No, there is a perfectly good alternative:
Posted on 12/26/2010 10:05:27 AM PST by Sub-Driver
Gibbs: indefinite detention of terrorists regrettable
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Sunday that it was unfortunate that some terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay need to be held indefinitely without trial.
"Some would be tried in federal courts, as we've seen done in the past. Some would be tried in military commissions, likely spending the rest of their lives in a maximum security prison that nobody, including terrorists, have ever escaped from. Some, regrettably, will have to be indefinitely detained," Gibbs said on CNN's "State of the Union" as he described Obama's beleaguered plan for closing Guantanamo.
The press secretary quickly sought to clarify his comments by adding, "I say 'regrettably' not because it's a bad thing for--necessarily for them in terms of the fact that they're very dangerous people and we have to make sure that even if we can't prosecute them, we're not putting them back out on the battlefield."
With Obama now almost a year overdue on his promise to close Guantanamo, Gibbs offered no prediction that the president's plan would come to fruition anytime soon. "It's certainly not going to close in the next month," Gibbs said. "I think it's going to be a while."
Gibbs's comments came following an exchange in which CNN's Candy Crowley suggested that the president had the authority to close Guantanamo but had not. Gibbs replied by noting that legislation passed by Congress bars bringing Guantanamo prisoners to the U.S. "There are prohibitions, legislatively, on the transfer," he noted.
Gibbs did not note that all the restrictions were signed into law by Obama, albeit as part of broader legislation. Another measure further limiting Obama's power to move prisoners out of Guantanamo was passed by Congress last week and is awaiting his signature or veto.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
No, there is a perfectly good alternative:
He's absolutely right:
we should have executed them long ago.
What were our people thinking?
That we could rehabilitate them???
Apprehend them. Try them in military court. Execute them.
The way it’s been done in every war in history.
Please remove me from your ping list
How’s the first presidential executive order spewed out by your Annointedidiot working out for you, idiotGibbs, “regrettable,” yet? =.=
Bump
Did Gibbs clear his statements through JAssange first?
What is regrettable is the decision that the electorate made in 2008.
Bushes fault...
It's hibernating until Sarah Palin takes the oath of office.
Funny how that little tidbit never saw the light of day.
Oh, no, of course not. Nobody would be as reckless as to declare that it would be closed that soon.
A) If he didn't veto previous legislation limiting his power to close Gitmo, why would he veto this one?
B) Who is behind this effort to portray Obama as a failure!?
I’m saying it’s regrettable that we have to hold them and pay for their stay at Gitmo.
Since both Bush and Obama won’t let our troops kill the bad guys, we have to hold them. I’d rather spend the money on more bullets than 3 square meals a day for terrorists.
It’s only regrettable insofar as all of the “detainees” haven’t been hanged by their necks until they’re dead, dead, dead. Thanks Sub-Driver.
Drop them in Afghanistan, 100 yards from a US Base. Give them an AK with 5 bullets so it’s a fair fight.
Problem solved
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.