US court rejects Uighurs' Guantanamo appeal

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: AFP

WASHINGTON — The US Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal by five Chinese Uighurs protesting their detention at Guantanamo, where they have been held indefinitely despite being cleared of any crime.

The prisoners are among a group of 21 men belonging to the Turkic-speaking minority Uighur Muslims who ended up in Afghanistan in late 2001 but were cleared by the Bush and Obama administrations of all charges of terrorism.

In a brief statement, the court said "petitioners have received two offers of resettlement in countries (including Palau) the United States determined 'appropriate,'" although the five detainees are known to have rejected resettlement in Palau.

"These offers, the lack of any meaningful challenge as to their appropriateness, and the government's uncontested commitment to continue to work to resettle petitioners transform petitioners' claim."

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ioBR8ce2_bfnO-5cEhvGf_xflxqQ?docId=CNG.aecbe041f4c21f72f90dca66f0506f52.61

[Angry Dragon]

1. Take them back to where they were picked up or

let them decide where they would like to go



This country is so fucked up it makes the head hurt

[Igel]

3. Simplistic.

They're not wanted where they were picked up; nor do they want to go there.

If they get to decide where they want to go, we've determined either that the US can override any country's sovereignty and immigration laws in order to deposit them there; or that these Uighurs have extraordinary rights and trump other countries' sovereignty and immigration laws.

The easiest thing would be to return them to their country of citizenship. Except that this would induce extreme amounts of moral outrage: China would almost certainly immediately incarcerate them (possibly execute them); plus, the Uighurs don't want to go home, both because of fear of the PRC as well as the lure of wealthier locales.

In 1946 and '47 and even '48 there were refugees and prisoners of war that were essentially countryless for roughly equivalent reasons. Some didn't want to go home (and were forcibly repatriated, where they were summarily executed or sent into prison or internal exile). Others weren't wanted by their home countries, and nobody wanted to take them in--so they rotted in internment camps. We like to point to Manzanita as an egregious case, but it was mild when the greater context is considered. Mostly we just ignore that these camps ever existed, and the ignoring has gone on long enough that they're gone from the public consciousness.

[Angry Dragon]

4. They were picked up in Afghanistan

How did they get there in the first place??

[Alamuti Lotus]

8. friendly alliances

many Uygers who may or may not have been involved with the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (officially called "terrorists" by the PRC, but then so are Buddhist monks) fled China following an uptick in resistance activities to Han settlement and colonization of East Turkestan and the inevtiable crackdown in the mid-90s; many fled first to the Ferghana Valley, allied to and under the protection of Amir Juma Namangani's Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, however as the dictator Karimov's forces increased their campaign of kidnapping and torture, the IMU & ETIM, as well as smaller Tajik factions that were on the wrong side of the then-concluding civil war, fled to Afghanistan and worked out an alliance of protection under the then-triumphant Afghan Taliban and settled in the northeast mountain areas near Nuristan and across the fictional border with Pakistan into the areas known as Waziristan and other surrounding areas. I met some of these guys when I was in Kashmir, very interesting people with almost no hope whatsoever of reversing the Han Chinese colonization of their historical lands in what the PRC calls Xinjiang --reminded me of being rather like the zionist invasion of Palestine, except without a fraction of the world attention.

[gratuitous]

2. We can't release them

Right now, the Department of Justice is being run by the "strong feelings" of certain unnamed members of the public, as well as the political leanings of certain Republicans. President Obama himself has said as much, and this state of affairs is apparently just fine with any number of folks who should know better. Releasing innocent men who just happened to get scooped up by zealous defenders of our freedom would endanger our freedom - it's better not to ask why.

This is, and remains for as long as it continues, shameful. It's also a deep betrayal of our own Constitution. One might almost call it a high crime.

[cstanleytech]

5. Are we both reading the same story though?

It seems that the government is willing to release them to the two countries that would have them so why the outrage over this current SCOTUS exactly? I am not saying that the current SCOTUS hasnt made some blunder rulings like the dumb ass one saying corporations have the same rights as any citizen born here or that there isnt stuff to be upset about like the fact that they were even held for years without being charged but this doesnt seem to be an issue because the government is willing to let them go or did I read it wrong?

[gratuitous]

6. The petitioners are the prisoners themselves

Someone had to present and argue the other side, and while the account here omits that detail, there is an account in the Christian Science Monitor that includes this sentence: "Government lawyers argued that the judge exceeded his authority in ordering the release as part of the Uighurs’ successful habeas corpus challenge. Justice Department lawyers said that the executive branch controls immigration and has the exclusive authority to decide who may or may not be admitted into the US."

So it would appear that while the Department of Justice is willing to let these five prisoners go, they're only willing to release them to a couple of places where they legitimately fear persecution. "Sure, we'll let you go from this shithole, but only if you agree to go into this gator-infested swamp." Doesn't seem like much of a choice, and for prisoners who are not guilty of anything by the Attorney General's own admission, it goes against what most people would regard as fair dealing in any case.

[cstanleytech]

9. Were the countries they

had willing to accept them the only ones that they (the government) asked?

[Solly Mack]

7. K&R