The Obama Doctrine: Kill don't capture?

Without the ground work of the Bush years, there would have been no Navy Seal operation taking out Osama on May 1, however, John Yoo's point in the WSJ is interesting, isn't it? Osama bin Laden could have easily been taken alive. But if you kill the opponent, then you don't have to mess with those pesky ethical issues of interogation and imprisonment--those things about which Obama so vehemently criticized President Bush.

"Over the past two years, congressional pressure and the demands of the real world have forced Mr. Obama to give up his law-enforcement approach to terrorism. Thanks to congressional funding riders, Gitmo remains open and terrorist detainees there cannot be brought to the United States. Attorney General Holder has finally dropped his ill-conceived plan to prosecute al Qaeda leaders in Manhattan, and he has now restarted the military commissions devised by the Bush administration.

The repatriation of Gitmo detainees has also ceased, again due to congressional pressure. Mr. Obama's advisers have even publicly reaffirmed his authority to capture or kill terrorists as enemy combatants. Drone attacks have more than tripled.

Mr. Obama's policies now differ from their Bush counterparts mainly on the issue of interrogation. As Sunday's operation put so vividly on display, Mr. Obama would rather kill al Qaeda leaders—whether by drones or special ops teams—than wade through the difficult questions raised by their detention. This may have dissuaded Mr. Obama from sending a more robust force to attempt a capture."

John Yoo: From Guantanamo to Abbottabad - WSJ.com