The US just captured a significant ISIS operative, and it is now facing a big dilemma

[Expat1 971]

https://en-maktoob.news.yahoo.com/us-just-captured-significant-isis-173619516.html

An American Special Ops unit recently captured a significant ISIS fighter in Iraq, but its plans for the operative after his imminent interrogation don't appear very solid.

The militant — the first captured by the Army's elite Delta Force since its deployment in December — is being interrogated by the US at a temporary detention center near Erbil in northern Iraq, The New York Times reported.

But US officials didn't seem clear about what they planned to do with the detainee — and the presumed wave of detainees to come, if all goes to plan — after his interrogation, which could take weeks or months.

The US might do what it did with Umm Sayyaf, the wife of ISIS' "oil emir" Abu Sayyaf. Umm Sayyaf was detained for three months by US officials after American commandos killed her husband in a May raid. She was then transferred to Iraqi Kurds in August.

The Kurds, however, haven't filed any charges against Umm Sayyaf for her alleged role in the death of American aid worker Kayla Muller, or for the abuse of Yazidi women by her husband she reportedly helped facilitate. The worry among administration officials now is that if they hand over the newest ISIS detainee to the Kurds, they won't bring him to justice.

It seems that our peaceful "allies" don't know what to do with captured operatives. Anybody have suggestions? Our top-ranked officials (and our President) have no idea what to do when they capture someone who was engaged in religious "purification" and murder of Americans overseas, and our allies seem to decline to prosecute them. I though "Real Muslims^TM" don't tolerate these actions. There are several interesting suggestions in the comments section. What say you all?

Edited March 4, 2016 by Expat1

[TBoneTX 45,289]

Some time ago, I heard someone say, "Kill them! A dead terrorist can rarely cause you future problems."

[Janelle2002 3,865]

Some time ago, I heard someone say, "Kill them! A dead terrorist can rarely cause you future problems."

I remember Trump said capture and torture terrorist family members. Now imagine if a candidate for presidency in another country thought it would be a good idea to go after family members of U.S. military men and women. Do you condone this type of thinking?

[Expat1 971]

I remember Trump said capture and torture terrorist family members. Now imagine if a candidate for presidency in another country thought it would be a good idea to go after family members of U.S. military men and women. Do you condone this type of thinking?

That's probably applicable if this was about uninvolved family members, but this thread is referring to actual participants.

[ExPatty 502]

I remember Trump said capture and torture terrorist family members. Now imagine if a candidate for presidency in another country thought it would be a good idea to go after family members of U.S. military men and women. Do you condone this type of thinking?

The US isn't at war with any sovereigns so I have a hard time imagining this scenario. Although trump is advocating a war crime, the allies and axis powers both engaged in vast and numerous acts of terrorism during World War II, of course.

Conventionally you keep a POW through a war then repatriate. In the case of a terrorist like this you need to arrest and imprison but you can hardly do it with a million people.