The U.S Supreme Court Rejected an appeal from two Chinese Muslims who were mistakenly captured as enemy combatants more than four years ago and are still being held at the U.S. prison in Cuba?
Maybe I'm not reading between the lines, or I am just not understanding the decision but, why?! If it is clear that they were mistakenly captured, Why are they not released?
Posted by Cactus Jack (Member # 2671) on :
Because we can't send them to China. By law, we can't send anybody to a country that practices torture. If we gave them to China, they would be tortured.
We're trying to arrange to send them to Germany.
Posted by Cactus Jack (Member # 2671) on :
I guess I mean we can't deport them to a country where we know they would be tortured. These guys would.
I don't mean we can't send anybody to China, ever.
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
Can we send Rumsfeld to China? Forever?
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ben: Can we send Rumsfeld to China? Forever?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ben: Can we send Rumsfeld to China? Forever?
Hazah!
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
I heard about this one on NPR today ... apparently there's nowhere to release them to. Can't send them to China; according to the White House, releasing them into the US is "not an option"; and no other country will take them. They're trying to work it out.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"Abu Bakker Qassim and A’Del Abdu al-Hakim were captured as they fled a Taliban military training camp where they were learning techniques they planned to use against the Chinese government."
Could just turn them over to China I guess, where they could be useful as organ donors.
"The Bush administration fears...that if the Uighurs...were turned over to Beijing, they might be tortured or killed...But...also rejects any notion of letting them seek even temporary asylum in the USA."
And wouldn'tcha know it, no other FirstWorld nation wants to grant them asylum either.
[ April 26, 2006, 06:52 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I wanna know why it took 4 years to figure out they weren't even legitimate suspects. I understand that they can't release them until they have somewhere to go but they've been held for 4 years in Gitmo. How long have we been trying to find them a hoem?
How many more innocent men have we been holding in prison for this long? It's starting to look more and more like the military just rounded up people randomly and sent them to prison for years without a trial.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Is anyone else amused by the fact that we won't send these people to a different country where we know they'll be tortured? Given the whole extraordinary rendition thing?
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I wanna know why it took 4 years to figure out they weren't even legitimate suspects. I understand that they can't release them until they have somewhere to go but they've been held for 4 years in Gitmo. How long have we been trying to find them a hoem?
How many more innocent men have we been holding in prison for this long? It's starting to look more and more like the military just rounded up people randomly and sent them to prison for years without a trial.
I agree with you, Rabbit.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Yeah ElJay, and when you consider all of the accusations of torture at Gitmo . . .
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Well, no. Dubya has held them in prison for years without a trial. The military is following orders.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Y-e-p.
Added: To Rabbit. Although it works to aspectre, too.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Well, no. Dubya has held them in prison for years without a trial. The military is following orders.
While Dubya is certainly responsible, so are the members of the military who implemented the orders. That is after all the standard we established in Nurnberg.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Can we send Rumsfeld to China? Forever?
Are you crazy? Then they'll be able to turn his brilliant military mind against us. My mind quails at the subtle and complex plans he would hatch during Operation American Freedom. Why he might think days, or possibly even weeks in advance.
Guns won't help you. Armor won't help you. I hear the only defense against Donald Rumsfeld is to not fit his preconceived theories, in which case he becomes unable to acknowlege your existence.
[ April 17, 2006, 11:43 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"the standard we established in Nuremberg."
One would first hafta find that war crimes had occurred, then find the military power to enforce that decision on the US.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
That's true if you are concerned with punishment. On the other hand, if what we are discussing is moral responsibility, then the findings of courts and the enforcement of their decisions is not a central issue.
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
"This American Life" did a show about this recentl called "Habeas Shmabeaus. I recommend it highly. They talk about a lot of specific cases, including the two men this thread was started about. The case I remember best is this man whose name I can't remember, who was detained in I think 2001. Once a lawyer got the chance to look at his file and see *why* he was in Guantanamo, the reason given was that he was friends with a man who had supposedly done a suicide bombing somewhere, in 2003. A man, who, incidentally, is still alive and living in Germany. *grinds teeth*
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"if what we are discussing is moral responsibility", am I s'poseta not worry about the moral responsibility of turning loose a couple of terrorist-trainees just because their original primary targets are Chinese?
[ April 17, 2006, 11:44 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Which accusations of torture in Gitmo are those, exactly? While I'm...uneasy about the abrogation of normal processes and rights that have been going on with the imprisonment of people in Gitmo, I have yet to hear an accusation of torture that is to me very credible.
People detained by police routinely cry, "Police brutality!" An accusation is not enough.
I do think it's more than a little absurd for anyone to claim, though, that we won't release them to the PRC because the PRC tortures. I mean, that's obviously not a hard-and-fast rule when it comes to releasing prisoners into foreign custody under this administration.
Rabbit, they weren't rounded up randomly. The military didn't just start going door to door and playing duck-duck-goose. Their being apprehended and detained in the first place, I have no problem with. We capture and imprison Americans in America every day under less suspicious circumstances than that (I was just in the car!). The length-of-stay is much more worrisome. The Bush Administration has in my opinion demonstrated its willingness to hold them how-the-hell ever long they possibly can without being stopped, without actually saying so.
That precedent is very concern-worthy.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: "if what we are discussing is moral responsibility", am I s'poseta not worry about the moral responsibility of turning loose a couple of terrorist-trainees just because their original primary targets are Chinese?
And, you know, they'll have absolutely no reason to hate the United States now.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Which is why I used "original" to modify "primary targets".
Excluding Afghanis (who may have had no choice in the matter), there was absolutely nogood reason for anyone to attend any Taliban school, and only bad reasons to attend a Taliban miltary training camp. Since there had been no US law against receiving terrorist training -- if there were, the US'd hafta lock up the tens of thousands of Americans who were involved in private militias before the OklahomaCity bombing -- there is no violation of US law to prosecute them under. Even if there had been, applying such a law to foreign citizens for receiving such training on foreign soil then taken into US custody on foreign soil would have also required a MAJOR reworking of international law prior to their capture.
Okay, there is nothing to charge them with. Are you proposing that folks who went into Afghanistan with the purpose of learning how to become (better) terrorists be freed in the US? Including under your implied assumption that they have "reason to hate the US"?
"Is anyone else amused by the fact that we won't send these people to a different country where we know they'll be tortured? Given the whole extraordinary rendition thing?"
Even if we assume that extraordinary rendition means turn over of prisoners to governments that have fewer legal&social barriers against committing torture, and assume that a desire for torture is why Dubya uses extraordinary rendition, handing the Uighurs over to China would still leave Dubya with a political headache. A large minority of the Republican base is living in a la-la land of magic words. Never mind that the US has been more socialist ie "communist" since at least TeddyRoosevelt's presidency 100years ago than China is now, "Communist"China is branded with a magic word. Add the magic of "YellowPeril" from 120years of xenophobic propaganda. Together ya got an even larger percentage, possibly even a majority of the Republican base. And to that portion of the Republican base, turning the two over to China would be "the betrayal of freedom fighters to torture and death." Similarly, a large minority of the independent voters and most of the Democrats who crossed over to vote for Dubya and/or the current Republican platform. For the large minority of Democrats who just want more ammo, Dubya can't provide a resolution that wouldn't be used in negative sloganeering. Then ya got the liberals who would be furious at sending anyone to a country where they might face torture or death. Add all the "tut tut"s from other nations. Too many political minuses with virtually no political pluses in expelling the Uighurs to China.
Excluding a possible couple out of the pool of nations with a history of being hotbeds of pseudo"jihad"ism, none of those "tut tut"ing nations are likely to grant asylum to terrorist-trainees that the US is unwilling to release onto its own soil. Except maybe NorthKorea; even then it'd probably take a LARGE bribe.
Admittedly, Dubya brought most of this headache on himself. But there is a real conundrum here. And even if your favorite politician became the President tomorrow, s/he'd be stuck with the same problem.
The only simple solution would be for a federal judge to order that they be deported to China, or issued work&residency permits and released into the US. Then for the appellate courts and the SupremeCourt to agree; or better yet, refuse to review the case. At which point the President could shrug his shoulders and say, "Sorry, folks, I don't like this any more than you do. But I've got to follow the Law."
[ April 22, 2006, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Rather curious as to whether anyone else has another suggestion as to a workable solution for the mess.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I certainly don't think they should be released in the US. But then again, they weren't picked up in the US, were they? My cynical side says well we picked them up in Afghanistan, let's drop them back off there. But since we've held them for 4 years, I do think we have a responsibility to make sure they're not put somewhere where they'd be immediately killed. My preference would be to ask them for a list of countries where they would like to go and then send them to the first country on the list who will take them.
And I don't assume extraordinary rendition means turning over prisoners to other governments for the purpose of torture. I assume it means torturing themselves in our own facilities on foreign soil. Just to clarify. Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Had read of this much earlier, but the first link leads to why the Chinese dislike the idea of the US releasing those captured Uighurs (other than by extradition into Chinese custody), with the second giving hint as to why Albania would accept them.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cactus Jack: I guess I mean we can't deport them to a country where we know they would be tortured.
Send them back to China, but not to the Chinese authorities. Giving them to the government, as known terrorists in training against the Chinese government is as good as a death sentence, but no one else wants them.
Well, if they are Chinese give them back to China, just not the government. Have the CIA sneak them in. Seems perfectly fair to me.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote: The two detainees, Abu Bakker Qassim and A'Del Abdu al-Hakim were captured as they fled a Taliban military training camp where they were learning techniques they planned to use against the Chinese government.
So they are legitimate terrorists in the eyes of the Chinese government. Why not just give them to China. The US has already sent *suspected* terrorists to Syria just to determine whether they are terrorists or not (i.e. twinky's example of the Arar case). Why not send *legitimate* terrorists back to their native government?
Lyr: It would be like the Chinese government capturing members of 9/11 hijacking team before their strike and then sneaking them into the US.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Except the 9/11 hijackers weren't American citizens. (FWIW)
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
It would still be possibly an Act of War.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
After reading this thread and realizing what a horrible horrible country I live in, I think I'm fine with handing them over to the chinese goverment. Maybe in exchange for Jack Bauer.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: After reading this thread and realizing what a horrible horrible country I live in, I think I'm fine with handing them over to the chinese goverment. Maybe in exchange for Jack Bauer.
who?
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
A character on American televsion who was captured by the Chinese at the end of last season.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Except the 9/11 hijackers weren't American citizens. (FWIW)
The original link seems to be dead, so I can't verify whether the terrorists were Chinese citizens. In any case, I'm not sure what you mean (as to how that would affect this). Elaborate?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I think Jack Bauer may be the key to understanding this.
President Bush, like Jack Bauer, has his own well defined sense of morality. Jack would not shoot a stranger in the kneecap for fun. He would not do so for profit. He would not do so, even if he knew the other guy was not a good guy. However, to save his country from a terrorist threat, and to save the lives of unknown thousands, he has not qualm in shooting as many people in the kneecap as needed.
So President Bush will not send prisoners off to countries where they will be tortured, unless there is some small chance that such torture will result in information that will be useful for the war on terror.
At best, the very limited information the Chinese would learn by torturing the prisoners would help them defend against terrorists. Since they wouldn't share it with us, we don't want to send them there.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
*tries to picture GWB screaming "I NEED A HACKSAW*"
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
quote:*tries to picture GWB screaming "I NEED A HACKSAW*"
I've had nightmares starting with that image.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Too bad "That's My Bush" got canceled. That'd be a great episode. "Laura... Where's my Hacksaw?" and George and Karl spend the rest of the episode trying to hide the body when... The whacky neighbor comes by!
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)