1
   

Chinese Uighurs in Guantanamo

 
 
Reply Wed 15 Oct, 2008 02:27 pm
Another Story from Gitmo.

Washington Post wrote:
Chinese Muslims Ordered Released From Guantanamo

By Del Quentin Wilber

A federal judge yesterday ordered a small band of Chinese Muslims being held at the Guantanamo Bay military prison released into the United States by Friday, rejecting the Bush administration's contention that it could detain them indefinitely without cause.

It was the first time a U.S. judge has ordered the release of a Guantanamo Bay detainee, and the first time a foreign national held at the facility in Cuba has been ordered transferred to the United States.

U.S. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina issued his ruling in dramatic fashion from the bench in a packed courtroom, saying he was ordering the release of 17

Uighurs because the government provided no proof that they were enemy combatants or security risks. Under the order, the men will live with Uighur families in the Washington area until a more permanent situation can be found.

"Because the Constitution prohibits indefinite detention without cause, the government's continued detention of the [detainees] is unlawful," Urbina said. "Because separation-of-powers concerns do not trump the very principle upon which this nation was founded -- the unalienable right to liberty -- the court orders the government to release the [men] into the United States."

Urbina ordered the detainees and the Uighur families to appear in his courtroom Friday. A Defense Departmentspokesman said the military is working with other government agencies to prepare for the detainees' move to Washington.

But the Justice Department said it is filing an emergency appeal, because the judge's decision "presents serious national security and separation-of-powers concerns." A White House spokeswoman issued a statement saying that "we are deeply concerned by, and strongly disagree with" the ruling.

In court hearings leading up to yesterday's ruling, the government argued that only President Bush has the authority to allow the men into the country. In addition, U.S. law would deny the

Uighurs entry because they trained at camps sponsored by the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, a group that the Bush administration designated a terrorist organization after the men were detained, the lawyers have argued.

The Uighurs' attorneys, human rights groups and members of Congress from both parties have advocated for their release, saying the men have no conflict with the United States and have been detained unfairly for too long. The 17 Uighurs (pronounced "WEE-gurz") have been held at the Cuban prison for nearly seven years since they were picked up in Pakistan.

The government has cleared 60 of about 255 remaining Guantanamo Bay detainees for release, including the Uighurs. But unlike other captives, the separatist

Uighurs cannot be sent to their homeland because the Chinese government considers them terrorists and might torture them. The United States sent five

Uighurs to Albania in 2006, but no other country wants to risk offending China by accepting the others.

Calls to the Chinese Embassy media office were not answered.

Over the years, more than 500 detainees have left Guantanamo Bay for their home countries, an unknown number of whom were ultimately set free. Only one captive, Yaser Esam Hamdi, a Saudi, was moved from Guantanamo Bay to the United States, after authorities determined he held U.S. citizenship. He was eventually deported to Saudi Arabia and relinquished his U.S. citizenship.

Although the White House warned that the ruling could be used to secure other detainees' release into the United States, legal experts have said that is unlikely because the Uighurs' circumstances are unique.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), who has been working for the Uighurs' release with Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-Mass.), said yesterday that Urbina "made the morally right decision.

"We should offer the Uighurs an apology," he said.

About 400 Uighur families live in the Washington area, mostly in Northern Virginia. There are smaller Uighur concentrations in the District and the Maryland suburbs.

"The American legal system has given us justice," said Ilshat Hassan, 46, a Uighur who works for a large consulting firm and will take one of the detainees into his McLean home.

An appeals court determined in June that one of the Uighurs, Huzaifa Parhat, was not an enemy combatant and must be released, transferred or given a new military hearing because evidence used to justify his detention was flimsy and unreliable.

The three-judge panel found that "it is undisputed that he is not a member of al-Qaeda or the Taliban, and that he has never participated in any hostile action against the United States or its allies." In the months after the ruling, the government determined that it would not treat the Uighurs at Guantanamo Bay as enemy combatants.

Yesterday's hearing was required under a Supreme Court ruling in June that the detainees had the right to challenge their detention in federal courts. Scores of other detainees have filed to do so.

Because the government did not produce evidence to justify the Uighurs' confinement, Urbina faced two options: release them into the United States or allow them to remain confined without cause.

The judge's ruling came somewhat as a surprise because many expected him to hear legal arguments and testimony yesterday. But it was clear from the beginning that he had made a decision.

When legal arguments were completed, Urbina sat quietly and then began issuing his order. "After detaining 17 Uighurs . . . for almost seven years free from judicial oversight, the moment has arrived to shine the light of constitutionality," he said.

The judge then rejected the Justice Department's arguments one by one, noting that the government's efforts to resettle the men have been unsuccessful and that there was "no foreseeable date by which they may succeed."

He also noted that the government has not charged the men with crimes and that it has not produced evidence justifying their detentions. "The unilateral, carte blanche authority the political branches purportedly wield over the Uighurs is not in keeping with our system" of government, he said.

Later, Urbina chastised Justice Department lawyer John O'Quinn for suggesting that immigration authorities might be compelled to arrest the Uighurs on U.S. soil because of their alleged ties to the terrorist organization.

"I would not take that kindly," Urbina said. He ordered immigration officials to stay away from the Uighurs until a follow-up hearing on Oct. 16 at which he will hear testimony from the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security about how to monitor them.

Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.


Source: http://mobile.washingtonpost.com/detail.jsp?key=290392&rc=ba_po&p=1&all=1

Additional follow up story
Quote:
Chinese Detainees' Release Is Blocked
Justice Dept. Seeks More Time for Appeal


By Del Quentin Wilber

A federal appeals court last night temporarily blocked a judge's order that the government must release 17 Chinese Muslims held at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, into the United States.

The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued the "administrative stay" at the request of the Justice Department.

In a one-page order, the appellate judges said they issued the stay to give them "sufficient opportunity" to consider the government's request for a lengthier delay while it appeals the ruling by U.S. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina.

On Tuesday, Urbina ruled that the government could no longer detain the men in Cuba because it offered no proof they were enemy combatants or security risks. He ordered the government to deliver the men, all known as Uighurs, to his courtroom by 10 a.m. tomorrow to be transferred into the custody of Uighur families in the Washington area.

The men have been held at Guantanamo Bay for nearly seven years but are no longer deemed to be enemy combatants.

The Justice Department issued a statement saying it was "pleased" by the decision. Lawyers for the detainees said they were disappointed.

"It's obviously a letdown," said Emi MacLean, a lawyer for the nonprofit Center for Constitutional Rights, which has been working to free the Uighurs. "The release of these men is long overdue."

In court papers, the government has alleged that the men all received weapons training at camps affiliated with the Taliban. The men were turned over to U.S. authorities after being driven from their camps by U.S. airstrikes in 2001.

Human rights advocates, the detainees' lawyers and members of Congress from both parties have said the Uighurs are not enemies of the United States and should be released into the country. An appeals court determined in June that one of the men must be released, transferred or given a new military hearing because the evidence against him was so weak.

"It is undisputed that he is not a member of al-Qaeda or the Taliban, and that he has never participated in any hostile action against the United States or its allies," the court found. Evidence against the other Uighurs is very similar, and the government has decided to no longer treat any of the Uighurs as enemy combatants.

The Uighurs are caught up in a well-documented diplomatic bind because the United States can't return them to China, where they might be tortured. Beijing considers the Uighurs, advocates of an independent homeland, to be terrorists. U.S. officials have said they have been working to find a third country to accept the Uighurs. They sent five Uighurs to Albania in 2006, but other countries have refused to accept them because they don't want to offend China.

Over the years, the U.S. government has returned hundreds of other detainees to their native countries.

On Tuesday, Urbina ruled that he was compelled to release the men because the government did not produce any evidence to support their confinement. He also said their detention appeared to be open-ended.

"Because the Constitution prohibits indefinite detention without cause, the government's continued detention of the [detainees] is unlawful," Urbina said.

The Justice Department moved quickly to appeal the ruling. The department's lawyers have argued Urbina did not have the authority to order the Uighurs' release. The only person with such power is the president, they have said.

Also, they argued, the men would be blocked from entry because they trained at camps sponsored by the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, a group that the Bush administration designated a terrorist organization after the men were detained, the lawyers have argued.

Lawyers for the Uighurs filed court papers yesterday urging the judges to reject the government's request.

They called the Uighurs "stateless refugees."


Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/08/AR2008100803776.html

From a different angle op ed: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122360571398721971.html

T
K
O
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,088 • Replies: 28
No top replies

 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Oct, 2008 03:13 pm
@Diest TKO,
for nearly 7 years! I hope there are lumps taken.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Oct, 2008 03:39 pm
@Diest TKO,
Bush never understood domestic and international laws, and still doesn't. This is what we get for choosing an ignoramus to become our president - for two terms, yet.
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Oct, 2008 04:02 am
@littlek,
Did you read the op ed I posted too? It's really inflammatory...

T
K
O
cjhsa
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 17 Oct, 2008 05:50 am
@Diest TKO,
Appointed to the United States District Court by President Bill Clinton.

'nuff said.
Diest TKO
 
  0  
Reply Fri 17 Oct, 2008 02:14 pm
@cjhsa,
Thank you for your shallow observation cjhsa. I guess you have nothing to contribute outside of partisan ranting.

T
K
O
cjhsa
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 17 Oct, 2008 04:34 pm
@Diest TKO,
Not in response to this retarded thread about some terrorists that should have just gotten a lead shower instead of several years of meals on my tax dollar.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Fri 17 Oct, 2008 04:49 pm
@cjhsa,
ceej, Your participation on this thread does make it "retarded," but I'll fight to the death your right to stick around.
cjhsa
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 17 Oct, 2008 04:54 pm
@cicerone imposter,
10 second first round KO's don't attract a lot of wagers.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Oct, 2008 11:21 pm
@cjhsa,
The point is that they aren't terrorists. They were held without any charge whatsoever. Do you think innocent people need "lead showers?"

T
K
O
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2008 12:08 am
@Diest TKO,
And if you don't like that your tax dollars paid for this, take it up the Bush. Ask him, why did I have to pay to imprison people that didn't commit any crime?

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2008 12:10 am
@Diest TKO,
The problem is "they" (McCain/Palin/and all the conservatives on a2k) keep telling us Ayers is a (domestic) terrorist, but they don't provide any proof that he killed anyone or was charged with a crime of terrorism.

They believe if they repeat it enough times, it'll become true. That's been their tactic on most of their charge in trying to degenerate the character of Obama.

They somehow fail to see all of his accomplishments that far exceeds anything McCain or Palin has ever done. McCain graduated fifth from the bottom at the Naval Academy. Obama's scholastic achievements and community contributions are legendary. Obama doesn't talk about himself as having sacrificed for helping people when he could have found a lucrative job with almost any law firm, but McCain repeats his POW status as if that "sacrifice" is enough for Americans to vote for him as our president.

McCain has turned into a rabid dog who slings mud at Obama with lies and innuendos. He should be ashamed of himself.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2008 12:20 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:

Bush never understood domestic and international laws, and still doesn't. This is what we get for choosing an ignoramus to become our president - for two terms, yet.

Well, we kept out Gore and Kerry,
so it was very well worth it.

There is no such thing as international law,
except for our treaties.





David
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2008 12:26 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Those treaties are exactly what we violate.
K
O
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2008 12:48 am
@Diest TKO,
Well, if that 's the problem,
then we can withdraw from those treaties.
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2008 12:56 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Why exactly would we do that? The treaty isn't flawed.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2008 01:16 am
it suggests that
"the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the
First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers
are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class
of persons who are part of a national community or who have
otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to
be considered part of that community."

I vaguely remember that speaking for the Court,
Justice Kennedy called into question
these principles of the US Constitution not protecting
aliens outside of America. I do not have that case immediately
at hand; maybe someone else can find it.





David
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 12:58 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

In JOHNSON v. EISENTRAGER 339 US 763, (195O)
the US Supreme Court held that the US Bill of Rights
did not protect German enemy aliens, as:
"Such a construction would mean that during military occupation ...
enemy elements, guerrilla fighters, and 'werewolves'
could require the American Judiciary to assure them
freedoms of speech, press, and assembly, as in the
First Amendment, RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS as in the Second,
security against 'unreasonable' searches and seizures
as in the Fourth, as well as rights to jury trial as in the Fifth
and Sixth Amendments." [emphasis added]

Wait, wait, wait... Let me get this straight, German enemy aliens, as in they immigrated illegally? How is that relevant? We put these people on our soil, they didn't immigrate. Also, the justice department can't label the Uighurs as enemy combatants, they didn't do anything.

The Justice department is making the case that only the president can put the Uighers on US soil. WTF do they call Guantanamo? It's US soil. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

OmSigDAVID wrote:
it suggests that
"the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the
First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers
are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class
of persons who are part of a national community or who have
otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to
be considered part of that community."

I vaguely remember that speaking for the Court,
Justice Kennedy called into question
these principles of the US Constitution not protecting
aliens outside of America. I do not have that case immediately
at hand; maybe someone else can find it.

How does this at all explain the Bush admin's case? Our laws affect our people, we get that. So how was our laws granting us authority to imprison not-our people for no crime at all?

The Bush administration can't say that the constitution doesn't apply at gitmo, and then use it to defend it's right to prosecute or just hold people.

That's a wild double standard.
K
O
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 05:01 am
@Diest TKO,
Guantanamo is CUBAN soil.
I think we have a lease on it.

The point is that u apply different standards,
a DOUBLE STANDARD, for American citizens and for aliens
who r not on American soil.

The point of both of those cases
is that the US Constitution does NOT
give rights to aliens on alien soil.
However, last term, Justice Kennedy
and the leftists on the USSC cast this into question, somewhat.

Quote:

So how was our laws granting us authority to imprison
not-our people for no crime at all?

The War Power of US Constitution.
President is commader in chief
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 05:03 am
@Diest TKO,
Owned.
 

Related Topics

Release of Chinese Muslims Ordered - Discussion by ehBeth
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Chinese Uighurs in Guantanamo
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/22/2019 at 05:55:46