Guantanamo Bay inmates will not be settled in Australia

[Lilac Hill]

AUSTRALIA will not take any former inmates of the US' Guantanamo Bay detention centre, acting Prime Minister Julia Gillard says.

Ms Gillard said the Federal Government advised the US lat night that Australia would refuse the American request.

It was the second time the administration of US President George W. Bush had asked Australia to resettle detainees from the War on Terror prison.

"We have considered that request and last night Australian time, Friday US time, we advised the US Government that we would not be agreeing to those resettlement requests," Ms Gillard said.

"Those resettlement requests were considered on a case by case basis against Australia's stringent national security and immigration criteria.

"Assessing those requests on a case by case basis (they) have not met those stringent national security and immigration criteria and have been rejected.

"(As) for the future, we will consider any future requests on a case by case basis against these stringent criteria for both national security and immigration."

She said both requests had been made by the administration of George W. Bush, not of US President-elect Barack Obama.

The second request came as incoming Mr Obama plans to shut the prison, located at a US sovereign naval base in Cuba, within two years.

The US has cleared about 60 Guantanamo Bay detainees for release, but they cannot be returned to their home nations due to security concerns.

Opposition legal affairs spokesman George Brandis said the request should never have been considered.

"We are speaking about people, terrorism suspects captured on the field of battle detained in Guantanamo Bay who are among the most dangerous people among the world," Senator Brandis said in Brisbane today.

"If the American Government were uncomfortable with those people being resettled in the United States under what possible set of circumstances would it be proper for the Australian Government to consider settling those people in Australia?"

The Times of London reported this week that Britain was preparing to take detainees to allow Mr Obama's Government to shut down the prison.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24868702-421,00.html

Britain can have them if they want them!

 

[Ben Cousins]

Thats great news, its not like Australia has taken any criminals before. ;-)

 

[Angry_Tsutomu]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24868702-421,00.html

Britain can have them if they want them!

Wow! I didn't even realize that George W. Bush, still our modern US president until next week, was even associating with Australia. Was he even in Australia? I missed the NEWS and this must have been 9 days ago as I could see the date this thread was posted.

 

[Zeta]

Good, don't want the prisoners going to an even WORSE place!

 

[Lilac Hill]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia#International_rankings

Pardon?

 

[Ben Cousins]

Zeta is anti-Australian. :-(

 

[Lilac Hill]

You might want to notice that the administation asking for the re-location of these people is the Bush administration. Not the incoming one.

There is no reason we should take them, and there is no reason not taking them should hurt our ties with the US.

 

[Ben Cousins]

I completely agree! I doubt any of the prisoners would even want to go to Australia. This piece of news is truly ironic though, a country that was formed in the 18th century from an exiled prison population doesn't want to take American captives proven to be innocent nowadays. That's simply hilarious but I also think the Australians have miscalculated this one by quite a big margin. The new US administration needs help dealing with the inmates and now it will see who is prepared to help and who isn't.

Yeah, I wouldn't want to go to Australia, our internet sucks. :-(

 

[The Jean Genie]

Not surprised with them trying to dump their problems on somebody else. Like Glinneth said, it was the Bush admin who pushed the idea. The sooner Obama and his admin comes into office, the better.

 

[Lilac Hill]

They are different administrations. It is not irrelevent which administration the request is coming from, as each one has different ideas and what not.

Also, on this statement: "European countries are looking to improve ties with America."

That does not suggest that not taking inmates would hurt ties (which it shouldn't), just that taking them in would improve them.

 

[Lilac Hill]

I love how you can be so pompous - how do you manage it?

Quote where I said that it would hurt ties because I cannot see it. I just said it will boost ties with Europe and the Obama administration, which is absolutely valid and correct. Australia simply will not improve relations by doing it and that could be a disadvantage.

Quote it? Can't do that, because you never said the direct words, but you most certainly implied that by not taking inmates ties with the US would be affected negatively:

There is a reason why many European leaders are looking into the possibility of taking some of the inmates because they want to improve their ties with Obama. Your assumption/statement is wrong.

What's more Australia's ties have always been strong with the US, none more so than while GWB was at the helm. Ties don't just dissapate over night if they are strong.

There is a discussion in Europe about starting out well with Obama, so unless David Miliband and Frank Walter Steinmeier have no idea what they are talking about you are wrong.

Erm, I agreed that taking them in should improve ties, so that point it kind of...moot.

Obama has promised multiple times that he will close down Guantanamo so he WILL have to deal with it. The fact that the current administration is asking in advance for Barack Obama is irrelevant.

How is it irrelevent? He hasn't got power yet, so the current administration still has to do its job!

This is a statement similar to the one that the majority of the cyclists taht take part in the Tour de France don't take drugs.

I replied to a comment you made in that blog a long time ago and you didn't respond, so I'll repeat the statement.

I have heard plenty about the drug busts in recent tours, I don't think that the high majority of them do take drugs.

The only picture painted is that there is a minority that are idiots that take drugs, and they are the only one you ever hear about.

The statement I made was an off-hand comment, something which you have repeatedly shown you have no idea about.

 

[evkl]

Guys, it's okay to disagree but be nice about it. Attacking each other doesn't get to the root of the issue.

For my two cents, somebody has to stop being a NIMBY type and just take these guys, in America, and work with them. If they can't do that (not if we can't! if they don't want to be here), then we need to work out extradition agreements with reasonable countries.

 

[Lilac Hill]

Rofl you modified your blog comment! That's absolutely hilarious, wow. It used to read that you don't do research, which is once again clear and nothing else. But now you have added some information in retrospect. Damn adding in the drugs busts to your blog comments just for this discussion?

What in the blue blazes are you talking about? There was no edit.

That's truly entertaining, cannot handle losing an argument.

No, that's you. In all my time here I've never seen you even concede that someone may be right on a small point, even when it's blatantly obvious.

But even the information you added on the cycling tour is wrong too because the drug controllers are underfunded and understaffed. So your point is mute.

Perhaps it would help your argument if I did edit something.

I never said they were going to be negatively affected. All I said that they were not realizing a chance, which could be advantageous. You read what you want to and not what I write. Your interpretations are based on nothing that I write but what you project on to my posts. So let's end this shadow boxing that you love engaging in.

I think the root of the problem is that neither of us can read what the other is saying properly.

Both of us are reading what we want to read, and not what the other writes.

I think the foreign ministers of Europe know more than you, that's just a hunch though.

Yeah, they probably do.

There is no point arguing with someone that does not realize that Guantanamo is Obama's first challenge.

I did not suggest that Guantanamo wasn't his first challenge. All I said was that at the moment the subject of the article is a Bush administration issue.

 

[Ben Cousins]

Quote where I said that it would hurt ties because I cannot see it. I just said it will boost ties with Europe and the Obama administration, which is absolutely valid and correct. Australia simply will not improve relations by doing it and that could be a disadvantage.
There is a discussion in Europe about starting out well with Obama, so unless David Miliband and Frank Walter Steinmeier have no idea what they are talking about you are wrong. Obama has promised multiple times that he will close down Guantanamo so he WILL have to deal with it. The fact that the current administration is asking in advance for Barack Obama is irrelevant. This is a statement similar to the one that the majority of the cyclists taht take part in the Tour de France don't take drugs.

I cant really see any negatives about a weakened relationship between Australia and America, only the possibility of rejected trades etc.

If we were under attack by a foreign nation the Commonwealth and her allies would come to help us, the US's special forces would not be needed.

Although I guess it wouldn't hurt to have a good relationship, I dont see the point in Australia taking America's GB inmates.

 

[the gadfly]

If we were under attack by a foreign nation the Commonwealth and her allies would come to help us...

In your dreams. Sure, Canada and the UK will come to rescue you. Who else would? Your best hope would be the US and we aren't coming either.

 

[Archaic]

Let's be honest, the number of nations with enough force projection to reach Australia with an effective attack are very very limited. China, Russia, the US...that'd be about it. The US would move to defend Australia should we come under attack by China or Russia, not just because of the ANZUS treaty (that's certainly not going to vanish overnight), but because they'd be scared shitless of any of those nations getting a hand on our natural resources. Largest store of easily mined Uranium in the world (okay, so a lot is in a national park, but do you think a conquering nation would care?), all that other metal ore, coal, natural gas...

And before someone says it, Indonesia doesn't count. They have a huge army, but what are they going to transport it on? Their navy and air force just aren't modern enough to pose a threat. Even if they could get to Australia, we're talking them getting as far as northern WA. There's what, one "major" settlement up there, and then desert all around until Perth or Darwin? To top that off, here's the kicker. Who do you think trained their army? We did.

 

[Lilac Hill]

And really, with Kevin Rudd as PM, the chances of China wanting to attack us have diminished significantly.

The only country who could possibly find a reason to attack us and carry it out at the moment would be Russia, and they seem to be focused on Europe right now.

 

[Return of Tyraneon]

http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20090123/49795ce0_3ca6_1552620090123-1666895346

uh oh

 

[Zeta]

Let's be honest, the number of nations with enough force projection to reach Australia with an effective attack are very very limited. China, Russia, the US...that'd be about it. The US would move to defend Australia should we come under attack by China or Russia, not just because of the ANZUS treaty (that's certainly not going to vanish overnight), but because they'd be scared shitless of any of those nations getting a hand on our natural resources. Largest store of easily mined Uranium in the world (okay, so a lot is in a national park, but do you think a conquering nation would care?), all that other metal ore, coal, natural gas...

Yeah, hasn't anyone played RISK?