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