Of course we would — it’s why we built the detention center at our naval base in Cuba.  However, Panetta’s admission yesterday makes Barack Obama’s promise to close the facility, still the official policy of the Obama administration, a little more difficult to defend:

The head of the CIA told senators on Wednesday that Osama bin Laden would be held at Guantánamo Bay prison if he were captured.

CIA Director Leon Panetta was asked by the ranking Republican on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Sen. Saxby Chambliss (Ga.), what would happen to the heads of al Qaeda — Osama bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahiri — if they were captured.

“The process would obviously involve — especially with the two targets that you just described — we would probably move them quickly into military jurisdiction at Bagram [air base in Afghanistan] for questioning and then eventually move them, probably to Guantánamo,” said Panetta.

Chambliss agreed with Panetta and said that while it might not be the most politically viable decision, moving bin Laden or al-Zawahiri to Guantánamo would be the best way to handle their capture from a security standpoint.

Indeed.  The Bush administration build Gitmo’s detainee center in order to ensure secure detention without the possibility of breakout, either from within or without.  The November 2001 jail riot that left CIA interrogator Johnny “Mike” Spann dead, as well as attacks on detention centers in Afghanistan, showed the need for a secure facility outside of the theater, and outside of the US as well, in order to keep the military in charge of detention.  The facility cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars to build and still is the only facility that meets the specific needs of detention regarding terrorists captured overseas by military or intelligence assets.

As the Associated Press notes, Panetta’s statement would have some significant legal ramifications:

Under current law, Guantanamo Bay detainees cannot be moved to U.S. soil, even to stand trial.

Both bin Laden and Zawahiri have been indicted and could stand trial in New York City.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told senators said he expects multiple federal agencies would weigh in on whether to try the men. But if they are sent to Guantanamo, as Panetta predicted, trying the men in the U.S. court system would be prohibited.

Congress could remove those roadblocks for the pair if they desired.  Trying the two AQ leaders should be easier than Ahmed “Foopie” Ghailani, as both bin Laden and Zawahiri have openly admitted to ordering the 9/11 attacks, as well as other terrorist attacks against the US.  But it would be just as easy to try them by military commission at Gitmo, and probably less complicated, especially if the trial used statements from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that came after his waterboarding, at least in the 9/11 attack charges.

At least Panetta admitted the obvious.  Gitmo is an essential piece of our effort against terrorists, as conducted by our military and intelligence community.  If we maintain the use of both against radical Islamist terrorists, then we can’t dispense with Gitmo, and we should embrace its use.  Only by returning to a complete law-enforcement approach, which proved wholly inadequate from 1993 to 2001, would Gitmo reach obsolescence.  Will the White House admit what Panetta conceded yesterday?