Australia has been asked to take 17 Uighur detainees from Guantanamo Bay. Held for the past 7 years, they were declassified as “economy combatants” back in 2005. They can’t go back to their home, in north-western China, because of the well-founded belief that they would be persecuted by the Chinese government. Malcolm Turnbull, of course, is terribly concerned about the risks they pose.
Well, here’s an idea. Let’s take these poor sods – who’ve been sitting in Gitmo for seven years for no good reason – as a simple matter of humanity. To keep the nervous Nellies amongst the Tories happy, let’s use some of the 1500 ASIO agents Australia now employs – to be 1800 by next year, triple what it was back in 1996 – to keep an eye on them in the unlikely event one of them does pose a threat. Perhaps they could could spare some of the agents who clearly don’t have enough to do, given their interest in chatting to people holding up banners outside coal-fired power stations (as discussed by Senator Scott Ludlam in Senate Estimates recently)?
This article gives a lot more detail about these poor people. Its a pretty shocking account of gross injustice.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/worthington.php?articleid=13570
This is probably the lowest level to which the oppossition has sunk, snd that’s saying something.
Hopefully Rudd will not cave into the morally bankrupt gang of hooligans.
Surely, those who see Turnbull as a closet small l liberal just waiting to bloom will now recognise him for the thorn he really is.
Of course, if it was George Bush making this request you could guarantee that the conservatives would have been falling over themselves to let the Uighurs in.
“…despite being cleared of links to terrorism.”
Surely the most relevant factoid in the article.
Despite Turnbull’s unsubstantiated attempt tp counter it.
Actually it bears repeating, with the sad and sorry fact that goes with it.
“They have been held for seven years at the prison camp, despite being cleared of links to terrorism.”
An odd line from Turnbull. He could also call on the Rudd government not to cave into Chinese government pressure and accept them, leveraging their recent attacks on the defence minister. Both Labor and Liberal can triangulate themselves in knots over this issue as they try to figure out whether they should be on the US or Chinese side and how they can use that against each other. Meanwhile, there is a large Uyghur community in Adelaide that would no doubt be able to provide the kind of support that these people need.
Perhaps old Mal thinks that after seven years locked up and mistreated by the American military, they may want to become terrorists.
They have been held for 7 years, so if they come to Australia will that mean we will bear the brunt of (1) being blown up, or (2) being sued for the 7 years they were wrongfully held in Gitmo? Rudd should not give in to the Chinese government to find out.
What does it mean to say they were
Anne, how could they sue us?? We didn’t lock ‘em up and throw away the key. We might assist them after release.
Difficult to think of an analogy, but try this: an arsonist neighbour sets fire to my house, I’m taken to hospital. The police don’t lay charges.
My lawyer suggests I could sue. Does she suggest I sue
1) the arsonist? or
2) the hospital staff who nurse me back to health?
You seem to be suggesting “2)” would be the more just alternative. I disagree.
Joshua: It was an administrative decision by the US military, as I understand it.
The point is that even the US government admits that they have no justification whatsoever for holding these people.
joe2,
I do not think that anyone imagines Turnbull is a classic small “l” liberal. We may, however, believe that he is closer to that than Rudd.
The fact that this has not been an immediate “Yes” from Rudd means that he is more interested in testing the water before he gets around to actually making a decision than showing how “liberal” he is. My guess is that he is waiting for a reaction from China before he does anything.
So Anne, why are they going to ‘blow us up?’ They are not terrorists and have not been convicted of any crime.
If you have evidence to the contrary, I am sure that the relevant authorities would be interested.
Otherwise you are indulging in ignorant speculation. I suggest you try The Punch. Much more your cup of tea.
I believe some Uighurs from Gitmo were given refuge in another country. If so it would seem logical for these 17 to follow there for at least a community of support.
But even more logical is for the US to accept all remaining, uncharged Gitmo detainees as a consequence of the previous Bush Administration’s folly. Obama now owns the problem and shouldn’t expect the rest of the world to bail it out.
If Australia accepts the Uighurs having prevoiously turned the request down, Rudd will have to explain his reasons. Only humanitarian grounds would seem to fit.
Nice footwork@12, Andrew.
The P.M. is at least considering doing the right thing, here, while Mal moves directly to bottom drawer politics of fear and he somehow maintains stronger liberal credentials than Rudd who is a possible puppet of China.
Pablo, there seem to be lots of Uighurs in Adelaide and Sydney so settling them here in Auatralia should not be a problem. Condemning them to live in the US? Well no-one deserves that fate.
Huggy
Pablo: yes, they probably should. But:
a) would you want to live in the US after that experience?
b) how much longer are we going to let these people suffer incarceration to teach the US a lesson?
Top idea Robert–sounds as though we have a superfluity of ASIO agents. I’d propose assigning five per
potential terrorist, declassified economy combatant,Uighur. . . to help them feel welcome and right at home as gently and as easily as possible. ASIO are exactly the type of people with the patience and forbearance to offer practical, possibly ‘inside’ advice on every day things we so easily and happily take for granted. Like:- Trying to get the electricity connected, trying to get a phone line connected (deciding if you actually want a phone line), shopping at Coles/Woolies, dealing with landlords, sudden emancipation in an odd land, discrimination, being spat upon, living anonymously in Australia. All that sort of thing make the spooks do something useful for a living. They would also end up knowing by default pretty much every detail of these poor unfortunates lives’. A win-win.Kiashu@7: surely that’s at worst grounds to welcome them here, so they don’t decide to direct their terrorism against us? It could become a useful way of backing out of the mess we’ve got into. “Australia: sure, we invaded Iraq, helped torture innocents, killed random civilians and took four years to realise that our own citizens deserve better than Gitmo, but at least we’re helping resettle some of the victims”.
I really don’t see the problem. It would be even better to say “OK, we screwed up. And you know, there’s only 400 of them, we’ll take the lot. And their families. It’s the least we can do in the circumstances”
Okay here’s the deal for Rudd. We’ll take the 17….humanitarian grounds and lots of offers of resettlement help from our own Uighur community. Now Barack you own most of GM and we have a vulnerable offshoot downunder..needs a guarantee..in writing if you don’t mind.
Let’s take these poor sods – who’ve been sitting in Gitmo for seven years for no good reason – as a simple matter of humanity.
.
Yeah.
Stop being so small minded and let them come, it’s 17 people,it will do out international reputation a lot of good. What is the big deal, just do it, and leave Turnbull to wank over nothing.
D’accord, Robert, d’accord. Lest the poor bastards remain political prisoners of Obama and maybe POTUS 45, 46 etc., or more specifically, for the terms of their un-natural lives.
Great to see you shining some light on the darkness at noon. A PM with an ounce of humanity would cop them in a heartbeat. I recall how a Tory PM named Mal welcomed 20,000 Vitnamese in the 70′s and told the bigots in his party at the time to take a hike.
17 hapless Uighurs with an established social support network in Adelaide standing by, hardly constitutes being “swamped by Asians” in a land of some 21 million people. Petit Mal’s jingoistic, fear-mongering protestations about potential threats from “home grown ” terrorism or suchlike is mega-blarney from a bursary boy who got his academic leg-up in the world because decent people treated him kindly and gave him a chance to improve his lot in life.
Mal made the most of it, as I’m sure the Stateless 17 Uighur political prisoners in Gitmo would make of freedom and a fair dinkum shot at citizenship in our Great Southern Land.
Weren’t the Greens expressing opposition to taking them some time ago?
Yeah, well when you guys have finished with opportunistic cracks at Turnbull and the ASIO, there are at least three things far more relevant to this situation that are largely being glossed over.
Firstly, it is the Australian government not the Opposition that decides whether these people get resettled in Australia, and it is Kevin Rudd who is as usual mesmerised in the headlights avoiding a decision. A little more direct criticism of the Government to get off its chuff, disband the focus groups, and just do it would make some of the faux outrage about the Libs more convincing. Don’t some people ever think that, more than 18 months into this Government’s term, the continuing instinctive reaction on almost every problem to excoriate the ghost of John Howard and blame the Libs appears just a tad childish?
Secondly, this is Barack Obama’s problem. He wanted a feel-good headline about closing Gitmo without having any idea of the practical implications and how he would deal with them. If the President of the US is a superficial flake interested only in looking good to his core constituency, why should Australia help him out? To invert one of the comments above, if this request had come from Dubya, I think many of the comments on this thread would be rather different.
Thirdly, the broader problem is why these people cannot go back to China – that is, China’s treatment of Uighurs and other minorities (and anyone in the majority not into the approved group-think come to that). Why do they not get a little more of the criticism around here than the Australian Libs do? Rhetorical question of course –it is the same reason that I am not anticipating anyone starting a thread about 20 years after Tiananmen.
Wozza: Barack Obama and Kevin Rudd face the same problem – right-wing oppositions fearmongering. Yes, both should show some courage.
If GWB had asked, my view is that we still should have accepted the detainees on humanitarian grounds.
And, yes, Chinese treatment of minorities remains appalling. But Australia’s ability to change that is minimal. Whereas we can help these people who have been caught up in events not of their own making.
If the President of the US is a superficial flake interested only in looking good to his core constituency, why should Australia help him out?
Well, if the POTUS was a superficial flake, indeed that would be the case. Your point?
I am not anticipating anyone starting a thread about 20 years after Tiananmen.
Most of us are at work. As my brother would say when people are looking for Someone Else always to do things for them – who broke your arms?
Wozza, sounds like you might be on opportunistic crack yourself. Firstly, it was Turnbull, way out in front, stirring up fear about people who have been held in custody by the Bush regime, with complicity from Howard and co ,with no charge or evidence against them. A wonderful understanding of due process from Mal, a man studied in the law, you would have to say.
Ever thought that the government might be taking its time for the reason it professes…looking at the individual circumstances of each detainee? It would take a little time to investigate.
And, if it had of been Bush, asking for help, it would have actually been quite a bit different. He is the scoundrel who set up this situation in the first place. Helping him out would naturally add an extra dimension to the obvious humanitarian concern but, in the unlikely circumstance of him moving speedily to close Gitmo, we would be still be obliged to take responsibility due to “the ghost of John Howard”.
We can’t just clean the slate because John has left the scene. It will take years to clean up the mess. And your suggestion that people around here would cast a blind eye to aspects of Chinese government brutality is just plain wrong.