The AP added:
The decision not to seize the men militarily underscores the White House aim to move away from hunting terrorists as enemy combatants and holding them at the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The preference is toward a process in which most are apprehended and tried by the countries where they are living or arrested by the U.S. with the host country's cooperation and tried in the U.S. criminal justice system. Using military force to detain the men might also harm fledgling relations with Libya and other post-Arab-Spring governments with whom the U.S. is trying to build partnerships to hunt al-Qaida as the organization expands throughout the region...The AP cited a senior administration official, and four senior U.S. officials - who were briefed on the investigation into the attacks and on high level strategy debates among White House, FBI and other counterterror officials - as the source of the above information. All five officials spoke on condition of anonymity.
Some of the men have... been in contact with a network of well-known regional Jihadists, including al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb...
The option most likely off the table would be taking suspects seized by the military to Guantanamo Bay, the facility in Cuba that Obama has said he wants to close.
"Just as the administration is trying to find the exit ramp for Guantanamo, [it] is not the time to be adding to it," said the former chief prosecutor for Guantanamo.
Let me preface my remarks with the following comment: Although President Obama constantly feigns righteous indignation about the leaking of highly sensitive information, it is he and his administration who are actually the biggest leakers of 'em all.
Obama and his cronies have consistently used the AP and other media outlets as vehicles to leak out their [highly sensitive] misinformation campaigns - and their spin. "U.S. officials" are often quoted in the mainstream media reports as sources of "newly" obtained information - but these U.S. officials are, in actuality, Obama proxies who are tasked with relaying the President's misinformation campaign to the media and to the public. Hence, I have a hard time believing anything coming out of the mainstream media, especially when anonymous "senior U.S. officials" and/or anonymous "senior administration officials" are cited as sources of new information. Which is why I'm a bit skeptical about certain aspects of this latest AP report. Nevertheless, two significant observations can be gleaned from this report.
1) [As others have pointed out:] The reluctance on the President's part to seize the terrorists militarily if it entails bringing the terrorists to Guantanamo Bay.
2) The Obama administration's concern that, "Using military force to detain the [terrorists] might harm fledgling relations with Libya and other post-Arab-Spring governments."
Is this also the reason why the President refused to conduct a military rescue operation in Benghazi last year?
In truth, as I've noted previously, there are a host of reasons, and motives, that might explain why the President refused to carry out a rescue mission in Benghazi last year. Among those reasons is the fact that it was Obama who empowered the Al Qaeda-affiliated rebels in Libya, and thus the President was reluctant to send in boots on the ground to fight the very terrorists that he empowered, particularly when he had promised the American people that the U.S. involvement in the ouster of Muammar Gaddafi would not entail sending in boots on the ground. The reluctance to send in boots on the ground was compounded by the fact that the U.S. Presidential election was right around the corner.