I posted about the plight of Chinese Uighurs detained in Guantanamo over three years ago. As the Washington Post reported at that time:
In late 2003, the Pentagon quietly decided that 15 Chinese Muslims detained at the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, could be released. Five were people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, some of them picked up by Pakistani bounty hunters for U.S. payoffs. The other 10 were deemed low-risk detainees whose enemy was China’s communist government — not the United States, according to senior U.S. officials.
More than 20 months later, the 15 still languish at Guantanamo Bay, imprisoned and sometimes shackled, with most of their families unaware whether they are even alive.
Now, after nearly seven years in detention, a US judge has ruled that the Uighurs must be released into the US, agreeing with their attorneys that holding the men without cause is unconstitutional:
At a hearing packed with Uighurs who live in the Washington area, Urbina rejected government arguments that he had no authority to order the men’s release. He said he had such authority because the men were being held indefinitely and it was the only remedy available. He cited a June decision by an appellate court that found evidence against the Uighurs to be unreliable.
Urbina said in court that he ordered the release “because the Constitution prohibits indefinite detention without cause.” He added, “The separation of powers do not trump” the prohibition against holding people indefinitely without trial…
…Justice Department lawyer John O’Quinn asked Urbina to stay the order for a week, giving the government time to evaluate its options and file an appeal. Urbina rejected that request and ordered the Uighurs to appear in his courtroom for a hearing on Friday. He said he would then release them into the custody of 17 Uighur families living in the Washington area.
Apparently the government plans to appeal, but Urbina seems firm in his determination that these men have gotten a raw deal and that they will be released from custody, period (he didn’t take kindly to the proposal that US Immigration authorities might re-detain the Uighurs either). Good for him.
I’ll go further: the United States of America should pay these men an annual stipend equivalent to a decent income for a period of time allowing them to adjust to their new lives here. I’d say for about seven years, at the very least.
1
By tree sitter
These Uighurs were taken to the Gitmo from Al Queda training camps, no? Yeah.. I, too, believe these are good people and would like to be their neighbors, right
October 8, 2008 @ 7:08 am | Comment
2
By Bob
“In late 2003, the Pentagon quietly decided that 15 Chinese Muslims detained at the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, could be released. Five were people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, some of them picked up by Pakistani bounty hunters for U.S. payoffs. The other 10 were deemed low-risk detainees whose enemy was China’s communist government — not the United States, according to senior U.S. officials.”
Hmm, ask yourself if Osama bin Laden or his associates were found and caught in China’s territory, should PRC cooperate with U.S.A.’s request to send them over here, or act in the same fashion as quoted above to let them loose?
October 8, 2008 @ 7:12 am | Comment
3
By Lisa
Bob posted the section I was going to post, but to make a different point.
My point is that indefinite detention is illegal according to US law. It is unconstitutional. You either have to charge them or release them. Seven years is a long time to spend in prison without charge. And as from the quote above, some of these men have done nothing wrong at all.
October 8, 2008 @ 7:16 am | Comment
4
By tree sitter
here is my question, if China caught OBL, should China send him to the US? According to the liberal hipsters, it’s a no go. Because the US is a country with death penalty and sure OBL will be waterboarded.
WTF, I thought the liberals were double standard free
October 8, 2008 @ 7:21 am | Comment
5
By Lisa
How does Osama = these detainees? It’s a false equivalence.
p.s. I don’t believe in the death penalty either. I try to be consistent.
October 8, 2008 @ 7:25 am | Comment
6
By Lisa
As a p.s. I think we are arguing from different places here. I am talking about the treatment of these men under US law and the US Constitution. The whole basis of our legal system is that you are innocent until proven guilty and that people cannot be detained without charge. If these men were detained for cause, then by all means, charge them and try them. But the evidence in these cases is either non-existent or extremely weak.
I do understand concerns that if these men are actively plotting against the Chinese government – and by “plotting” I mean things like violent actions, not just talking about how it would be super-cool to have a Uighur homeland or more autonomy within China – that simply letting them go is a real problem. But I don’t know what other answer there is given the situation. It never should have happened in the first place. But since this is the US government’s screw-up, the US should take responsibility for it, IMO.
And in spite of all my talk about the Constitution and due process, I’d bet good money that if these men are released and granted residence in the US, they are going to be monitored very closely by the US government.
October 8, 2008 @ 7:35 am | Comment
7
By tree sitter
China needs to question them for their links to terrorist groups in Western China, what’s so hard to understand? These 17 Uighurs were Al Qaeda members. I know it took 19 terrorists to take down WTC and the Pentagon, so they are OK..
“p.s. I don’t believe in the death penalty either. I try to be consistent.”
So if China caught Osama, he should not be sent to the US unless the US promise not to execute him, right?
October 8, 2008 @ 7:36 am | Comment
8
By tree sitter
And since Osama has not been actively plotting against China, China should just release him to the Uighur neighborhood. He’ll be treated well
October 8, 2008 @ 7:39 am | Comment
9
By Lisa
Uh, at least five of the men were not connected to AQ at all. And IIRC, Chinese agents were allowed to question them at length. It was kind of a big deal at the time. I’ll see if I can find that link.
Actually, I personally wouldn’t worry too much if China catches OBL. I don’t think they like him much either.
October 8, 2008 @ 7:41 am | Comment
10
By Lisa
And again, tree sitter, I’m not trying to be flip here – at least not too much. I do understand why the release of these men is a legitimate concern for the Chinese government.
October 8, 2008 @ 7:43 am | Comment
11
By tree sitter
It was just a hypothetical question. I’m sure if OBL is caught be China, he’ll be sent to the US eventually, with several corrupted Chinese officials who currently enjoy their luxurious life style in LA for exchange.
So we are down to 12 AQ members running large in the DC area. China is safe, Chinatown is not
October 8, 2008 @ 7:46 am | Comment
12
By Lisa
Heh.
Okay, I need to make lunch/dinner/food. Later…
October 8, 2008 @ 7:48 am | Comment
13
By Sam_S
I agree with Richard. If there is no substantial evidence of culpability, that is no reasonable cause to indict, they are due compensation.
October 8, 2008 @ 7:49 am | Comment
14
By Sam_S
Sorry, Lisa, I didn’t notice the “by” line.
October 8, 2008 @ 7:50 am | Comment
15
By Lisa
Well, I’m pretty sure Richard would agree too.
October 8, 2008 @ 7:51 am | Comment
16
By Richard
Lisa, I agree. Thanks for this post.
October 8, 2008 @ 8:21 am | Comment
17
By Not_a_Sinophile
If these Uighurs are indeed violently anti-Chinese government they shouldn’t be detained. They should be trained, equipped, funded and encouraged. What a great opportunity to undermine the Chinese scumbag “government!”
October 8, 2008 @ 11:10 am | Comment
18
By tree sitter
Not_A_hile
Yeah.. the CIA trained and equipped the Dalai Lama and his cronies.. it worked out awesomely.
October 8, 2008 @ 11:21 am | Comment
19
By ecodelta
The OSS, forerunner of the CIA, also trained Mao and his cronies.
Magnificent job. China was effectively neutralized as great power and competitor for natural/energy resources for +40 years.
They are still recovering from the mess and trying to catch up.
October 9, 2008 @ 3:10 am | Comment
20
By Not_a_Sinophile
ecodelta,
My point, exactly. We could forget about the Chinese for another 40 years!
October 9, 2008 @ 4:32 am | Comment
21
By Serve the People
The INS of the US government has the authority to send them back to China. China will try them for treason. They will get what they deserve. This will bring an end to the story.
October 9, 2008 @ 7:50 am | Comment
22
By Lindel
They can be deported, they do have the option of seeking asylum, in a country other than china. The also could be released from guantanomo and required to remain in the US to stand trial if the Justice Department ever decided to formerly charge them with a crime.
Not sure the Bush Administration would be willing to send uighurs to china. most likely they will pass the buck on this to the next president.
October 9, 2008 @ 10:55 am | Comment
23
By fatbrick
The problem is not whether detaining those people is consititional or not. The question is whether these people should be sent back to China. As several above mentioned, if China catch some USA alleged terrorists, should China set them free too? USA now can expect that other countries cooperate becasue USA still has the power.
October 10, 2008 @ 2:33 am | Comment
24
By hike
From US point of view, terrorists who are only against China are not terrorists, and they should be released.
October 13, 2008 @ 12:03 am | Comment