Should we have settled some of the Gitmo inmates

[Jovial Monk]

Government has ruled it out, so this is just idle speculation.

As one of the members of the Coalition of the Willing (or COW, don't you just love acronyms?) should we have done our bit in resettling these poor fluffy bunnies held at Gitmo with no charge ever levied against them but nevertheless held there for 7-8 years? Some were basically sold the the US by bounty hunters, e.g. the supposed Chinese Muslim terrorists. We condoned this illegal/unwarranted imprisonment with no charge laid, no trial held (and condoned rendition, water boarding etc) so should we help them resettle/regain their sanity?

Or is the US trying to wriggle out of the obligations it took on, resettle these ex-detainees and let them sue the govt up to the High court??

Was our govt wrong in not taking some of these? Would Howard have?

[Hebe]

I have no idea if Howard would have, but I think political expediency ("we will determine who comes to our country...etc.") might have made it awkward - and so would his chumminess with GWB.

Once, even recently, I would have said take some, but not now. I've read about the re-offending rate and it's the US's problem. I'd like to see it go through the US courts.

[mantra.]

If Howard had been re-elected - he wouldn't have been able to refuse Bush's request. I believe this problem would have been discussed prior to the election, but Bush & Howard being mates, would have kept quiet about it in case Howard's chances of re-election were spoilt.

Bush had planned to close Guantanamo in 2006 and Howard & Bush both discussed a "refugee" swap in 2007 - those detained in Guantanamo & some of ours. The whole scenario is suspect, but if Howard had been re-elected - these terrorists would have been brought over here under the guise of refugees.

These detainees/terrorists would probably be fairly harmless now - having their brains & bodies tortured for years by those running the prison under the orders of Rumsfeld.

[Jovial Monk]

Re-offending rates? These guys are still in Gitmo! Not charged, not tried!

[Hebe]

I was talking about this:

General Altenburg yesterday said there was a significant degree of reoffending among the detainees who had been released from the Cuban prison.

"About 30 of them have been captured or killed or are known to be back on the battlefield," he said. "These are people who were released because they thought they weren't dangerous. To me, it's a fair comment to say, 'we don't want these people. Now we've got the burden of watching them and we don't know whether they're dangerous or not'."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st ... 01,00.html

If any more of them were Australian, I'd say yes. But they aren't.

[JW Frogen]

No.

The US should charge them or explain why they were held.

[Rainbow Moonlight]

The US should deal with the situation it has created. If these people are dealt with in US courts and then released into the US community and they wish to come to Australia they should then apply and be assessed under the same procedure any other migrant would use.

[Ned Kelly]

I'll bet you we do not take them.

[cynik]

So it is all the USA's fault now?

What a fucking joke. Howard was falling over himself to cheer on Bush, and arguably he was more evangelical in his pursuit of the "terror". Did he speak out against gitmo? Or did he endorse it with his terror loving hype?

And the rest of you, what were your opinions at the time?

How many of you went in to bat for the fundamental rights of David Hicks when he was locked away inside a dark hole?

And now the USA has admitted it's sins and is prepared to change, y'all put the fucking boot in and sneer at them. Great fucking friends you lot are. Pathetic.

Frogen's comment is spot on, but even he was cheering the need to suspend the law in order to tackle the vast threat to humanity at the time.

[Jovial Monk]

The USA asked us to take some of the inmates. We are discussing that, not putting the boot in.