Why not release the Uighurs?

[Puppycow]

US urges rejection of Guantanamo Uighurs case

President Barack Obama's administration has asked the Supreme Court to reject a request by Chinese Uighurs held at the Guantanamo Bay prison and cleared of all charges to be released on US soil.

The petitioners "have already obtained relief. They are no longer being detained as enemy combatants," wrote US Solicitor General Elena Kagan in the administration's filing to the Supreme Court Friday.

Kagan wrote that the men, members of a Turkic-speaking Muslim minority who fear persecution if returned to China, "are being housed in relatively unrestricted conditions given the status of Guantanamo Bay as a United States military base."

Four years ago US authorities cleared the 17 imprisoned Uighurs, but they are stuck at the Guantanamo prison due to fears that Beijing would torture them if they returned to their homeland in northwestern China's remote Xinjiang province.

At the prison, the Uighurs are held at "Camp Iguana," a special area for detainees cleared for release. They have more freedom and greater privileges than most other prisoners, including a recreational space and a library, according to the Pentagon.

In October 2008 a federal judge ordered that the Uighurs be released in the United States. The most likely place for the detainees to be released would be in Washington's suburbs in northern Virginia, which is home to a significant Uighur expatriate community.

A federal appeals court in February however overturned that ruling. It is the Uighurs' appeal to that decision that the Supreme Court must now address.

But for the Obama administration, which is repeating some of the reasoning that his predecessor George W. Bush used, "the decision whether to allow aliens abroad to enter the United States and if so, under what terms, rests exclusively in the political branches," according to the filing, which AFP obtained a copy.

For the government, the "petitioners' continued presence at Guantanamo Bay is not unlawful detention but rather the consequence of their lawful exclusion from the United States under the constitutional exercise of authority by the political branches, coupled with the unavailability of another country willing to accept them," Kagan wrote.

Does anyone want to defend this?

 

[Puppycow]

Here's what I don't get: WTF was closing Gitmo supposed to mean anyway?
Apparently nothing but empty symbolism?
The "justification" seems to be that "the symbol of Gitmo puts our troops overseas in danger" or something like that? A dubious proposition. If that's the only reason, why bother? If the detainees are going to continue to be held without trial in another location, why bother? The specific location should be a non-issue.

 

[corplinx]

Here's what I don't get: WTF was closing Gitmo supposed to mean anyway?
Apparently nothing but empty symbolism?
The "justification" seems to be that "the symbol of Gitmo puts our troops overseas in danger" or something like that? A dubious proposition. If that's the only reason, why bother? If the detainees are going to continue to be held without trial in another location, why bother? The specific location should be a non-issue.

Shouldn't that be another thread?

I want to hear more about the topic itself to form an opinion on it.

 

[tomwaits]

nvm

 

[Policenaut]

That was the stated reason for the express closure of Guantanamo. It was a symbol of all that is wrong with the US and puts our troops in danger because it's used as a propaganda tool (the time for this seems to have come and passed imo). It needs to be closed as soon as possible and at all costs. We didn't even need a plan on what to do with the detainees. We do have other bases that basically are Guantanamos but not 60 miles off our coast. None have as catchy a title as Gitmo though. Empty symbolism is right. And it was stated that this gesture will help with our international image and foreign countries will be willing to take some of the cleared prisoners that can't be returned to their home coutries. This has not happened.

 

[Puppycow]

Shouldn't that be another thread?

I want to hear more about the topic itself to form an opinion on it.

Sorry, I didn't want to start a separate thread, and the issues are related.
Please ignore my off-topic rant.

ETA: the issues are related when you consider that this legal argument works at cross-purposes with the goal of closing Gitmo.

 

[Brainster]

When you're running for president as a Democrat, you promise to make liberals wet dreams come true. Close Gitmo? Day one. End the war in Iraq, you got it. End practice of rendition, no problem. So you get into office and you discover that things are a little more complex than you believed when you made those campaign promises.

I mean, you guys act like you never bought something that looked great in the box, but turned out to be made of shoddy materials and nothing like advertised?

 

[Puppycow]

When you're running for president as a Democrat, you promise to make liberals wet dreams come true. Close Gitmo? Day one. End the war in Iraq, you got it. End practice of rendition, no problem. So you get into office and you discover that things are a little more complex than you believed when you made those campaign promises.

I mean, you guys act like you never bought something that looked great in the box, but turned out to be made of shoddy materials and nothing like advertised?

Fine, so Obama's not living up to promises, but what about the question in the OP? What should be done with the Uighurs? It seems like they must be released, whether it is popular or not, since they have been "cleared of all charges."

 

[Wolfman]

Why not release them?

This is a rather tricky proposition. There's more to the story than what was explained in this article.

Most of these Uighers were picked up in Afghanistan, after a suspected terrorist training camp was bombed. In subsequent investigation, it was found that they almost certainly harbored little animosity towards the U.S., and were not planning actions against the U.S.

They were, rather -- and several of them fully acknowledged this -- getting trained in military methods so that they could return to China and fight against the Chinese government. The group to which most of them belong is a recognized Chinese terrorist group, that has been responsible for bus bombings, and abductions/executions, within China.

Thus, these individuals are not enemies of the U.S., and are not guilty of actions or plans against the U.S.

But they are still terrorists.

Sending them back to China would, as they stated, lead almost certainly to their imprisonment and execution. With even less of a chance at a 'fair trial' than the detainees at Guantanamo. Doing this would subject the U.S. gov't to international condemnation, and massive protests from human rights organizations.

However, letting them into the U.S. means essentially giving citizenship and homes to people who are terrorists (by the definition that the U.S. itself uses), albeit against a different country. And personally, I think that the U.S. or any other western nation should be very wary of doing so. Pretty much every Western nation joins in condemning those nations who give harbor to terrorists against the U.S., or other western nations; how can one turn around and grant residence to Chinese terrorists?

One can debate the 'justice' of the Uigher cause in general; and point out the many Chinese abuses against the Uighers. But these people belong to a group that has bombed buses, killing innocent civillians, and that has stated its desire and intent to continue doing so. And they were smack dab in the middle of militant Islamic territory, getting training that they themselves stated they intended to go back to China and use against the Chinese.

Just imagine the reaction if they were granted asylum in the U.S.; and they then used their position there to funnel money or support into terrorist activities in China. I can really understand the U.S. gov't not wanting to put themselves in such a position.

ETA: One could, I guess, challenge labeling these individuals as 'terrorists', at least without a trial to determine all the information. However, the U.S. is not in a position to hold trials regarding illegal acts in China; and China wouldn't give them a fair trial at all.

 

[Puppycow]

Why not release them?

This is a rather tricky proposition. There's more to the story than what was explained in this article. . . .

This is interesting context. But nevertheless, I can't see this as sufficient justification for leaving them in a legal limbo indefinitely. If, after their release, they subsequently do anything criminal or to support terrorism in China or elsewhere, then they should be immediately redetained. But not preventive detention.

 

[Wolfman]

This is interesting context. But nevertheless, I can't see this as sufficient justification for leaving them in a legal limbo indefinitely. If, after their release, they subsequently do anything criminal or to support terrorism in China or elsewhere, then they should be immediately redetained. But not preventive detention.

So then...if people who were guilty of plotting terrorism in the U.S. were caught in another nation, and subsequently given citizenship and housing "because they weren't guilty of terrorism there"...you'd also support that, and think that the U.S. would have no reason to protest? That's rather contrary to current U.S. gov't policy, which actively tracks and sanctions those nations that give succor to terrorists. In fact, I believe there are laws in the U.S. that prevent the gov't from doing just that.

Your argument makes sense in isolation; but not in the broader global context. The U.S. can hardly do what it condemns others for doing (some irony there, I realize).

I'm sorry, but I have problems sympathizing with these people. They planned and actively trained for acts of violence; and are admitted members of a recognized terrorist organization. It was their choice to pursue this course in life. Now, as a result of that, they don't have a home they can return to. I don't see how that means that we should turn around and give them one.

There's a saying, "You made your bed, now sleep in it". Never heard of a saying, "You made your bed and **** in it, so its our responsibility to give you a new one".

BTW -- this has nothing to do with China...I'd make exactly the same argument for people who planned illegal acts of violence in any nation, and/or who admitted membership in recognized terrorist organizations, and who were training to commit acts of violence.

 

[Wolfman]

P.S. -- There are plenty of Muslim countries that should be willing to take these guys. The U.S. is willing to release them, just not willing to take them into the U.S. Seems to me it should be their responsibility to find a country that actually wants them.

 

[Puppycow]

So then...if people who were guilty of plotting terrorism in the U.S. were caught in another nation, and subsequently given citizenship and housing "because they weren't guilty of terrorism there"...you'd also support that, and think that the U.S. would have no reason to protest? That's rather contrary to current U.S. gov't policy, which actively tracks and sanctions those nations that give succor to terrorists. In fact, I believe there are laws in the U.S. that prevent the gov't from doing just that.

Your argument makes sense in isolation; but not in the broader global context. The U.S. can hardly do what it condemns others for doing (some irony there, I realize).

I'm sorry, but I have problems sympathizing with these people. They planned and actively trained for acts of violence; and are admitted members of a recognized terrorist organization. It was their choice to pursue this course in life. Now, as a result of that, they don't have a home they can return to. I don't see how that means that we should turn around and give them one.

There's a saying, "You made your bed, now sleep in it". Never heard of a saying, "You made your bed and **** in it, so its our responsibility to give you a new one".

BTW -- this has nothing to do with China...I'd make exactly the same argument for people who planned illegal acts of violence in any nation, and/or who admitted membership in recognized terrorist organizations, and who were training to commit acts of violence.

The way you put it makes me see it in a whole different light.

I guess it really is more complicated. The way it is presented in the article makes it seem really outrageous. It started out by stating that these were men who had been "cleared of all charges."

 

[Policenaut]

It seems the Obama administration has asked Australia to take the Uighurs. They say they'll look at it on a case by case basis. Bush asked Australia to consider taking these same people last year and they declined on national security and immigration grounds.

 

[tomwaits]

Didn't the Albanians agree to take some of the Uighurs?

 

[Damien Evans]

P.S. -- There are plenty of Muslim countries that should be willing to take these guys. The U.S. is willing to release them, just not willing to take them into the U.S. Seems to me it should be their responsibility to find a country that actually wants them.

They're trying to get us to take them now.