RE: Mozambique drill, double taps, and Dadullah's "execution".
The Mozambique drill or failure-to-stop drill is a short-range handgun technique, originally developed because mercenaries were finding hits with 9mm Parabellum round didn't automatically put the victim out of action. The recomended solution was a bullet to the head, but hitting the head of a possibly moving and firing target quickly was too hard, so the response was the Mozambique drill - two quick shots to the chest (center of mass) to slow or stop the target, followed by a carefully aimed shot to the head to finish the argument. It is not an execution technique, it is meant to stop the other guy shooting back, so if one of the two to the chest hits something vital then you don't need the headshot. It was much publicied by American Jeff Cooper, and is widely accepted as the best means of getting the average shooter to exit an engagement as the survivor. Two shots to the COM were recommended as the average trained shooter at short range still only has about a 50% chance of hitting a moving target!
The double-tap was a British Army doctrine. Back in the days when our boys finally got the semi-auto SLR in the Sixties, the rest of the World had largely moved on to fully automatics such as the AK47, and our troops grumbled that the SLR was at a disadvantage at close ranges. The Army therefore decided to teach troops to fire two quick shots at a close target, the idea being they were more likely to get at least one hit. Again it is not an execution technique.
The reason for the dramatic success in CoIN ops in Iraq and Afghanistan is because the US special forces have been training closely with the SAS for the last seven years. The Green Berets for example are now much more proficient at disguising themselves as locals and blending in, rather than just dropping out of the sky and killing everyone in sight. In the Dadullah case though I think the allies would most definately have wanted him alive to interrogate, and any wounds he got were simply battle wounds rather than an execution, especially as the SAS/SBS doctrine for taking out nasties that may be wearing suicide vests or carting grenades around is to kill as quickly as possible by putting as many bullets in them as you can (the SAS in the Iranian Embassy siege put 78 rounds into one of the terrorists, out of a probable 120 fired in his direction, because he was trying to sneak through the escaping hostages with a grenade). Given that many Taleban high-rankers are using body armour, I expect someone simply put one in Dadullah's head during the fight before they realised whom he was.
And as for Bob Woodward and the Washington Post, I simply think they're being fed a nice line in propaganda to keep the jihadis nervous. If you stop an enemy communicating then you seriously reduce their capability. Bin Laden knows all about EW and ELINT because the CIA taught the Afghanis how to avoid Soviet "knob turners" in the '80s. I'm certain the Pakistani ISI will have taken care to make sure any high-ranking Taleban that might implicate them is also well-aware of American EW capability. The probable truth is the majority of intel is still coming from the oldest source known to man - disgruntled locals giving the enemy away, either for cash, revenge or security.