The greatest opportunity to date for Australia to take a lead role in the United States-led ''war on terror'' is in the Rudd Government agreeing with the Obama Administration's request to accept a group of six Uighur Muslim detainees from Guantanamo Bay (''Turnbull says reject prisoners'', May 31, p11).
Given that the Administration just recently opposed their release into the US, such a decision will have all the more impact in exposing the high level of political fear-mongering associated with terror suspects. A further test of leadership is the fact that the detainees are considered by the Chinese government as insurgents leading a separatist movement in Xinjiang province.
In 2006, Albania accepted five Uighur detainees, but has since baulked at taking others out of fear of diplomatic repercussions from China.
The Government must now decide how important it is to send a message to the international community that the detainees, who have all been cleared of being enemy combatants, should have their basic human rights upheld. Moreover, with a majority of Senate Democrats recently joining Republicans to block funding for the closure of Guantanamo, the Obama Administration is in dire need of an ally that is prepared to put principle before the age-old demons of racial and religious stereotyping.
Reverend Dr Vincent Zankin, Rivett Several Uighurs need a place to call home. Arrested in Afghanistan and Pakistan, sold to Americans for a sizeable bounty by their impoverished captors, these men rotted in Guantanamo Bay for years after American courts ruled to release them within a year of their incarceration.
Australia contributes to the war effort; we must also contribute to the resettlement effort.
Let's share some of our boundless plains, combine our courage, and welcome these innocent men to our land abounding in nature's gifts.
While PM Kevin Rudd checks immigration and security issues, and the polling numbers; while Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull flat-out refuses with emphatic bravado, Senator Bob Brown once again advocates the moral, responsible position.
We helped break it; we must own it.
It is our moral responsibility to accept these innocent men, and help them rebuild their lives shattered in part by our actions.
Judy Bamberger, O'Connor
Weighing up debate
Henk Verhoeven (Letters, May 30) is pretty close to the point, but not quite there, in his observations on the cost of preferred seating on aircraft.
I too do not mind airlines charging more for preferred seating. It is, after all, simply an extension of the principle of charging extra for business and first class seats, and Tiger Airways already does it.
But, as a fairly trim 75kg (and working hard to keep it that way), I object strongly to airlines offering the same airfare to a person of any body weight, and then charging everybody the same excess baggage charges, without any consideration of combined body/baggage weight.
If overall weight is so important, and I can readily agree that it is, why does the 100kg person get away with paying the same fare as me, while I have to pay the same as that person for excess baggage? The airlines need to rethink their approaches to this issue.
I advocate a combined body/baggage weight approach, so that, for instance, your basic airfare entitles you to a combined body/baggage allowance of, say, 100kg, after which you pay extra for each kilo of extra weight, whether body or baggage. Airlines, break down your discrimination!
Graham Bridge, Nicholls