No whys or wherefores on refusals to accept US detainees

No whys or wherefores on refusals to accept US detainees

www.smh.com.au

THE Rudd Government has refused to give details about why it has rejected two requests by the US President, George Bush, for Australia to accept detainees from the Guantanamo Bay prison.

The Prime Minister's spokeswoman said that Australian law prevented the Government from revealing specific reasons for its refusal.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Another comment in the article said
“Some of the prisoners could be considered legitimate refugees as they may fear persecution if they were to return to their home countries”
I suppose that would mean once they are here they will always be here. Australia was once a penal colony I agree it shouldn’t be that way again – just my opinion



www.smh.com.au (visit the link for the full news article)

I don’t think they should come here – send them back to their original countries.

What I find funny though is that it wasn’t long ago that Australians were whinging and in uproar over Guantanamo Bay, shouting out how it’s cruel, how they are innocent, it's unfair and they should be released bla bla, now America wants to send them here and all the bleeding hearts go quiet?

Mikey


[edit on 6/1/2009 by Mikey84]

I really don't think any country wants to get they're hands dirty with this one. And for good reason. I mean who wants a bunch of people who have been held captive, tortured (some of them) and constantly interrogated under the most extreme conditions.

That affects a person, they may look ok, but it still leaves possibilities of retaliation. I think they should be returned, not to they're original countries (for fear of being murdered) but to adjacent countries, or being placed in same ethnic/religious/work related communities where they can start over and hopefully put that horrible past behind them.

Originally posted by majestictwo


Another comment in the article said
“Some of the prisoners could be considered legitimate refugees as they may fear persecution if they were to return to their home countries”
I suppose that would mean once they are here they will always be here. Australia was once a penal colony I agree it shouldn’t be that way again – just my opinion



www.smh.com.au (visit the link for the full news article)

The quote above says it all, and shows how corrupt and how much of a US lap dog Rudd is as much if not more than Howard was.

They are both painted with the same brush.

Rudd, doesnt want them here because under our laws if they ask of asylym, we will have to grant it to them. Rudd doesnt want to be put in that position because it looks like he would be setting the Guantanamo detainees free here and not able to hold them without human rights like the US is doing at Guantanamo now.

My opinion is, we shouldnt have to clean up someone elses faeces if they cant clean it themselves.

Rudd made such huge promises for change before he was elected and not much good has come out of his prime minister'ship yet. And Im a labour voter too.

Id beware of Obama, for he has made the same sort of promises about change.

Edit: why should australia be a penal colony again? The US is almost there with the amount of people in its prison system, just throw them all to an island like hawaii and let them fend for themselves.

[edit on 6/1/09 by Melbourne_Militia]

Originally posted by Melbourne_Militia

Originally posted by majestictwo


Another comment in the article said
“Some of the prisoners could be considered legitimate refugees as they may fear persecution if they were to return to their home countries”
I suppose that would mean once they are here they will always be here. Australia was once a penal colony I agree it shouldn’t be that way again – just my opinion



www.smh.com.au

(visit the link for the full news article)

The quote above says it all, and shows how corrupt and how much of a US lap dog Rudd is as much if not more than Howard was.

They are both painted with the same brush.

Rudd, doesnt want them here because under our laws if they ask of asylym, we will have to grant it to them. Rudd doesnt want to be put in that position because it looks like he would be setting the Guantanamo detainees free here and not able to hold them without human rights like the US is doing at Guantanamo now.

My opinion is, we shouldnt have to clean up someone elses faeces if they cant clean it themselves.

Rudd made such huge promises for change before he was elected and not much good has come out of his prime minister'ship yet. And Im a labour voter too.

Id beware of Obama, for he has made the same sort of promises about change.

Edit: why should australia be a penal colony again? The US is almost there with the amount of people in its prison system, just throw them all to an island like hawaii and let them fend for themselves.

[edit on 6/1/09 by Melbourne_Militia]

I don't know what is going to happen to them now but the US has to do something in its own right I think it totally unrealistic for the US to even expect it’s a possibility. IMO if Howard was still there he would have found a way to take them for his mate Bush. We probably would have built a new prison on Christmas Island or some where similar.

[edit on 7-1-2009 by majestictwo]

Well, one less excuse to build a massive prison camp down here.

If they did, it could eventually be used for other reasons...