U.S. lawmaker defends drone killing of Pakistani Taliban leader

WASHINGTON Sun Nov 3, 2013 12:27pm EST

Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) arrives for meeting with European Parliament leaders about NSA surveillance on U.S. allies on Capitol Hill in Washington, October 28, 2013. REUTERS/Larry Downing

Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) arrives for meeting with European Parliament leaders about NSA surveillance on U.S. allies on Capitol Hill in Washington, October 28, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Larry Downing

Related Topics

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. lawmaker whose committee oversees the intelligence community on Sunday defended the drone strike that killed a Pakistani Taliban leader and said it would help keep American troops safe.

Representative Mike Rogers, who chairs the House of Representatives' permanent intelligence committee, said the slain militant, Hakimullah Mehsud, was a "bad guy" who was connected to attacks against Pakistani soldiers and to the Taliban in Afghanistan, which has forced closures of many schools for girls.

"This was a bad guy," Rogers said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "There's some information recently that concerned us about the safety of our troops. I feel a little better for our troops today than I did before this event happened."

Mehsud, who took over as the leader of the al Qaeda-linked Pakistani Taliban in 2009, was killed on Friday, along with three others, in a U.S. drone strike in northwest Pakistan.

The Pakistani government denounced the killing as an attempt by the United States to interfere with peace talks between Pakistan's government and the Taliban.

Pakistani officials said they would review ties with Washington and some politicians there called for blocking critical U.S. military supply lines into Afghanistan.

The Pakistani Taliban has beheaded Pakistani soldiers and orchestrated suicide bombings that have killed thousands of civilians. Rogers also said Mehsud had ties to a failed attempt to bomb New York's Times Square in 2010.

He said U.S. intelligence agencies, including the embattled National Security Agency, collect and contribute the kinds of information that make such strikes possible.

"We deal with these threats every single day, and they are big, they are real and they affect real people," Rogers said.

"And I'll tell you, we should protect our soldiers in the field and we should also protect their families who are here back in the United States. And we should use every means that is legal, protects civil liberties and gets the job done."

He and Senator Dianne Feinstein, who heads the Senate intelligence committee, defended the NSA, which has come under heavy criticism for weeks for reportedly listening into the phone conversations of U.S. allies, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

U.S. officials have maintained that President Barack Obama was unaware that Merkel and other leaders were being monitored.

The White House has halted some of the surveillance programs, such as those focused on the International Monetary Fund and World Bank headquarters.

Rogers said the intelligence agencies are the "good guys," and that some U.S. and foreign officials likely knew more about the spying than they let on.

"I think there are going to be some 'best actor' awards coming out of the White House this year and some 'best supporting actor' awards coming out of Europe," he said.

Feinstein, who also appeared on "Face the Nation" on Sunday, said the uproar over the spying was more of a political issue than a liability for the intelligence agency.

(Reporting by Emily Stephenson. Editing by Christopher Wilson)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (2)
xyz2055 wrote:
Pakistan had intentions of negotiating peace with this guy? Yeah right! This guy was a terrorist. That was his job. Was Pakistan intending to pay his way through Barber College so he could hold down a real job? Pakistan is only our ally as long as we keep the bucks flowing their way. Like they had no idea where Bin Laden was hiding in their country? These terrorists brought this upon themselves when they hi-jacked those airplanes on 911 and destroyed our buildings and killed thousands of innocent American citizens. Given 1/2 a chance Mehsud would nuked America if he had the weapon.

Nov 04, 2013 2:52am EST  --  Report as abuse
SKYDRIFTER wrote:
For all the “official” rationalizations, killing a Muslim is akin to beating a masochist. However “bad” the guy was; killing him exponentially increased the Taliban penchant for revenge – their “Life Force.”

Toward that end, the American troops in Afghanistan can expect increased fatalities; which otherwise wouldn’t have happened – a “force multiplier,” if you will.

Come time for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, this drone strike may pay a very expensive and deadly dividend, indeed. It’s always tough to withdraw under fire; let alone “impassioned” fire.

As the expression goes, this guy was “… more dangerous dead; than alive.” Paradoxically, letting him live was the lesser of evils. But – “Stupid is what stupid does.”

Worse, with every drone killing, the passion for anti-American “Jihad” is increased. As the Boston Marathon bombings indicated, “Jihad” will happen on U.S. soil.

With the passage of time, more and more viable evidence testifies that bin Laden didn’t have a hand in 9/11. The tortured confessions are worthless.

Yet, look at the exponential growth of “terrorism;” as a consequence of hunting down that one individual.

Amazingly, “Dubya” is reported to still be pleased with himself.

Nov 09, 2013 2:02am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.