikes allow the United States to respond quickly to time-sensitive intelligence about a known terrorist’s location or plans. They avoid the political risks and the costs, in money and lives, of supporting a large-scale military operation on foreign soil. And they help the White House avoid controversial issues of long-term detention and interrogation, which remain a political liability at home and abroad."
But this one-sided approach — always opting to kill instead of capture — is a major weakness of America’s current approach to counterterrorism. It prevents us from high intelligence and using our resources to their fullest abilities. After all, it was intelligence from a detainee that helped American forces track down Bin Laden. These situations cause the troops and officials in Washington to want to just kill off the competition and threatening people. But, is that really the best way to handle it?
As the election approaches, we need to start asking both candidates how they would handle high-profile terrorists. “Kill them” should not be the only answer. 


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/25/opinion/dont-kill-every-terrorist.html?ref=terrorism&_r=0
September 28,2012 12:  pm