[...] Parting irony:  The U.S. Army captured a number of those Chinese Uygurs who were either fighting on the side of al-Qaeda, or who just “happened” to be in AQ camps when the Northern Alliance rolled them up.  Eventually, the Army sorted out the terrorists from the strap-hangers.  It wanted to release the latter.  We realized, however, that if we sent them back to China, they would meet the same fate as Ismail Semed.  After many months of head-scratching, they were all sent to Albania.  As a direct result of our compliance with the Convention Against Torture, we were stuck feeding these people and fending off legal challenges to their detention.  Some of those challenges were based on intentionally spurious accusations of torture, including a few that sound a lot like things I actually paid money for in my misspent youth (but not the blood thing — that would be icky).  They also delayed the very day in court that so many have (rightly) said these detainees ought to have.  Yet The Cause will be those who are still held in Gitmo, not those who died in front of ChiCom firing squads. [...]

More evidence that many of our burocrats in Washington are pyschologically eunichs. The pity is that we can’t demand that they surrender their testies to be duly boxed up and stored. At least the Ching dynasty ensured that their eunichs couldn’t breed.

Otto: the remark about Jews and Cubans is unfair. The US accepts countless refugees from all over the world, from the Southeast Asian Meong to Tiananmen veterans. Certainly the Jewish, Cuban, and Armenian lobbies have the most influence, but it ends there. And having been to Kazakhstan and met ethnic Germans, I would like to hear what is so bad about your client’s life in Kazakhstan that asylum in the US was a necessity.

Lirelou & Otto: I sympathize with the predicament of the Uyghurs, Xinjiang being one of the most interesting places I’ve ever visited. But this is a very sensitive issue, and granting them asylum would be a bonehead geopolitical move that would help no one.

To list:

1.) It would suggest that we find common cause with the Uyghurs, perhaps encouraging the (currently rather quiet) grumblings in Xinjiang. That not even neighboring Turkic nations (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkey, etc) would grant the Uyghurs asylum shows that there is little political sympathy, even among their ethnic brethren. If there is going to be asylum granted for these people on humanitarian or political grounds, it should start in the Turkic world.

2.) It would make us enemies in Beijing. Plenty of policymakers and military men would make sure to settle the score elsewhere (Taiwan, Afghanistan, wherever). Frankly, the Uyghurs are damn lucky the US insisted on sending them to a third country, not returning them to China.

3.) Don’t forget that these people were caught in Afghanistan in 2001. If we’re going to unilaterally piss in China’s cornflakes without warning, I can’t think of a worse group to pick. Additionally, it would be very hard domestically for the US to take in former GITMO detainees as refugees, and they could be targets of right-wing harrassment or assasinations.

A good comment, Curzon. I’m not a fan of Guantanamo, but as you said, sending the Uyghur detainees back to China would be letting them in for something even worse. A similar situation arises with terror suspects in Guantanamo and also the U.K., who have not been charged with any offence but cannot be deported to their countries of origin due to the risk of torture or execution.

, , , and they could be targets of right-wing harrassment or assasinations.

Do you really believe someone would try to assasinate these people in the U.S.!? I find that a bit difficult to believe.

It would be easier to believe Chinese agents grabbing or assasinating these guys in Albania.

“Frowning at Gantánamo Bay
Jun 29th 2006
From The Economist Global Agenda

IN A painful blow for George Bush, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday June 29th that he did not have the authority to set up special military commissions to try foreign terrorist suspects held at Guantánamo Bay. The court also ruled that the tribunals themselves were illegal under both international and American military-justice law. And, as important, the court held that the Geneva Conventions do apply to the conflict against al-Qaeda and that all detainees must therefore be treated humanely in all circumstances.¦

this from an old wapo report

‘All 15 Uighurs have actually been cleared for release from Guantanamo Bay twice, once after a Pentagon review in late 2003 and again last March, U.S. officials said. Seven other Uighurs were ruled to be enemy combatants and will continue to be detained.’
—i guess the numbers sort of tied. they had 7+15=23, you had 18+5=23. i wonder how to reconcile the # and classificaitons—the 2 who are appealing looks like terrorists to me
‘Qassim and Hakim fled the city of Ghulja in China to Central Asia in 2001. They met in Kyrgyzstan and traveled to Pakistan, then to Afghanistan, where they received training in use of small arms, according to a recent court statement by Brig. Gen. Jay W. Hood, commander of Joint Task Force Guantanamo.’
not sure if they are among your 5, but trained in afghanistan to use small fire-arms does not look like there are economic refugee or dissident fleeing persecution.

“US does not have the obligation to assure China”

On the contrary, one is surprised that the US is doing China’s dirty work (repressing dissent, violent or otherwise) for it.

“but trained in afghanistan to use small fire-arms does not look like there are economic refugee or dissident fleeing persecution.”

It has long been acknowledged in the US and in other Western countries that the very act of leaving the country and planning against a country could lead to persecution that otherwise might not have been carried out. For example, if someone fled the Soviet Union, he was usually taken in on the understanding that having fled, he was then a target for persecution, although he might not have been targeted before.

This remains the case for many Cubans attempting to enter the US.

elizabeth,

all fair points. but what if these people are terrorists and have already blew up a few buses.
(i am not saying they are, but there is enough suspicion to warrant some public trial)

consider, had china captured those who left US and plot against US. would you say the same thing? that China should send them over to a thrid country, e.g. Iran?

Sun Bin:

“there is enough suspicion to warrant some public trial”

I don’t like the “what if”, but let’s suppose that there is a lot of obvious evidence that these men are guilty of specific crimes against China, namely, plotting a violent coup or planning to murder someone (both of which are almost certainly crimes in China, and which are crimes in the United States). If China and the US have a proper extradition treaty, let China use it. If we don’t, then there’s probably a reason- namely, the same reason we don’t extradite other types of criminals to certain countries (e.g. Libya) no matter what, because we don’t believe they’ll get a free trial.

“China should send them over to a thrid country, e.g. Iran?”

I don’t know China’s legal system. If China thinks those men pose no danger to it, and will have their human rights respected in the US, then they should send them to the US. Since this is clearly not the case- suspected terrorists do not have their rights respected in the US- then China could either keep them (reasonable) or send them somewhere else where it thought that their human rights would be respected. If China thinks that the people DO pose a threat to China, then it needs to consider prosecuting them under the proper laws. Generally there are laws to protect citizens from imminent crimes.

Dave- It was one example of the overall attitude towards human rights, not intended to represent a specific threat towards Uighurs. This policy and its implementation, as I understand, were much worse in the past. And I don’t know about forced sterilizations, only forced abortions. Moreover, as I’ve been told, these policies don’t even apply to ethnic minorities such as Uighurs. It doesn’t change the fact that the overall situation in China is not human-rights friendly: a country which allows any forced abortions (whether there were more before or not) is not the sort of place you’d think would be fair to extradited criminals.

elizabeth,

i noted that you made the parallel between uighur/IRA/Al Qaeda in Iraq above. i think that is my point. as long as they are treated the same, there is not much we could complain about.
the problem is, they were treated with a lot of discretion. that is hipocrisy and double standard.

a couple minor point,
“if someone fled the Soviet Union, he was usually taken in on the understanding that having fled, he was then a target for persecution, although he might not have been targeted before.”

in china, flee the country is not persecuted since early 1980s. they were locked up for a week or so and released.
but of course, if you are suspected of anti-governemnt activities they would move you to that department.

“Saudi is not known to be a better human right respector than China, yet the released GITMO prisoners were sent back there, but not to China”

I would refer back to the extradition treaties and the refugee agreements. If Saudi Arabia has an agreement with the US for extradition, the US must honor that. Likewise if these people apply for refugee status in the US, then the US should consider them. I agree there must be no double standards.

“If they are so hamrless, US should take them.”

The US does not take all harmless people. It’s taken me 15 pages of paperwork and hours of supporting evidence to get my own husband into the country and we’re just starting. The US should take legitimate applicants for refugee status.

“the public (not just in China, in US as well) should be offered a transparent trial (and these 5 people deserve a trasnsparent trial to get them justice once and for all as well)”

Could not agree more.

“should “Ëœallegedly terrorist’ be given the same treatment as non-terrorist related criminal or political activists?”

I think that intent plays a role in defining what a crime is, so someone who “only” murdered one man but intended to blow up a building is guilty of something different than someone who intended to kill one man and did, and different to someone who intended to beat the living daylights out of someone and ended up killing him.

In terms of human rights, all of these people have the same rights, but a terrorist is accused of a different crime and therefore we would take different precautions and actions. I disagree with GITMO because I think it’s a violation of human rights and moreover an offence to the dignity of both the captor and the captured.

“”Ëœsmall arm’ are for terrorists…”

I’m not going to go into the tactical points because I don’t know about it. I am arguing purely from the theoretical point of view… “If they have evidence that… then”, not “this is evidence of”.

“they should at least give the public and answer, telling us what they think about these terrorisma acts”

I think they should have a fair trial (which is not necessarily trial-by-television) and reasonable questions would be, “are you a member of ETIM?” “did you participate in these crimes?” “can you please say what you intended to do with what you learned in Afghanistan, if it was not something like [describe ETIM activities here]?”

Re: persecution for fleeing: Hm, possibly not on a large scale, but I’d suspect they could hold this over your head. Though, I suppose I don’t know. Fleeing has become associated with economic flight and remittances, rather than political dissent, so fleeing-to-organize-dissent might be treated differently.

elizabeth,

i don’t think we have much disagreement now.

the ‘small point’ point was just the evidence that brings suspicion to these people. however, as you said, even if they had the intent to be terrorist, they could still have changed their mind now.

i also think it would be a crime and a disservice to China (and its people) if some of these 5 people were innocent but wrongly commited (or accused), because such mis-treatment would only worsen the racial conflict in xinjiang and provide ammunition to the terrorist groups. that is why i believe they need to stand a transparent trial (the limited evidence we are presented today is very ambiguos and not beneficial to them if they were indeed innocent).
unfortunately, they were just secretly passed to albania.

:) see, here you assume they are innocent. while they could most likely be (and i hope they are), nobody is sure and there are enough unfavorable evidences according to the wiki entries.

so albania may deserve them, or they may deserve better than albania, or they may deserve worse than albania. unfortunately we just will not know, and they will live the rest of their lives in such uncertainty.