Australia to Resettle Guantanamo Detainees

[Guard Dog]

KEVIN Rudd has left open the possibility of Australia taking former inmates from the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay.

 

But he warned that any US request for an inmate to come would be subject to legal criteria and assessed on a case-by-case basis, The Australian reports.

 

As the Greens warned the Prime Minister he faced a political backlash if he accepted detainees held in the US military jail at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, a spokesman for Mr Rudd confirmed US authorities had approached Australia and other countries about resettling the detainees.

 

"Australia, along with a number of other countries, has been approached to consider resettling detainees from Guantanamo Bay," the Prime Minister's spokesman said.

 

"Any determination for an individual to come to Australia would be made on a case-by-case basis.

 

"All persons accepted to come to Australia would have to meet Australia's strict legal requirements and go through the normal and extremely rigorous assessment processes."

 

The Australian reported yesterday the US State Department had over the past 12 months cabled more than 100 countries seeking help to clear out Guantanamo Bay.

 

The incoming administration of Barack Obama, which plans to shut the facility within two years, is expecting help in resettling more than 250 detainees still held at Guantanamo Bay.

 

About 60 detainees have been cleared for release by US authorities but are unable to return to their homelands because they fear retribution.

 

Greens senator Rachel Siewert told The Australian Guantanamo Bay was a creation of the US Government and was therefore Washington's problem. She said the Prime Minister should refuse to take any detainees.

 

Hmmm. All of the regular Afghan Taliban fighters were repatriated in 2006-2007. That means what's left in Gitmo are Al-Qaeda through and through. Everyone left was captured either in the commission of a terrorist act or in training for one. They have been indoctrinated with the absolute worst kind of anti-western hatred imaginable. Doesn't sound like the kind of people I'd want living next to me. Unless they are just trading Gitmo for Australian Parisians. It did not sound that way to me. Good luck with that guys.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Innocent til proven guilty, Guard Dog.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Would the plan be that Australia (or other country) would keep them in detention, put them on trial, or release them (presumably without passports)?

[Gorgon]

Innocent til proven guilty, Guard Dog.

All we have is the military's say so that they are terrorists, why would one be so quick to accept that.

[Walsingham]

Innocent til proven guilty, Guard Dog.

 

I take you're volunteering to go into taliban held territory/the slums of Cairo/the plantations of Morocco and gather forensic evidence then? Oh, and don't forget to gather witnesses!

 

Don't get me wrong, I fully support habeus corpus in civil and criminal courts. But this is hardly normal. Thinking point: we accept the military's ability to judge who is a terrorist when they open fire on people in the field.

[Meshugger]

Innocent til proven guilty, Guard Dog.

 

I take you're volunteering to go into taliban held territory/the slums of Cairo/the plantations of Morocco and gather forensic evidence then? Oh, and don't forget to gather witnesses!

 

Don't get me wrong, I fully support habeus corpus in civil and criminal courts. But this is hardly normal. Thinking point: we accept the military's ability to judge who is a terrorist when they open fire on people in the field.

 

What if they were strongly religious farmers randomly shooting at trespassing strangers? What if they were simply offered as Al-Qaeda terrorists because of false witness?

[Killian Kalthorne]

If we do not treat our enemies with the same respect and civil liberties we profess to cherish then how can we claim to be better than they?

[Gorgon]

Innocent til proven guilty, Guard Dog.

 

I take you're volunteering to go into taliban held territory/the slums of Cairo/the plantations of Morocco and gather forensic evidence then? Oh, and don't forget to gather witnesses!

 

Don't get me wrong, I fully support habeus corpus in civil and criminal courts. But this is hardly normal. Thinking point: we accept the military's ability to judge who is a terrorist when they open fire on people in the field.

The fact that they shot back at an invading army doesn't necessarily indicate future intent of blowing things up. War is one thing, necessity dictates there can be no civil proceedings, but who decides when the war is over. These may indeed be dangerous people, but the principle of the thing is clear enough.

Edited December 29, 2008 by Gorgon

[Walsingham]

Innocent til proven guilty, Guard Dog.

 

I take you're volunteering to go into taliban held territory/the slums of Cairo/the plantations of Morocco and gather forensic evidence then? Oh, and don't forget to gather witnesses!

 

Don't get me wrong, I fully support habeus corpus in civil and criminal courts. But this is hardly normal. Thinking point: we accept the military's ability to judge who is a terrorist when they open fire on people in the field.

The fact that they shot back at an invading army doesn't necessarily indicate future intent of blowing things up. War is one thing, necessity dictates there can be no civil proceedings, but who decides when the war is over. These may indeed be dangerous people, but the principle of the thing is clear enough.

 

I don't understand your point, excellent as it may be.

 

I believe this is a non-binary affair. We should try wherever possible to bring legal proceedings, but to recognise that it is not good enough to simply allow people to run loose when we capture people on a battlefield with a battlefield certainty of them being guilty. Unfortunately the US legal system permits no grey areas.

 

I suspect Sand is being mendacious, given his "hang 'em shoot 'em and fish 'em" attitude in most respects. We are better than they because we attempt to obey the rules of law, we do not target little children as a stated war aim, we do not target civilians as a stated war aim.

[Killian Kalthorne]

We don't target civilians, but we don't go out of our way not to see them get hurt or killed if the ones we are targeting just happens to be in the middle of them.

Edited December 29, 2008 by Killian Kalthorne

[Volourn]

"If we do not treat our enemies with the same respect and civil liberties we profess to cherish then how can we claim to be better than they?"

 

If we do not treat our friends, and allies with the same respect and civil liberties we profess to cherish then how can we claim to be better than our enemies?

 

 

 

"We don't target civilians, but we don't go out of our way not to see them get hurt or killed if the ones we are targeting just happens to be in the middle of them."

 

Nonsense. If the Amerikan army acted like you profess; a lot less Amerikan soldiers would be dead, a lot more Iraqi civilians would be dead, and Baghdad would be an actual ruin.

Edited December 29, 2008 by Volourn

[Killian Kalthorne]

There are nearly 100,000 Iraqis dead.

The number of American soldiers do not even approach a tenth of that value.

 

Every single Iraqi death can be attributed either directly or indirectly to American interference in that country.

[Gorgon]

Depends on what you mean by 'going out of our way'.

 

Quite often military decisions carry an estimated civilian casualty figure, when it is possible to avoid civilian deaths, the US army does 'go out of its way' to avoid it, when it isn't possible they go do it anyway. Cost of doing business.

[Volourn]

"There are nearly 100,000 Iraqis dead.

The number of American soldiers do not even approach a tenth of that value."

 

And, the numbers would be higher and lower respectively if theya cted like you claimed they did.

 

 

"Every single Iraqi death can be attributed either directly or indirectly to American interference in that country."

 

This? This is laughable. But, yeah, I guess the US is to blame when suicide bombers attack a market square, or an Islamic temple. LMAO Your. logic. doesn't make sense. Or when an Iraqi murders another Iraqi in an attempted robbery (which occurs in all countries). L0L And, I guess all the Iraqis put to death by Saddam, or who died in the war with Iran was the US' fault too.

 

You must really think the US is the Boogeyman to think this illogical crap.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Who do you think placed Saddam in power. The US interfered in that country back then, placed him into power which gave him the ability to kill anyone he wished. Yes, we are responsible for that. Also there was no insurgents prior to the invasion, nor Al Qaeda terrorists doing suicide bombings. They showed up after the US invaded. If we never interfered with the goings on of the Middle East after World War 2, I am betting that three-quarters of the problems in that region would not have even occurred.

Edited December 29, 2008 by Killian Kalthorne

[Guard Dog]

Who do you think placed Saddam in power. The US interfered in that country back then, placed him into power which gave him the ability to kill anyone he wished.

 

Absolutely false on it's face. The US had nothing at all to do with the Baathist revolution. If the US could be blamed for anything at all it would be arming Iraq when they were fighting Iran. And that was done because Iran was being armed by the USSR.

 

It's a damn shame that war ever ended. If it continued on hot and heavy for another twenty or so years we would never have needed to worry about either country.

[Volourn]

"Who do you think placed Saddam in power."

 

Saddam did.

 

 

"Also there was no insurgents prior to the invasion"

 

Yeah, because it's so much better that the actual President of the country is the one murdering the civilians. L0L

 

 

"If we never interfered with the goings on of the Middle East after World War 2, I am betting that three-quarters of the problems in that region would not have even occurred."

 

You jokin' right? ME (like most of the world) has always had major problems. There's no doubt that if there was no Isreal; ME countries would just be attacking each other. Heck, did you forget Iraq-Iran or Iraq-Kuwait? But, oh yeah, that's Amerika's fault too. Amerika also started both world wars. In fact, Amerika created wars. Before Amerika's War of Independence war did not even exist.

 

HAHAHAHA!

 

Know your history. ME countries have gone to war throughout time well ebfore Amerika's existence. They don't need outside help to have the desire to kill each other.

[Walsingham]

Who do you think placed Saddam in power. The US interfered in that country back then, placed him into power which gave him the ability to kill anyone he wished.

 

Absolutely false on it's face. The US had nothing at all to do with the Baathist revolution. If the US could be blamed for anything at all it would be arming Iraq when they were fighting Iran. And that was done because Iran was being armed by the USSR.

 

It's a damn shame that war ever ended. If it continued on hot and heavy for another twenty or so years we would never have needed to worry about either country.

 

 

Actually, if you look at the weapon systems being used it was France, China, and the USSR arming BOTH countries. And a million plus died, so let's not get carried away and say it was a great thing.

 

Killion/Sand apparently subscribe to the idea that natives can't mount their own revolutions and only do so with the assistance of evil caucasians. Saddam wanted to be a hairdresser, but the CIA wouldn't let him.

[Gorgon]

lol

[Volourn]

Considering some of the far out there rumours about Saddam's private life; that may not be so farfetched. L0L

[Killian Kalthorne]

Killion/Sand apparently subscribe to the idea that natives can't mount their own revolutions and only do so with the assistance of evil caucasians. Saddam wanted to be a hairdresser, but the CIA wouldn't let him.

 

Oh, I am sure they can, but I still say that we should have never interfered with that process. I firmly believe that our interference made things worse, not better, for the people in those countries.

[Walsingham]

...Because doing anything always makes things worse. Once again, this discussion with you is pointless, because you start from a viewpoint where doing anything beyond your own borders has zero impact and zero benefit to you. Until you accept that we're just wasting time.

[Killian Kalthorne]

...Because doing anything always makes things worse. Once again, this discussion with you is pointless, because you start from a viewpoint where doing anything beyond your own borders has zero impact and zero benefit to you. Until you accept that we're just wasting time.

 

Of course it has a little impact, but I don't see much benefit. Just tell me, how is doubling the US national debt in 8 years beneficial to me?

[Walsingham]

And the US gets nothing from foreign exports, foreign imports, international treaties, internatinal corporations, foreign attack on its interests...

 

Your position is completely mental. You're worse than the conspiracy guy. He pretends things are real which he can't see. YOU pretend things you CAN see aren't real.

[Killian Kalthorne]

And the US gets nothing from foreign exports, foreign imports, international treaties, internatinal corporations, foreign attack on its interests...

 

Your position is completely mental. You're worse than the conspiracy guy. He pretends things are real which he can't see. YOU pretend things you CAN see aren't real.

 

Nothing that stops us from being trillions upon trillions in debt. Nothing that stops our economy going in the crapper. Nothing that stops corporations from outsourcing US jobs to other countries.