Life in prison, with no charges?

[AgentM]

Seventeen Chinese prisoners who have been held for nearly seven years in Guantánamo Bay will be informed on Monday that they could spend the rest of their lives behind bars, even though they face no charges and have been told by a judge they should be freed.

No country is willing to accept them and the US justice department has now blocked moves for them to be allowed to go to the US mainland, where they had been offered a home by refugee and Christian organisations.

The men's lawyer, Sabin Willett, is flying to Guantánamo Bay this weekend to break the news to the men, who are members of the Uighur ethnic group seeking autonomy from China. In a blunt and angry letter to justice department lawyers, Willett spelled out what he thought of the way the men had been treated.

"After years of stalling and staying and appellate gamesmanship, you pleaded no contest - they are not enemy combatants," Willett has written. "You have never charged them with any crime."

Last month a federal judge ruled that the men should be freed. "They were on freedom's doorstep," said Willett. "The plane was at Gitmo. The stateside Lutheran refugee services and the Uighur families and Tallahassee clergy were ready to receive them." However, the justice department appealed against the ruling and Willett claims this will put the men into a potentially endless limbo.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/01/guantanamo-china
--

I gotta say this is quite appalling!

[Mirror Lake 444]

If this is really the way it's portrayed it isn't just appalling. It's a crime.

[SpringRain]

This insanity has got to stop! It just has to. How can anyone be unquestioningly proud of any country that treats people like this.
I know it isn't the first tie we've done inhuman things to others; that being the the real disappointment; we don't seem to actually learn from our previous stupidities.

[ptac4x4]

Why won't China take them? What were they doing in Afghanistan? Since they were captured in Afghanistan in 2001 Pakistani troops maybe the solution is for them to be turned back over to the Pakistani government. IMO I don't think I would want them coming to the US.

[mataj]

Congratulations, Americans! You've just killed the Rule of law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law). As proven great many times in the course of history, life without it can get very... err... interesting.

Have fun, ***holes!

[Atticus]

Why won't China take them? What were they doing in Afghanistan? Since they were captured in Afghanistan in 2001 Pakistani troops maybe the solution is for them to be turned back over to the Pakistani government. IMO I don't think I would want them coming to the US.I agree. If Americans are *******s for this, so is every other country that won't take them. Sure you can't handled them in Slovenia? Canada? Anyone?

[lord tammerlain]

I agree. If Americans are *******s for this, so is every other country that won't take them. Sure you can't handled them in Slovenia? Canada? Anyone?

It is America that is holding them prisoner, not Slovenia, not Canada. The levels of guilt here fall heavily on the US (and China) and quite lightly on Canada or Slovenia

[Atticus]

It is America that is holding them prisoner, not Slovenia, not Canada. The levels of guilt here fall heavily on the US (and China) and quite lightly on Canada or SloveniaExcept that if US courts prevail, they have to go somewhere. They are not US citizens, so they have no right to be in the US. The US is certainly responsible for the last seven years, but not for the next 70.

[mataj]

I agree. If Americans are *******s for this, so is every other country that won't take them. Sure you can't handled them in Slovenia? Canada? Anyone?They already were pretty much taken by America. The whole affair started by America kidnapping them.

[Atticus]

They already were pretty much taken by America. The whole affair started by America kidnapping them.Then their country of origin should be happy to have them back--they are just innocent victims, right? Why wouldn't China welcome them?

[mataj]

Then their country of origin should be happy to have them back--they are just innocent victims, right? Why wouldn't China welcome them?So, you are using the conduct of the Chinese authorities as an alibi. Well, great :rolleyes:

[Atticus]

So, you are using the conduct of the Chinese authorities as an alibi. Well, great :rolleyes:No, I've said that the US is responsible for holding them for seven years without charges. After that, things get messier. And the idea that these are simply innocent victims is betrayed by the fact that no one will take them. No reason for them to get asylum in the US. If they are such wonderful people, I'm sure your government would love to have them.

[mataj]

No, I've said that the US is responsible for holding them for seven years without charges. After that, things get messier. And the idea that these are simply innocent victims is betrayed by the fact that no one will take them. No reason for them to get asylum in the US. If they are such wonderful people, I'm sure your government would love to have them.That's not entirely unthinkeable. The very 1st person to get asylum in newly formed Slovenia in the beginning of the 1990s was an American, able to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that he was being unjustly persecuted by your corrupt judicial system (unfortunately I can't provide a link, that was before the internet era).

Anyway, that's beside a point. You abducted those people, made a mess, and you have to clean it. You can't blame other coutries for not wiping your ***.

[Atticus]

That's not entirely unthinkeable. The very 1st person to get asylum in newly formed Slovenia in the beginning of the 1990s was an American, able to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that he was being unjustly persecuted by your corrupt judicial system (unfortunately I can't provide a link, that was before the internet era).

Anyway, that's beside a point. You abducted those people, made a mess, and you have to clean it. You can't blame other coutries for not wiping your ***.What do you suggest?

[mataj]

What do you suggest?Nothing. I won't teach you about your business.

[Atticus]

Nothing. I won't teach you about your business.But you'll blame us for not living up the the standards you can't specify? Thanks!

[mataj]

But you'll blame us for not living up the the standards you can't specify? Thanks!Well, sorry, but I really can't think of any standards for you to avoid contempt for kidnapping people all over the world and torturing them in your gulags.

[Atticus]

Well, sorry, but I really can't think of any standards for you to avoid contempt for kidnapping people all over the world and torturing them in your gulags.Well then, this story is actually of very little importance to you then, since your contempt is undifferentiated. If someone can't redeem themselves, there's no reason to try.

[mataj]

Well then, this story is actually of very little importance to you then, since your contempt is undifferentiated. If someone can't redeem themselves, there's no reason to try.What was done was done. If you manage to redeem yourselves fine, but I see much greater problem elsewhere.

Now... I appreciate your interest in moral aspects of this matter but... have you noticed, that your army just *****slapped your court? You know what that means? And having in mind the size of your army, this just might be the reason for concern of the rest of the world as well.

[Atticus]

What was done was done. If you redeem yourselves fine, but I see much greater problem elsewhere.

Now... I appreciate your interest in moral aspects of this matter but... have you noticed, that your army just *****slapped your court? You know what that means? And having in mind the size of your army, this just might be the reason for concern of the rest of the world as well.Not really. There's a problem with letting them into the general population of the US. The court said they had to be released. They didn't say where. Any country on the planet (almost) could break this impasse.

[AgentM]

Why won't China take them?

China probably won't take them because they're Uighers, an ethnic minority group in China which wants autonomy from the central gov't. Needless to say, the Chinese gov't isn't too keen on these types of dissidents.

[mataj]

Not really. There's a problem with letting them into the general population of the US. The court said they had to be released. They didn't say where.Let me reiterate previous post really simple: Your judicature said: "Release!". Your Army said: "We won't. **** you!"

Whether they should be released into the general population of the US or not is not upon the US Army to decide.


Any country on the planet (almost) could break this impasse.We've been through this before.

The main reason for this impasse is the fact, that those people were illegally kidnapped in the 1st place. Yes, any country could break this impasse (maybe, that still depends on US Army), but no country is obliged to do that. Inaction of other countries is no excuse here.

Come to think of it, it might not be a bad idea for Slovenia to accept theese people, I certainly wouldn't object it. A little bit of media coverage never hurts for a country as small and unimportant as ours. I don't think we could do that, however, Schengen treaty, and all.

[Atticus]

Let me reiterate previous post really simple: Your judicature said: "Release!". Your Army said: "We won't. **** you!"

Whether they should be released into the general population of the US or not is not upon the US Army to decide.Unless you want us to put them out the door at Guantanamo and let them walk into Cuba (not a bad idea), yes, they do have to decide where to release them. And since you don't even yourself have an idea of where to do that, i'd say your outrage is misplaced.

[mataj]

Unless you want us to put them out the door at Guantanamo and let them walk into Cuba (not a bad idea), yes, they do have to decide where to release them. And since you don't even yourself have an idea of where to do that, i'd say your outrage is misplaced.It's not on me to have ideas here.

The fact of the matter is, that your army is above the civil authorities, above the law, out of the democratic control.

[Atticus]

It's not on me to have ideas here.

The fact of the matter is, that your army is above the civil authorities, above the law, out of the democratic control.I quite doubt that. The president, not the courts, are the democratic control of the military in the US. If you hear the president complaining that the military isn't doing as he says, there's a problem. Until then, I'd say this is a political conflict between the judicial and executive branches.

[dittohead not!]

If they are Chinese, send them to China. I China thinks they're criminals, then let them lock them up.

If they are enemy combatants, then charge them, try them, and, if they're guilty, execute them.

Keeping people in prison indefinitely without charges is morel like something that the Chinese government would do, and be condemned for it by the US. How can we have any credibility in the area of human rights while Gitmo is still in operation?

[AgentM]

How can we have any credibility in the area of human rights while Gitmo is still in operation?

You can't. Your credibility to take the moral high ground internationally is shot.

[mataj]

I'd say this is a political conflict between the judicial and executive branches.It could also be put this way, I guess. Clash of competencies. Very troublesome.

Anyway, why do you think those Uighers couldn't be released into the geneal population? Do you want to maintain a good relationships with China, perhaps? Did China outsourced mistreatment of its dissidents to the USA?

[Atticus]

It could also be put this way, I guess. Clash of competencies. Very troublesome.

Anyway, why do you think those Uighers couldn't be released into the geneal population? Do you want to maintain a good relationships with China, perhaps? Did China outsourced mistreatment of its dissidents to the USA?Just because someone can't be convicted in a US court, that doesn't mean they aren't a danger--and every nation gets to decide who (other than citizens) it lets in its borders. The fact that they can't go back to their country of origin supports this point.

Why would allowing them to stay in the US harm our relations with China?

[mataj]

Just because someone can't be convicted in a US court, that doesn't mean they aren't a danger--and every nation gets to decide who (other than citizens) it lets in its borders.USA already decided to let them in its borders. As a matter of fact, it brought them in its borders.

The fact that they can't go back to their country of origin supports this point.You regard Chinese judgement on such matters then.

Why would allowing them to stay in the US harm our relations with China?As I understand, China generally prefers Uighers incarcerated and mistreated.

[Atticus]

USA already decided to let them in its borders. As a matter of fact, it brought them in its borders. This is not true. Guantanamo is not within the borders of the US.
You regard Chinese judgement on such matters then.I'm actually regarding yours.
As I understand, China generally prefers Uighers incarcerated and mistreated.Then those with moral outrage at the action of evildoers should open their doors or close their mouths. No one has much regard for the US when we complain about the wrongdoing of others but provide no relief ourselves.

[Atticus]

It could also be put this way, I guess. Clash of competencies. Very troublesome.Not really. We've had these kinds of conflicts many times in our history. One president, Andrew Jackson (c. 1835), once said, "The Court has made it's decision; now let it enforce it." We generally work things out.

[mataj]

This is not true. Guantanamo is not within the borders of the US. It's US jurisdiction.

Then those with moral outrage at the action of evildoers should open their doors or close their mouths. No one has much regard for the US when we complain about the wrongdoing of others but provide no relief ourselves.Are you talking about Chinese moral outrage? Chinese might be morally outraged if you let Uighers go.

Not really. We've had these kinds of conflicts many times in our history. One president, Andrew Jackson (c. 1835), once said, "The Court has made it's decision; now let it enforce it." We generally work things out.Your army works things out with civilian authorities? Interesting. I've always thought army has no business interfering with civilian matters. As a matter of fact, when our former army tried something like that at the end 1980s, it was good enough reason for us to overthrow the regime.

[Atticus]

It's US jurisdiction.It's not in our borders. It's no more the US than Ramstein AFB. If it were an embassy, that would be different.

Are you talking about Chinese moral outrage? Chinese might be morally outraged if you let Uighers go.
Outraged perhaps, but morality would have nothing to do with it.
Your army works things out with civilian authorities? Interesting. I've always thought army has no business interfering with civilian matters. As a matter of fact, when our former army tried something like that at the end 1980s, it was good enough reason for us to overthrow the regime.The army, no. They take orders from the president. I'm simply pointing out that if the army didn't let them go to the US, it's because the WH told them not do. Yet another matter to take up with Bush.

Something tells me the situation may change in 3-4 months. If it doesn't, you can bring it up again and I'll listen to your concern over our political process.

[ptac4x4]

Have the US take them back to Afghanistan where they were originally caught by the Pakistani troops. Problem solved.

[AgentM]

It's not in our borders. It's no more the US than Ramstein AFB. If it were an embassy, that would be different.

Sorry Atticus, but that's a huge cop-out.

Wasn't the Bush admin. musing about closing Guantanamo anyways? Whatever happened to that I wonder? Hopefully Obama will look into that.

[Atticus]

Sorry Atticus, but that's a huge cop-out.

Wasn't the Bush admin. musing about closing Guantanamo anyways? Whatever happened to that I wonder? Hopefully Obama will look into that.Why is it a cop out? They have no right to live in the US. Their time in Guantanamo conveys no such rights.

[mataj]

Outraged perhaps, but morality would have nothing to do with it.Of course it would. Chinese might consider your lack of abuse of their terrorists (or dissidents, whatever) immoral.

Why is it a cop out? They have no right to live in the US. Their time in Guantanamo conveys no such rights.It's about their right to be released, not their right to live in the US. Their living in the US is necessity, not right. It would be very unusual if they would want to stay in the USA any longer than necessary, considering the circumstances.

[Sidgaf]

Forced repatriation to the Chinese.
We do it everyday with the Mexicans.
Problem solved, next question.

[mataj]

Forced repatriation to the Chinese.Impossible without Chinese consent.

[Sidgaf]

Impossible without Chinese consent.

Drop them on the Chinese border, and tell them to go for it and make their way home. And who cares about having documents coming into China, because my guess is they had none leaving.

[mataj]

Drop them on the Chinese border, and tell them to go for it and make their way home. And who cares about having documents coming into China, because my guess is they had none leaving.That would probably make even worse PR than keeping them.

[roderic]

Why is it a cop out? They have no right to live in the US. Their time in Guantanamo conveys no such rights.This is true.

I'd suggest they apply for asylum as political refugees in the US, since China refuses to let them back on the basis of non-proven terrorist associations of the subjects. ;)

[Atticus]

Of course it would. Chinese might consider your lack of abuse of their terrorists (or dissidents, whatever) immoral.

It's about their right to be released, not their right to live in the US. Their living in the US is necessity, not right. It would be very unusual if they would want to stay in the USA any longer than necessary, considering the circumstances.And yet they cannot be released to nowhere. That, I suspect, is the problem.

[mataj]

And yet they cannot be released to nowhere. That, I suspect, is the problem.Of course they can. If there is no other option they might as well be released into the USA, until some other country willing to accept them is found. There is no obvious reson why not.

The problem is, that the army doesn't want them to be released. Probably it doesn't want them to talk about the conditions in Gitmo.

[Atticus]

Of course they can. If there is no other option they might as well be released into the USA, until some other country willing to accept them is found. There is no obvious reson why not.The obvious reason is that we have literally tens of thousands of people (maybe add a zero to that number) who were let into the US on the condition they show up for a hearing about their status--and who were never heard from again. I don't know what it's like in your country, but mine is big and so free you can get lost in it really easily. Remember those 7-12 million undocumented workers we can't find?

[roderic]

And yet they cannot be released to nowhere. That, I suspect, is the problem.Can they not be released from the detention center and live on the 45 square miles of Cuba leased by the US?

They could open a Chinese take-away competing with McD for trade from the naval base, or start selling authentically autographed "GITMO sucks" T-shirts through the internet. :D

[Atticus]

Can they not be released from the detention center and live on the 45 square miles of Cuba leased by the US?

They could open a Chinese take-away competing with McD for trade from the naval base, or start selling authentically autographed "GITMO sucks" T-shirts through the internet. :DThat's actually a good idea.

According to this NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/16/washington/16gitmo.html?scp=3&sq=uighurs%20%20guantanamo&st=cse

The administration released a few Uighurs to Albania, but has found it impossible to find anyone to take them. The Uighurs themselves don't want to go back to China for fear of persecution, so the US has agreed not to do that. Others don't want them because the US says they are too dangerous to be released here, and because they fear reprisals from China. It's a pickle.

Human Rights Watch says the real problem is that these men are no threat but will serve as reminders of the current administrationsadministration's bad deeds. If that's true, they may be released once a new administration takes office.

In any case, it's not about the military--it's about the administration.

[AgentM]

Why is it a cop out? They have no right to live in the US. Their time in Guantanamo conveys no such rights.

You said:

It's not in our borders. It's no more the US than Ramstein AFB. If it were an embassy, that would be different.

For one thing, you lease the Gitmo territory, so it's yours. Even if you didn't lease it (and were there by force) it would be de facto yours through it being your base!

A branch of the American government took these men. They are now your responsibility.

You had charity services who were willing and ready to take these men. I don't see why you couldn't have handed them over to them, maybe just get assurances that the charities would watch them and make sure they didn't bolt. If you detain people, and then find them innocent and can't send them back home, it should be your responsibility to provide refugee services to them in your home territory, whether you like it or not.

[mataj]

The obvious reason is that we have literally tens of thousands of people (maybe add a zero to that number) who were let into the US on the condition they show up for a hearing about their status--and who were never heard from again. I don't know what it's like in your country, but mine is big and so free you can get lost in it really easily. Remember those 7-12 million undocumented workers we can't find?Uncompareable. Immigrants came by their own free will.

[Atticus]

You said:



For one thing, you lease the Gitmo territory, so it's yours. Even if you didn't lease it (and were there by force) it would be de facto yours through it being your base!Military bases have a special status in law--even international law.

A branch of the American government took these men. They are now your responsibility. That's true.

You had charity services who were willing and ready to take these men. I don't see why you couldn't have handed them over to them, maybe just get assurances that the charities would watch them and make sure they didn't bolt. If you detain people, and then find them innocent and can't send them back home, it should be your responsibility to provide refugee services to them in your home territory, whether you like it or not.The problem isn't whether they will have someone to feed and clothe them. The problem is that they could, once they are here, disappear. We know there are sleeper cells in the US who would do us harm. They could hook up with one of them. People disappear in my country all the time. We don't have good ways of tracking people and our laws would prevent us from treating these men like any other legal aliens. As I said, there are literally 10's of thousands of unaccounted for aliens in the US.

[AgentM]

The problem isn't whether they will have someone to feed and clothe them. The problem is that they could, once they are here, disappear. We know there are sleeper cells in the US who would do us harm. They could hook up with one of them. People disappear in my country all the time. We don't have good ways of tracking people and our laws would prevent us from treating these men like any other legal aliens. As I said, there are literally 10's of thousands of unaccounted for aliens in the US.

Couldn't you put them under a type of house-arrest? Attach tracker bracelets to their ankles?

[Atticus]

Couldn't you put them under a type of house-arrest? Attach tracker bracelets to their ankles?Not if they haven't been convicted of something or are under some charges. That would be a violation of their civil rights, which they would have under our laws as soon as they hit US soil.

[AgentM]

Not if they haven't been convicted of something or are under some charges. That would be a violation of their civil rights, which they would have under our laws as soon as they hit US soil.

Fair enough. Maybe a task for the next admin. should be to attempt to come up with a legal system to deal with situations such as this.

[Jarlaxle]

There's a solution to this: put them in rowboats in international waters & leave them. Problem solved.