Two Chinese Muslim Uighurs, arrested in Pakistan and detained at Guantanamo Bay, have succeeded in convincing a military review panel that they never were “enemy combatants.” Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean they can go free. The U.S. government will not allow them to be released into the U.S. (where the small Uighur community would welcome them). If repatriated to China they probably will be imprisoned and tortured (since they are activists for the independence of Xinjiang/East Turkestan). For some reason, nobody seems even to be floating the possibility of putting them back where they were found (Pakistan). The Admin is pressuring Germany ( ) to take them and several other Uighur detainees – no luck so far. So what do to with them? The Supreme Court has just declined to hear their case.
Since they are innocent victims, drop them off wherever they want ( if the locals allow it, of course ), along with an apology and a hefty compensation payment.
If that’s true, it’s our fault and we should let them in ourselves. Again, never happen.
What I expect will happen is they will suffer a lethal “accident” at Gitmo, vanish without explanation ( and be dumped into the ocean or something ), or dropped anonymously on a road in some random country, alive or dead.
Let them freaking apply for asylum in the U.S. - after all, it’s not like they appear to have been firmly resettled in Pakistan, and the fact that they have been held in detention by t he U.S. for this long has probably brought their circumstances to the attention of the Chinese government to a far greater extent than if they had been just left the hell alone, or even had a hearing within a reasonable period.
I think releasing them into Chinese custody is likely a violation of the Convention Against Torture, to which the U.S. is signatory. The Administration is largely responsible for getting them into this pickle; it’s the least they can do, and I’m quite disappointed that cert was denied.
Consider that Supreme Court decisions do not only adjudicate the rights of the parties in the case in question, they also create precedents. I can see how they would be reluctant to create any precedent that might be construed to vest other “enemy combatant” suspects with a right to residence in the U.S. That doesn’t excuse the Brethren’s negligence here, but it does make it understandable.
Comprehensible, but still crappy. Denying cert was the chicken’s way out. I can’t imagine how the Supreme Court can forever sidestep dealing with the issue of how the U.S. should deal with the consequences of (IMNSHO) illegal actions that have endangered innocent people’s lives, on ridiculous jurisdictional grounds. Even if these detainees aren’t on U.S. soil, they are certainly in U.S. custody.
How hard could it be to draw a distinction between those whose lives would be endangered by being forcibly returned to their home countries, those who are effectively stateless, and those who can go home? It happens in immigration proceedings every day.
According to the report I read the SC only refused to hear this after the admin assured it that active and positive moves were being made to expedite their placement somewhere other than the US or Guantanamo.
I suspect that the answer might be different another year down the line.
Expect other countries to take them in because “we don’t want them”… (even though they are innocent, and presumably, aside from being held in Gitmo, would be good bets for asylum)
The final step in the above is to wonder why America gets vilified for being unilateralist and arrogant…hmmmm
Welcome, enemies of the hated capitalist pig-dogs! We have cigars portrsits of Castro, and… well, we have cigars and portraits of Castro. Naturally, as firm opponents of the depised Americans spits you will be welcome in out worker’s paradise. Your shift in the cigar-rolling factory starts Wedsnesday. Oh, and don’t mention where you’ve come from. We’re a little touchy about the whole Camp thing.
[hijack] Why the hell does America keep a military base in Cuba, a country it has repeatedly tried to invade and whose leader’s deposition is still official US policy? And equally, are the Cubans ok with this?
As for the second, no, but there ain’t shit they can do about it. The first president of independent Cuba, Tomas Estrada Palma (an American citizen), granted the U.S. a perpetual lease of the base in 1903 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base), and our position is that the lease is still valid even though Cuba is under new management. Castro does not recognize our right to be there. Every year our government sends Castro a rent check and every year he sends it back. He could send in his army to take over the base, I guess – but then what? It would be the perfect pretext for a U.S. invasion.
I agree, let them apply for asylum in the U.S. If they’re not enemy combatants and would, as the Bush Administration concedes, be subject to persecution back in China, I don’t see the problem in letting them settle in the U.S.
Yet again we see the nonsensical terrain of the legal no-man’s-land which the Administration has created by its cobbled-together theory of the War on Terror. Enough already.
I can see a good reason why the US wouldn’t want Uighur extremists in the United States, regardless of whether they are a threat to Americans.
I have spent time with a good number of Uighurs, I have great sympathy for the cause that many of them share, but there is a very, very small minority that are dedicated to a terrorist cause against China that is every bit as obnoxious and dangerous as most other terrorist groups one can name. It isn’t clear from any of the public information about these people to what extent they might be part or sympathetic to such organizations – various news accounts say that they had sought military training from the Taliban, but that they were not part of Al Qaeda nor the Taliban. It does seem fairly clear that they are not intent on attacking Americans, but the unresolved question of whether they might be allied with an anti-Chinese terrorist group does give me pause. I would be very cautious about giving asylum to any person who sides with any extremist, violent cause.
Would it be okay to give asylum in the US to someone linked to the Colombian terrorist group the ELN, or the Spanish group ETA, or the Sri Lankan Tamil Tigers, simply because the individuals did not actually target the US in their support of a cause that features indiscriminant violence? I would say no.
I think the White House’s antiterrorism strategy – espeically Guantanamo – has been a complete disaster, but let us not pretend that this group of Uighurs had no hand in making themselves unwanted in virtually every country on the face of the earth. It is, however, incumbent upon the Administration to find some sort of answer to this, becuase it is not fair that they remain locked up, but as far as good ideas – I have none.
Give them asylum. To “borrow” from others, We broke it, we fix it. They have no where else to go, thanks to us. We’ve done enough TO them, now let’s do something FOR them.
) to take them and several other Uighur detainees – no luck so far. So what do to with them? The Supreme Court has just declined to hear their case.
