Mr Obama has asked us to take a few, should we?

Dear Meredith,

No. Australia should not take any of them.
Our government has already declined, as
has Great Britain. And, with good reason.

These people consider the US (and us, by
association) as their enemy.

They should be sent to a neutral country, in
South America, (they've got many to choose from),
where they would have no grievances
against the local population. The numbers don't
all have to be sent to the one country, they
could be dispersed over several.

It is a bad start for Obama. To ask the Australians to take such haters of democracy is a bit rich. Send them to an Islamic nation where they would feel at home.

I would probably agree with you, Foxy and Runner, if I knew these prisoners had been fairly tried under a proper and impartial court of law. But as far as I know, the only trial they've faced is that conducted by the American military, and I'm afraid I don't place much store in it arriving at an accurate assessment of guilt.

These prisoners have been tortured and kept in the cruellest and most degrading of circumstances for many long years now. Depending on the true nature of their crime, some of them have probably served their time by this stage and deserve to have their situations examined by neutral countries who can afford to take them in.

Yes, Meredith, I think Australia should have at least considered some of the more deserving individual cases, rather than just washing its hands of the issue and turning its back on all of them as it has.

But then again Australia, unfortunately, has form in this regard.

Dear Bronwyn,

It's exactly for the reasons you give why I stated
that Australia should not take them.

As I said in my earlier post, they regard us as the enemy,
(by our supporting the US in their war against terror).
We would be regarded as the enemy, alongside
the US.

Bringing them to Australia would create further
problems for both us and them.

A neutral country would be more suitable.

The majority of these prisoners were kidnapped from friendly countries, transported across international borders illegally and then held without trial by the US as political symbols or trophies.

They created the problem so they should now have to deal with the consequences.

I would say no as well. My understanding is that the number of detainees requiring repatriation is under 100. A relatively small number (by immigration standards) for the US to be able to repatriate and take responsibility for the whole legal quagmire that was Guantanamo.

Some of the detainees were either labelled as low level militants or innocent and caught up in the turmoil of the war. Others that were released previously returned to terrorism and were later killed in the war.

Some of these detainees have indicated that it is not safe to return to their country of origin or citizenship.

Some interesting facts here:

http://ccrjustice.org/learn-more/faqs/resettlement-and-refugees-guantanamo

Thank you for the POV's everyone, I guess I don't want them here either. No one really wants them. One thing is USA and Australia have always been friends though and that, to me, matters.

I thought Australia was to be deciding on a case to case basis with these guys, it sounds like I have it wrong though...

One thing I am confused about is closing Guantanamo just going to mean that there is no more investigation into these guys and they go free?

Foxy, I agree, there will be hatred for us from this. I can't think of a country that could accommodate them if they are out to hurt USA, us or any other country.

Bronwyn, Judgment is so hard isn't it, as all this terror stuff is so polarized in the world. Both sides of the debate so convinced they are correct.

I don't actually know a lot about the torture allegations but things like making fun of the Koran etc to me isn't torture, cutting thumbs off n stuff is what it would take to class it as torture for me

I think Australia has an obligation to take them since the former prime minister did not speak up for Australians who were imprisoned in Guantanamo and supported Bush in setting up the prison. England has no obligation since Blair demanded the return of the English prisoners. They have been no danger to England since they have been returned.

I think most of the prisoners would not be a danger. They were picked up in haphazard fashion. Some were actually sold to the Americans by Afghans who said they were Talibans. The Afghans may have merely wanted to make some money or pay off a grudge.

I think Guantanamo itself was a danger to democracy greater possibly than the danger presented by the prisoners.

Torture was allowed contrary to the US Constitution. Any person under United States jurisdiction should have rights protected by the Constitution. Bush also denied the prisoners rights guaranteed to prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention to which the US was a signatory. Bush called them 'enemy combatants'. Nevertheless, they were prisoners of war. President Bush violated both domestic and international law. It is a basic principle of democracy that no person, including the ruler, is above the law.

Due to its support of Bush in Guantanamo I think Australia has an obligation to take in the former prisoners that other nations do not have.

Are we taking them as prisoners or free men?

Stupid Question. Hmmm... NO! Duh...

They should be sent back to their country of origin. Watch what they do & if they look like joining the terrorists theh take 'em out & their terrorist mates.

What's the problem? they were, are & for ever will be, terrorists, who hate everything that isn't Muslim.

Send them to the home on the ranch,let he who put them were they are now give them refuge

Foxy my estranged sweetness

I think you maybe putting the cart before the horse. On what basis are you labelling them a threat? Some trumped up save face lynch mob of a trial? Not for mine. We still have the presumption of innocence as our legal basis. Should we now start making exclusions?

Because they were against US aggression? So was I am I a threat to the US ….only to GW and Co on a dark night and I’m driving the pickup…For a quick getaway after I’ve given them all a severe verbal lashing….vicious stuff.

Let's be real the US on many occasion has done things to us that weren't in our interests. Yet we're friendly to them.
We honour the Turks who actually killed Australians.
We have low level WW2 Axis combatants here as migrants and higher ones as honoured guests.

A family friend who was on the Burma railway with every reason to hate Japs went on a holiday to Japan some years back and thoroughly enjoyed himself even hosted an exchange student.
What about ex-prisoner Hicks he's here and free now and why shouldn't he be? Is he a threat… only to his publisher perhaps. His case and those sent back to England etc shows the dubious basis for the US's Neocon Rat pack's abomination Gitmo.
Notwithstanding that If we are to consider some here it should be on a case by case basis naturally excluding the minority that may constitute a continuing threat.
Rationally if a terrorist wanted to strike here they could fly in on a tourist visa set a bomb etc and fly out before we would know about it. And some are getting overly excited by a few broken and not very bright men (they got caught). And yes I wouldn't be overly concerned if the approved were plonked nextdoor to me

Dear examinator, (alias, 'Oh Wise One.'),

Well, you and Bronwyn have both raised some
very excellent points. Now, I have to admit
that I will have to re-think my stand on this
topic. (After all - nothing should be set in
concrete, right, not if you're going to learn
and grow?).

I will have to google the subject and learn more
about the prisoners in Guantanamo before deciding on the topic.
But it is good to get your perspective on this
discussion.

I'll have to get back to you...

cont'd

Dear examinator,

All our arguments may be mute anyway.

The Australian government has already
declined the US request.

Dear examinator,

Well, I'm back and I've got to be honest with you.
I'm see-sawing on this one. I'm trying to be measured
and fair, and empathise with both sides in this
situation. I see merit in your arguments and,
equally I see fault and this leads to frustration.

I know what George W. told us was uber-hogwash, and I
know that some of these prisoners may have been
in the wrong place at the wrong time when they were
arrested. I know they didn't get fair trials, and
suffered terrible circumstances in Guantanamo.

However, I do feel uneasy, because the thought that
keeps coming back to me is - no matter what these men
were like in the beginning, after six or seven years in
prison, they have a very serious motive for revenge.

Hicks was an Australian, with family support in this
country, I feel that his circumstances are different
from the prisoners that the US wants us to take.

So, basically, dear examinator, I think we'll have to
agree to disagree on this issue. Because my instinct
tells me that - no, Australia should not take these
prisoners.

It's an incredibly difficult question. It's far from the simplistic situation some posters describe.

There is only one thing I am certain of in relation to these prisoners - that is, we really have no idea at all as to whether they are hardened terrorists capable of murdering innocent people - or innocent people who have been caught up in a botched process.

They could be either.

You can be damn sure that none of us in this thread know the answer, and those who tell you they do betray themselves as ideologues. There are those on one side who like to pretend they're all innocents, and there are those who like to pretend they're all bloodthirsty brutes.
The hell of it is, nobody knows. Even the US government doesn't know.

I'm aware that many of them were simply sold by third parties, receiving bounties. This way of obtaining prisoners was policy idiocy of the highest order given the calibre of these bounty hunters.

This is what happens when the presumption of innocence is thrown out the window indefinitely.
Granted, during wartime it can be suspended, but this isn't a 'war' that will ever finish.

You can't repatriate them within the US. Some of them probably do hold a grievance and could commit acts of violence.
They may have a legitimate grievance now but the possibility they might hurt civilians is unacceptable.

You can't send them to their home countries. These countries don't want them and they may be persecuted.

Neutral sounds nice, but the places that are considered neutral have achieved that for a reason - they stayed out of matters such as this.
If they're western, they're not neutral. Non-western will bring other cultural and political headaches.

Hence, the Guantanamo quagmire. I don't have any good answers, because there aren't any.
They've been held without trial for attempted crimes they may or may not have been planning, in a war on a concept, with no borders, no end and no definitive signs of victory or defeat.

The idiot who devised this scheme should be in there with them.

I agree TRTL, we don't know... Also it's naturally going to take a very long while to sort out and we may be asked again..

Australia has already said no just a few shorts weeks ago to Bush.

Isnt this a little insensitive not to have taken our feelings on board?

Does anybody know how many we have been requested to take?

Many of these people do not wish to return for sercuity reasons.

That could mean anything. In some cases it could be that they have spilled some beans and know what might await them.

So wouldnt that place a risk of unwanted vistors to track them down and enquire

Who will pay the Drs and phyco bills USA? not to mention the legal costs.

Will they then be free to bring in other family?

Had we not already said no to Bush maybe it could have been put to the Aussie public via a vote.

If we take them now it would be seen as a insult to Bush of the highest order.
I think the Government will offer to do something. Such as offer to pay for them to live elsewhere in good faith to the new presiden

No, PALEIF, I really can't see that happening. There's no logical reason for Australia to offer to 'pay' to resettle them elsewhere.

It would be seen as a very clumsy attempt to curry favor. There are far more subtle ways to forge a positive relationship.

In some cases the country of origin is not known as authorities have failed to verify the identity of some of those remaining.

News reports suggest Australia has already said no - "Australia's acting Prime Minister Julia Gillard said each detainee was considered on a "case-by-case basis" and decided that none met her country's "stringent national security and immigration criteria," AAP reported.

But then you read this:

http://article.wn.com/view/2009/01/01/Kevin_Rudd_ready_for_Guantanamo_Bay_inmates/

http://www.todayonline.com/articles/295301.asp

So I am not sure what the government's stance is on this. It is unlikely that the detainees would meet Australia's immigration criteria as stated earlier so why it would be considered at all makes me think that it is just diplomatic rhetoric.