Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gibbs: indefinite detention of terrorists regrettable
Politico ^

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 ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Front Page News; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: baghdadbobgibbs; flipflop; gibbs; gitmo; obamabreakspromises; obamaflipflops; obamalied; robertgibbs
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-68 next last
Unreal..........
1 posted on 12/26/2010 10:05:28 AM PST by Sub-Driver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Where is the liberal outrage?!!


2 posted on 12/26/2010 10:09:56 AM PST by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

At the behest of a host of companies — from Kraft Food and Pepsi to some of the nation’s largest banks — a little-known office of the Treasury Department has granted nearly 10,000 licenses for deals involving countries that have been cast into economic purgatory, beyond the reach of American business.
Most of the licenses were approved under a decade-old law mandating that agricultural and medical humanitarian aid be exempted from sanctions. But the law, pushed by the farm lobby and other industry groups, was written so broadly that allowable humanitarian aid has included cigarettes, Wrigley’s gum, Louisiana hot sauce, weight-loss remedies, body-building supplements and sports rehabilitation equipment sold to the institute that trains Iran’s Olympic athletes.
Hundreds of other licenses were approved because they passed a litmus test: They were deemed to serve American foreign policy goals. And many clearly do, among them deals to provide famine relief in North Korea or to improve Internet connections — and nurture democracy — in Iran. But the examination also found cases in which the foreign-policy benefits were considerably less clear.
In one instance, an American company was permitted to bid on a pipeline job that would have helped Iran sell natural gas to Europe, even though the United States opposes such projects. Several other American businesses were permitted to deal with foreign companies believed to be involved in terrorism or weapons proliferation. In one such case, involving equipment bought by a medical waste disposal plant in Hawaii, the government was preparing to deny the license until an influential politician intervened.
In an interview, the Obama administration’s point man on sanctions, Stuart A. Levey, said that focusing on the exceptions “misses the forest for the trees.” Indeed, the exceptions represent only a small counterweight to the overall force of America’s trade sanctions, which are among the toughest in the world. Now they are particularly focused on Iran, where on top of a broad embargo that prohibits most trade, the United States and its allies this year adopted a new round of sanctions that have effectively shut Iran off from much of the international financial system.
“No one can doubt that we are serious about this,” Mr. Levey said.
But as the administration tries to press Iran even harder to abandon its nuclear program — officials this week announced several new sanctions measures — some diplomats and foreign affairs experts worry that by allowing the sale of even small-ticket items with no military application, the United States muddies its moral and diplomatic authority.
“It’s not a bad thing to grant exceptions if it represents a conscious policy decision to give countries an incentive,” said Stuart Eizenstat, who oversaw sanctions policy for the Clinton administration when the humanitarian-aid law was passed. “But when you create loopholes like this that you can drive a Mack truck through, you are giving countries something for nothing, and they just laugh in their teeth. I think there have been abuses.”
What’s more, in countries like Iran where elements of the government have assumed control over large portions of the economy, it is increasingly difficult to separate exceptions that help the people from those that enrich the state. Indeed, records show that the United States has approved the sale of luxury food items to chain stores owned by blacklisted banks, despite requirements that potential purchasers be scrutinized for just such connections.
Enforcement of America’s sanctions rests with Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, which can make exceptions with guidance from the State Department. The Treasury office resisted disclosing information about the licenses, but after The Times filed a federal Freedom of Information lawsuit, the government agreed to turn over a list of companies granted exceptions and, in a little more than 100 cases, underlying files explaining the nature and details of the deals. The process took three years, and the government heavily redacted many documents, saying they contained trade secrets and personal information. Still, the files offer a snapshot — albeit a piecemeal one — of a system that at times appears out of sync with its own licensing policies and America’s goals abroad.
In some cases, licensing rules failed to keep pace with changing diplomatic circumstances. For instance, American companies were able to import cheap blouses and raw material for steel from North Korea because restrictions loosened when that government promised to renounce its nuclear weapons program and were not recalibrated after the agreement fell apart.


3 posted on 12/26/2010 10:10:18 AM PST by Ev Reeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Regrettable, yet necessary.


4 posted on 12/26/2010 10:14:47 AM PST by Carling (Remember November)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

This is what happens when you cater to left-wing nuts and let them take over your party. Obama and his people know (and probably knew during the campaign) that much of what they promised the Cindy Sheehan types would never be enacted.


5 posted on 12/26/2010 10:15:48 AM PST by PghBaldy (Like the Ft Hood Killer, James Earl Ray was just stressed when he killed MLK Jr.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mylife
LOL...never happen; lib's can't face the fact they make bad decisions all the time.

Quinn's first law; Liberalism ALWAYS generates the exact opposite of it's stated intent.

They are devoid of character; hence will never admit defeat.

Bush was right; again.

6 posted on 12/26/2010 10:16:06 AM PST by Michael Barnes (Guilty of being White.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
likely spending the rest of their lives in a maximum security prison Really...... unreal really Gibbs. How about you take one home with you and let them live with you or your relatives? How about the recruiting they do in prison? What about the ones they have killed or will kill?
7 posted on 12/26/2010 10:23:22 AM PST by ColdOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carling

Don’t take prisoners and you won’t have a Guantanmino detention center.


8 posted on 12/26/2010 10:25:00 AM PST by Americanexpat (Everytime I see that guy's face ot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

The Obama administration should be put on trial at the Hague. Such a blatant violation of human rights.


9 posted on 12/26/2010 10:25:18 AM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mylife

The lib outrage will be front and center day 2 of the next administration.


10 posted on 12/26/2010 10:28:11 AM PST by reefdiver ("Let His day's be few And another takes His office")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mylife

The fundamental principal of liberalism is hypocrisy.


11 posted on 12/26/2010 10:28:52 AM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Worst president ever augmented by the worst House Speaker ever.

We are very resilient to still be surviving as a nation.

12 posted on 12/26/2010 10:42:14 AM PST by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Mass protests in Europe? Mass moving of Hollywood stars to other countries? Mass media condemnation of Obammy?

It's just not the same without Bush!
13 posted on 12/26/2010 10:47:33 AM PST by Dallas59 (President Robert Gibbs 2009-2013)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

The Obama administration should be put on trial at the Hague. Such a blatant violation of human rights.

9 posted on Sunday, December 26, 2010 12:25:18 PM by Brilliant


No BO and his co-conspirators should be put on trial in State Courts throughout the US for the crimes committed by the BO regime in the US.

Contact your congressman, senators, County Sheriff, DA, State Legislators, Governor, and County Grand Jury Foreman and demand that they indict, prosecute, convict and imprison BO and all his local co-conspirators for TSA Sexual Assaults, Voter Fraud, Identity Theft, Illegal Foreign Campaign Contributions, Poisoning of the Gulf of Mexico, Embezzlement of Government funds etc.

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/06/how-to-start-and-lead-citizens-grand.html

http://dewdropwarriors.blogspot.com/2009_05_01_archive.html


14 posted on 12/26/2010 10:50:23 AM PST by FS11
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: mylife
Where is the liberal outrage?!!

Being laundered through Joe Scarbourough and directed at Bush.

15 posted on 12/26/2010 10:50:48 AM PST by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Should be “The corrupt members of the current regime in the White House that should be serving in the Gitmo country club are not, and that is truly regrettable.”

But someday....! Perhaps there will be justice in the next conservative administration!


16 posted on 12/26/2010 10:55:45 AM PST by pillut48 (Israel doesn't have a friend in President Obama...and neither does the USA! (h/t pgkdan))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Its not regretable. Its called serving a life sentence.


17 posted on 12/26/2010 10:56:44 AM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pillut48; himno hero; The Comedian; Quix; Whenifhow; houeto; null and void; Squantos; xrmusn; ...

Should be “The corrupt members of the current regime in the White House that should be serving in the Gitmo country club are not, and that is truly regrettable.”

16 posted on Sunday, December 26, 2010 12:55:45 PM by pillut48


Ditto


18 posted on 12/26/2010 11:20:27 AM PST by FS11
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Why in the world to these incompetent, effing, WH liberals insist upon apologizing for doing the right thing? Stupid ***ers.


19 posted on 12/26/2010 11:25:58 AM PST by theDentist (fybo; qwerty ergo typo : i type, therefore i misspelll)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Gibbs: indefinite detention of terrorists regrettable

Regrettable only because they have been executed.

20 posted on 12/26/2010 11:26:59 AM PST by The Sons of Liberty (Psalm 109:8 Let his days be few and let another take his office. - Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carling
Regrettable, yet necessary.

No, there is a perfectly good alternative:


21 posted on 12/26/2010 11:34:29 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (Socialists are to economics what circle squarers are to math; undaunted by reason or derision.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Carling
From my point of view NOT REGRETTABLE. If you have had the opportunity to see these slimy murderous SOBs up close, you would agree. They have no conscience, no morality and no right to breath the same air we do.
22 posted on 12/26/2010 11:47:32 AM PST by eaglesiniowa ((Hope is not a course of action))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
"Gibbs: indefinite detention of terrorists regrettable"

He's absolutely right:
we should have executed them long ago.

What were our people thinking?
That we could rehabilitate them???

23 posted on 12/26/2010 11:47:48 AM PST by Redbob (W.W.J.B.D.: "What Would Jack Bauer Do?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Apprehend them. Try them in military court. Execute them.
The way it’s been done in every war in history.


24 posted on 12/26/2010 11:49:34 AM PST by Kozak ("It's not an Election it's a Restraining Order" .....PJ O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Redbob
"Gibbs: indefinite detention of terrorists regrettable"

You all are inserting a word into his sentence that's conspiculously missing: "Muslim".
25 posted on 12/26/2010 11:57:03 AM PST by Yet_Again
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: FS11

Please remove me from your ping list


26 posted on 12/26/2010 12:04:16 PM PST by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

How’s the first presidential executive order spewed out by your Annointedidiot working out for you, idiotGibbs, “regrettable,” yet? =.=


27 posted on 12/26/2010 12:07:49 PM PST by cranked
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
In January and February 2009, President Barack Obama's nominees for Attorney General and Solicitor General, Eric Holder and Elena Kagan, both testified they agreed the U.S. government may detain combatants in accordance with the laws of war until the end of the war.

So the question is - "IS THE WAR ON TERROR OVER"?

White House: 'War on terrorism' is over August 6, 2009

But perhaps the current question now is, what shape will the war on terror take as the Obama administration has become fully engaged and completely in charge of what can only be determined Obama's War on Terror. Oct 21, 2009
28 posted on 12/26/2010 12:21:41 PM PST by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Bump


29 posted on 12/26/2010 12:40:15 PM PST by Incorrigible (If I lead, follow me; If I pause, push me; If I retreat, kill me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Did Gibbs clear his statements through JAssange first?


30 posted on 12/26/2010 1:19:22 PM PST by LurkedLongEnough
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Reality is a b*tch ain't it Urkel?
31 posted on 12/26/2010 1:22:51 PM PST by Cyman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

What is regrettable is the decision that the electorate made in 2008.


32 posted on 12/26/2010 1:27:46 PM PST by windsorknot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mylife

Bushes fault...


33 posted on 12/26/2010 4:54:59 PM PST by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mylife
Where is the liberal outrage?!!

It's hibernating until Sarah Palin takes the oath of office.

34 posted on 12/26/2010 4:56:17 PM PST by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all -- Texas Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
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.

Funny how that little tidbit never saw the light of day.

35 posted on 12/26/2010 4:59:44 PM PST by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all -- Texas Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
"It's certainly not going to close in the next month," Gibbs said.

Oh, no, of course not. Nobody would be as reckless as to declare that it would be closed that soon.

36 posted on 12/26/2010 5:01:36 PM PST by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all -- Texas Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
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.

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!?

37 posted on 12/26/2010 5:03:58 PM PST by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all -- Texas Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eaglesiniowa

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.


38 posted on 12/26/2010 5:12:49 PM PST by Carling (Remember November)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; Arthur Wildfire! March; Berosus; bigheadfred; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; Delacon; ...

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.


39 posted on 12/26/2010 5:31:39 PM PST by SunkenCiv (The 2nd Amendment follows right behind the 1st because some people are hard of hearing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 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


40 posted on 12/26/2010 11:02:32 PM PST by mewykwistmas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mylife

Leftists don’t care about anyone except themselves. They don’t even care about their terrorist buddies. Everyone is expendable except wonderful #1. They used Gitmo to attack Bush so they could usher in a socialist state and get wads of free money. The plan has never been more complicated than that.


41 posted on 12/27/2010 6:07:05 AM PST by Soothesayer (smallpox is not a person)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Yeah, it’s regrettable.

It’s regrettable that we have to waste money holding them and catering to their muslim sensibilities and feeding them special diets and allowing them prayer time and giving them free medical care.

It’s regrettable that they just aren’t given the death penalty for their acts of war against the USA as enemy combatants.

Lots to regret....


42 posted on 12/27/2010 11:16:01 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Finally something I agree with...though his solution is almost certainly not the same as mine.


43 posted on 12/27/2010 11:41:26 AM PST by nina0113
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Finally something I agree with...though his solution is almost certainly not the same as mine.


44 posted on 12/27/2010 11:41:34 AM PST by nina0113
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

What is regrettable is the load of people from the clown car that moved into our White House.


45 posted on 12/27/2010 12:52:38 PM PST by Flint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mewykwistmas
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

Ensure it's a Romanian-built AK.
46 posted on 12/27/2010 1:03:09 PM PST by Renderofveils (My loathings are simple: stupidity, oppression, crime, cruelty, soft music. - Nabokov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Indefinite retention of Gibbs and the entire entourage of the Obozo gaggle is a real danger to this nation.


47 posted on 12/27/2010 1:57:22 PM PST by IbJensen ("How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think"-A. Hitler)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

They are prisoners of war, and if the war lasts 100 years that’s their bad luck.

But the way things are going they may possibly all be honored guests at the White House.


48 posted on 12/27/2010 2:32:33 PM PST by devere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Right for the wrong reason. As non-uniformed combatants, they should be subject to summary judgment upon capture.
49 posted on 12/27/2010 2:44:08 PM PST by Colonel_Flagg ("I'd rather lose fighting for the right cause than win fighting for the wrong cause." - Jim DeMint)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

I still say, take them to the beach, chum the waters and let the sharks disappear them, horrid accident, chapter over.


50 posted on 12/27/2010 5:31:32 PM PST by Karliner (Now this is not the end. .... But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning, Churchill 1942)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-68 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson