Dec. 27 (Bloomberg) -- Australia may accept detainees from the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, subject to legal criteria and their individual cases, acting Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s spokeswoman said.

The U.S. has approached Australia about resettling the detainees, spokeswoman Amanda Lampe said today.

“Australia, along with a number of other countries, has been approached to consider resettling detainees from Guantanamo Bay,” Lampe said in an e-mailed statement. “Any determination for an individual to come to Australia would be made on a case- by-case basis.”

U.S. President-elect Barack Obama plans to shut the prison within two years and the U.S. State Department has cabled more than 100 countries about the detainees, the Australian newspaper reported earlier today.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has asked his staff to draw up a plan for closing Guantanamo should Obama order a shutdown after he takes office on Jan. 20. Gates, who will stay at the Pentagon under Obama, wants to have a plan in hand in case he opts for a quick closure, Geoff Morrell, a Defense Department spokesman, said Dec. 18.

“For anyone to be accepted, they would have to meet Australia’s strict legal requirements and go through normal rigorous assessment processes,” Lampe said.

Australia joined Germany and Portugal in voicing a willingness to take some Guantanamo detainees. That may make it easier for Obama to fulfill his campaign pledge to shut the prison, which has been the object of international condemnation amid allegations of prisoner abuse.

Security Risks

There are about 250 detainees at Guantanamo, including as many as 80 that U.S. military prosecutors plan to charge with war crimes. About 60 are deemed eligible for resettlement, Defense Department officials say, and more than 100 pose security risks too serious to be released and cannot be tried on war-crimes charges.

Australian David Hicks, who trained at al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan and then spent more than five years imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, was released from curfews and control orders on Dec. 21.

Hicks was the first so-called enemy combatant to be convicted by a U.S. military commission and served some of his prison term in Australia.

To contact the reporter on this story: Gemma Daley in Canberra at [email protected].
Last Updated: December 26, 2008 23:41 EST

_________________________________

How do you feel about Australia being a new home to some of the detainees... as well as Germany or Portugal?

'Greens senator Rachel Siewert told The Weekend 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... warning there would be a political backlash'

Rachel Siewert has a point, Choux. If the US government is concerned about resettling around 250 detainees still held at Guantanamo Bay within the US over the next two years, what does that suggest? It doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

The Netherlands has declined to resettle detainees and most European countries are still mulling it over as no-one seems too sure how to handle a situation they've had no experience dealing with before. I'm glad Rudd has left it open for now to give Australians a chance to voice their opinion.

Considering that Australia was originally colonized by cons this may be the perfect fit. Under Howard the Aussies had a detention policy for illegals .But recently Rudd has overhauled the policy.Under the new policy asylum seekers who "pose no danger to the community" won't be detained while their visa status is determined. But Rudd says he will only allow GITMO prisoners in on a case by case basis after proper threat vetting is done. That means in all probability Australia will not take many of them at all .

I think they should be air dropped to their country of origin.

Can't let them go /can't keep them /can't give them away... what would a dog pound do ? "The office of the President-elect" sure had some nice campaign rhetoric .But now reality is meeting the road .

Maybe we should hand them off to Sheriff Joe Arpaio .They'd beg to go back to GITMO and their lemon glazed chicken dinners within a week.

Considering that Australia was originally colonized by cons this may be the perfect fit. Under Howard the Aussies had a detention policy for illegals .But recently Rudd has overhauled the policy.Under the new policy asylum seekers who "pose no danger to the community" won't be detained while their visa status is determined. But Rudd says he will only allow GITMO prisoners in on a case by case basis after proper threat vetting is done. That means in all probability Australia will not take many of them at all .

I think they should be air dropped to their country of origin.

Can't let them go /can't keep em /can't give them away ....what would a dog pound do ? "The office of the President-elect" sure had some nice campaign rhetoric .But now reality is meeting the road .

Maybe we should hand them off to Sheriff Joe Arpaio .They'd beg to go back to GITMO and their lemon glazed chicken dinners within a week.

Asylum seekers who pose no danger to the community include women and children who were otherwise suffering through being detained unnecessarily. Again the issue of legitimate refugees seeking asylum and in this case incacerated suspect terrorists is being conflated.

How many women and children are being detained at Gitmo?

Again the issue of legitimate refugees seeking asylum and in this case incacerated suspect terrorists is being conflated.

Yes... done intentionally for illustration purposes . Howard correctly did not allow refugees/asylum seekers,or otherwise illegal immigrants wander around the country freely for security reasons. But now the Aussies should accept the scum of the earth so Barack "the office of the President-elect" can fulfill a campaign promise.

The truth is that the US has already vetted and released all the Gitmo detainese that do not pose a serious threat.

Barack (OPE)Obama gave all his campaign promises without the slightest idea of what he would do with the captured jihadists once GITMO was closed . Now there is a scramble to figure out how to get it done .

Perhaps he is counting on the good will that "change " brings to pass on our problem to our friends .

Hello:

If they're pow's, then they're going to be released at the end of the war... But, you righty's have declared ENDLESS war, so that's out.

But, they can't be classified as pow's either, because the Geneva Convention would have kicked in... But, you righty's couldn't have that, so you made up the designation, enemy combatants, and declared them to have NO RIGHTS at all. Then you set up your own ILLEGAL legal system to deal with them... It failed, of course...

If they're criminals, we have plenty of room in our prisons, no? But, of course, you righty's tortured them, so they'll NEVER be convicted in a civilian court...

Yup. You've sure left Obama with a fine kettle of fish... You've screwed up the entire process so bad, that even Obama the Great might not be able to fix it.

How come I don't hear any mea culpa's from you?? Cause you don't think you did anything wrong... Silly righty's!

Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

Barack (OPE)Obama gave all his campaign promises without the slightest idea of what he would do with the captured jihadists once GITMO was closed . Now there is a scramble to figure out how to get it done .

Perhaps he is counting on the good will that "change " brings to pass on our problem to our friends .

I'd suggest George's ranch since it was his idea and the problem created by him and his cohorts in the first place.

Possibly because it's Obama who's asking this time there's enough goodwill around to at least consider the request. That says something.

Nothing to mea culpa about. They were not POWs... Geneva gives them no rights . Barack (OPE)Obama's designate Att General Eric Holder gave an interview in 2002 with Paula Zahn where he stated clearly his position that they were not covered under Geneva POW provisions .
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=e4qGeuZu2G

Actually the Geneva Convention does indeed give status to out of uniform combatants. Out of uniform combatents are eligible for a summary trial and execution.

A rational system has been designed to deal with them... Tribunals.. If the opposition would stop throwing monkey wrenches into the system tribunals would've already been completed. Instead the opposition ties up the process with court delays at the same time they complain it takes too long to get it done.

Give them POW status for all I care .Then they can die old geezers fattened on lemon glazed chicken before the war against jihadistan is complete.

I'd suggest George's ranch
Those that are demanding that Gitmo prisoners be released in the US should be required to take them to their homes and keep them under house arrest there.

I wonder why they are not just turned over to the Iraq government and held in Iraq prisons and allowed to be tried in Iraq courts

Fr Chuck , Almost all were captured in Afghanistan.

The legal status and rights of detainees has always been unclear and messy. Part of the difficulty in accepting detainees into Australia for resettlement would have to be deciding on their status and rights. From what I can gather, few are actually Iraqis.

Those around Barack Obama understand that precisely those measures most derided during the campaign--wiretaps, the interrogation of prisoners in Guantanamo, the decimation of al Qaida members in Iraq and Afghanistan, overseas detentions--probably account likewise most for the absence of another 9/11-like attack. In other words, as the Obamians privately ignore the media hype about flushed Korans and hundreds of innocents caught in the cauldron of war and unfairly detained, and instead examine the sort of killers who are presently in Guantanamo, the type of intelligence gathering that led to prevention of dozens of planned attacks since 9/11, and those who turned up and were killed or arrested in Iraq and Afghanistan, they will realize how dicey it will be to follow through with campaign rhetoric about Bush, Inc. torching the Bill of Rights, fighting made-up enemies abroad, and generally alienating our allies.
RealClearPolitics - Articles - Life at New Animal Farm Won't Be All That Bad (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/12/life_at_new_animal_farm_wont_b.html)

There are about 250 detainees at Guantanamo, including as many as 80 that U.S. military prosecutors plan to charge with war crimes. About 60 are deemed eligible for resettlement, Defense Department officials say, and more than 100 pose security risks too serious to be released and cannot be tried on war-crimes charges.

We can only guess at this stage that countries who accept current detainees may have the option of choosing from the 60 deemed eligible for resettlement. What resettlement will involve hasn't been answered yet. It's all a bit bizarre.

That's because of this urge to show them compassion. I say repatriate them to their native country and be done with it.

Who cares how they will be treated ? We have already established that we don't have an interest in how a brutal dictator treats the people of a nation... Right ?

That's because of this urge to show them compassion. I say repatriate them to their native country and be done with it.

Who cares how they will be treated ? We have already established that we don't have an interest in how a brutal dictator treats the people of a nation ....... Right ?

Hmm... you don't think that could be a bit dangerous? :)

If Rudd can convince a naturally skeptical Australian public the legal side of things is clear and whoever we accept is of sound body and mind, is harmless and may even make a positive contribution in some way, then I imagine that would be a political win for Rudd and Obama. However, knowing how wary Australians are about getting caught up in American domestic politics (no offense) and the reputation of Guantanamo, that's a big 'if'. It will be a real test for Rudd... and should be interesting to see how he handles this.

hmm... you don't think that could be a bit dangerous? :)


To the returning terrorist I'm sure it is.


knowing how wary Australians are about getting caught up in American domestic politics

I love Australia . They always have our back despite all the moaning and complaining . Rudd should do us no favors just because the Obamanation requests it. Australia should always act first in it's own national interest.

That's because of this urge to show them compassion.Hello tom:

You make it sound as though the people who want to obey the law are limp wristed weaklings who want to be nice and compassionate to terrorists...

Really...

I suppose the opposite could be said about the torturers and their chain of command who simply wanted to inflict pain and degradation upon the terrorists, and the law be damned...

I think the latter is MUCH closer to the truth.

excon

No this urge to show them compassion referred to trying to find nations that will take them in rather than returning them to their land of origin because how they may be treated once there.

To the returning terrorist I'm sure it is.

I love Australia . They always have our back despite all the moaning and complaining . Rudd should do us no favors just because the Obamanation requests it. Australia should always act first in it's own national interest.

What moaning and complaining Tom? Up until his recent departure Howard ensured we followed you blindly into every mess with an ask no questions attitude. Don't worry (not that you would anyway), but we have your back cause we know you guys have got ours. And your support to us is more important to our support to you guys. We all might be ex cons but it don't mean we are stupid.

But in saying that it doesn't mean we shouldn't disagree with you. And to be honest a majority of us disagree with Gitmo and the Iraq war. But that didn't stop our elected officials from ignoring us for a long time.

It ALMOST made me wish I was a New Zealander (or at least wish we had a leader with the same metal as Helen Clarke)

But I agree, we should act with our own national interests first. Something Howard forgot toward the end of his reign. That's why he got kicked out. And that's why the Repubs got kicked out over in your joint too. They ignored the voters too many times.

Why would the US even think about doing something as nutty as this? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever sending those people to Australia. Why not send them to a holding prison in the lower 48 or Alaska or Puerto Rico instead? How about Devil's Island or St. Helena?

Couldn't resist this :D

That's the truth for sure, Frangi. Love the cartoon.

Ta, twinks.