US wants others to deal with its problems

[Ekiqa]

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/646034

Canada has refused a plea from the Obama administration to take in 17 Chinese Muslims imprisoned without charge for more than seven years at Guantanamo Bay.

The Uighur captives, including two who staged an unprecedented public protest this week, have been cleared for release by U.S. courts but are stuck at the Cuban prison until Washington finds a country willing to provide asylum.

A spokesperson for Prime Minister Stephen Harper said inquiries made in the last couple of weeks concerning the Uighurs were rebuffed.

"There are security concerns related to Guantanamo detainees," Kory Teneycke said last night. "There really is no rationale for accepting them into the country."

In Guantanamo's first public protest, two of the Uighur detainees on Monday held up messages written in crayon on sketch pads as a small group of visiting journalists, including one from the Star, walked by.

"We need to freedom (sic)," said one message.

The Pentagon prohibits journalists from speaking to detainees and stopped the release of journalists' photos of the protests until the White House relented Tuesday.

China has requested the return of the Uighurs (pronounced WEE-gurs) but the U.S. has refused, due to fears of possible torture.

Beijing has waged a campaign against the separatist activities of Muslim Uighurs from Xinjiang Autonomous Region.

Beijing warned in February that any country that accepted the Uighur detainees would be seen as harbouring terrorists.

President Barack Obama has vowed to close Guatanamo's prison by the end of January 2010 and the Uighur cases present some of the legal and diplomatic challenges his administration faces in dealing with the remaining 240 detainees.

Making an appeal to European nations in April, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder encouraged all nations to make sacrifices and unpopular choices to help close Guantanamo.

Only two detainees have been released since Obama took power and the administration has refused to settle any prisoners in the U.S.

"It seems increasingly unlikely, if he's not able to make concessions in some of the easier cases, it will become more and more difficult," said Alexander Abdo, a lawyer with ACLU's National Security Project.

The sole Western detainee remaining in Guantanamo is Canadian Omar Khadr. Now 22, Khadr was shot and captured in a firefight with U.S. troops in Afghanistan in 2002. He is charged with five war crimes, including murder for allegedly killing a U.S. soldier.

The Uighur detainees were captured in Afghanistan in late 2001, but have been cleared for release since 2004. Albania accepted five in 2006 but no other country has since offered to provide refuge.

A U.S. federal judge ordered the Uighurs be given sanctuary in the U.S. because the Pentagon no longer considered them enemy combatants. The Bush administration appealed the ruling, which was overturned.

Last week the Obama administration argued in a filing to the Supreme Court that the ruling blocking the Uighurs' entry to the U.S. should be upheld.

They should be allowed to settle in the US, with pensions. The US brought them over, ruined their lives, tortured them, so the US should deal with it.

[The Romulan Republic]

Of course, one could just as easily say "Harper denies detainees a chance at a new life," or something like that. America probably should take them, but without knowing more its possible Obama's hands at least are tied (I know a lot of state governments have rejected taking Guantanamo inmates).

What's Harper's rational here? Is it some bullshit idea that despite being cleared they must somehow be presumed guilty? Or is it sucking up to China? Or simply political pandering?

[MKSheppard]

Here's an idea! Lets give them to the Chinese Ministry of State Security. There, they can answer such fun questions as:

"Why were you training in jihad with a known terrorist group?"

"What were your plans to attack targets in China?"

And after a few go-rounds, they can be executed in the new Execution Buses that China uses!

[Broomstick]

They should be allowed to settle in the US, with pensions. The US brought them over, ruined their lives, tortured them, so the US should deal with it.

What if they don't want to live in the US? I seriously doubt they'd have any affection for the place.

[Stark]

What's Harper's rational here? Is it some bullshit idea that despite being cleared they must somehow be presumed guilty? Or is it sucking up to China? Or simply political pandering?

Eh? How about 'do we want to take those guys you imprisoned, tortured and now want to wash your hands of? No, actually'. Look at this -

Making an appeal to European nations in April, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder encouraged all nations to make sacrifices and unpopular choices to help close Guantanamo.

I mean, LOL. Let's all get together and really fix the world... let's start by hiding America's shame!

[Samuel]

And after a few go-rounds, they can be executed in the new Execution Buses that China uses!

I'm filled with a mixed of loathing and admiration. Only China...

Anyway, why don't we do that? It says we refused due to fears of possible torture , but if the Chinese promised to try and execute them, would we send them over?

[The Romulan Republic]

Eh? How about 'do we want to take those guys you imprisoned, tortured and now want to wash your hands of? No, actually'. Look at this -

Ok, I'm not saying Canada should have to take them. But if the US is refusing to do so, why shouldn't Canada take the high ground and accept them, rather than hiding by blaming America? Why should America's misdeeds be an excuse for Canada's?

Now, if these people were found to be guilty of actual serious crimes that would be a different matter. But if not, then regardless of who's responsibility they should be, someone's got to take them, and ethically Canada shouldn't just toss them aside like everyone else and then try to wash its hands by saying "America did it first."

I mean, LOL. Let's all get together and really fix the world... let's start by hiding America's shame!

I for one am not supporting hiding anything. America should not have mistreated anyone in the first place, and it should do what's possible to repair the damage now. That said, if America won't take them, someone else should take them and prove they can do better. That's not helping America hide anything. That's doing the right thing and setting an example.

Anyway, since when was Canada blameless? We're an ally in Afghanistan if not in Iraq, and I would not be at all surprised to learn that some of the Guantanamo detainees were originally captured by Canadian troops. Is Canada, indeed, truly blameless?

[Stark]

Ok, I'm not saying Canada should have to take them. But if the US is refusing to do so, why shouldn't Canada take the high ground and accept them, rather than hiding by blaming America? Why should America's misdeeds be an excuse for Canada's?

Precedent. Next time America wants to offload someone, and Canada says no, people will just hit the OMG BLACK/YELLOW/PINK PERSON HATERS button and Canada will look BAD for being open now. Politicians know how this works.

Anyway, since when was Canada blameless? We're an ally in Afghanistan if not in Iraq, and I would not be at all surprised to learn that some of the Guantanamo detainees were originally captured by Canadian troops. Is Canada, indeed, truly blameless?

Who cares? Are you saying that handing over prisoners to the Americans makes the Canadian government or military culpable for the conduct of American prisons?

[The Romulan Republic]

Precedent. Next time America wants to offload someone, and Canada says no, people will just hit the OMG BLACK/YELLOW/PINK PERSON HATERS button and Canada will look BAD for being open now. Politicians know how this works.

Fair point. But what's the alternative? Accept that all these detainees will be incarcerated for the rest of their lives?

I mean, I suppose other nations could put political pressure on America to fix the mess themselves, but even if Obama wants to, how much can he accomplish with the states and the Congress playing obstructionist on this issue?

Who cares? Are you saying that handing over prisoners to the Americans makes the Canadian government or military culpable for the conduct of American prisons?

Does Canada have some responsibility? To put it bluntly, yes. Oh they might not be legally culpable (I honestly wouldn't know), but from a moral/ethical standpoint, Canada's hands are in no way clean when it comes to the War on Terror.

Incidentally, I have a vague recollection of a case I read about in my Grade 12 Law class in which Canada refused to turn a prisoner over to America without assurances that he would not be executed. Granted, I think the prisoner in that case was a Canadian citizen. It might not be related to this Guantanamo case, but you asked weather I was saying that Canada was responsible for the treatment of prisoners handed over to America.

Sadly, I can't provide a source, since the only place I heard about it was a law class in school on the other side of the country which didn't let me keep my textbooks.

[Themightytom]

Aren't there relativel isolated areas of the US we could put detainees in or is this NIMBY. Why not put them in guam for example. Sure there's a military base but... there's a military base. Its not like they'd be going anywhere without npermission.

My first thought was Alaska, and then I decided that would be a dick move for them because its cold, AND Palin would probably hunt them for sport.

Then I thought Puerto Rico

[Wing Commander MAD]

I honestly can't speak for the U.S. protectorates, but I am actually afraid of releasing these people in the U.S. proper. I would have to say that their safety is probably greatly at risk just about anywhere you put them other than some of the hyper liberal cities, and even then... The more remote the area you release them in, the higher chance they have of meeting racist rednecks who would lynch them if they were lucky. The way the GOP and Fox are acting, I can guarantee there will be violence directed against these people by some individuals or groups. If the stories about Fox not taking all the steps to protect abortion doctors identity are true, I can only imagine what assholery they would do to these individuals. I am thinking these guys are going to need presidential level protection for the rest of their lives if they live in the U.S. and even then I am not certain that people in the government wouldn't "accidently" let info slip through the cracks to the wackos and just plain gulllible people who listen to Rush and Hanity. I can only imagine the disaster that releasing them to the South or South West would be, they would probably be at risk from the law enforcement. I don't even think releasing them here in Pennslyvania would be a good idea, and we're fairly liberal compared to Ohio and our southern neighbors (well at least outside the rural parts of PA).

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

They should be allowed to settle in the US, with pensions. The US brought them over, ruined their lives, tortured them, so the US should deal with it.

Oh sure. How about the lives they ruined in Afghanistan?

You know I have to agree with Shep. Technically, we should return them to where they belong, which is China. I suppose you should be fine with that.

[Stark]

Fair point. But what's the alternative? Accept that all these detainees will be incarcerated for the rest of their lives?

I mean, I suppose other nations could put political pressure on America to fix the mess themselves, but even if Obama wants to, how much can he accomplish with the states and the Congress playing obstructionist on this issue?

This is exactly what conservative blowhards keep saying. Everyone else SHOULD accept America's prisoners, because otherwise they'll be incarcerated by the US forever! Clearly this is everyone's responsiblity and not that of the US.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

This is exactly what conservative blowhards keep saying. Everyone else SHOULD accept America's prisoners, because otherwise they'll be incarcerated by the US forever! Clearly this is everyone's responsiblity and not that of the US.

Not every fucker in that prison happened to be caught by the United States. Some of them there were sent over by foreign countries who would rather NOT keep them.

And yes, if no one wants to keep them, of course tehy would stay incarcerated in the US or in Guantanamo, with or without any conservatard hornblowing or not. So you are not making any sense.

[Stark]

I forgot criminals had a return policy. If the US was keen to take these prisoners (and hold them without trial, torture, etc) why should anyone 'take them back'? They're not merchandise.

Regardless, talking about prisoners captured by others and being refused handling by the country that did capture them is a red herring unless it's the case here.

[Lord of the Abyss]

They should be allowed to settle in the US, with pensions. The US brought them over, ruined their lives, tortured them, so the US should deal with it.

Oh sure. How about the lives they ruined in Afghanistan?

Do you have any evidence they did any such thing ?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Do you have any evidence they did any such thing ?

And how would they end up there? There are Uighur Separatists who have been waging a guerrilla war against Beijing for years. That means, that likely these were militants who ended up in Afghanistan, and traveled there by foot and mule. (Which is possible and the route is damn fucking old and dates back to the Silk Road days) And so they ended up working for the Taliban which has successfully attracted militants from all corners of the Muslim world.

I suppose everyone here has forgotten that Uighur Separatism in the Xinjiang province is active as hell and that news has largely been suppressed. Why the fuck does China want them? SO they can interrogate them to death and find out their activities and how they fucking got to Afghanistan and the links involved.

[Alyeska]

Do you have any evidence they did any such thing ?

And how would they end up there? There are Uighur Separatists who have been waging a guerrilla war against Beijing for years. That means, that likely these were militants who ended up in Afghanistan, and traveled there by foot and mule. (Which is possible and the route is damn fucking old and dates back to the Silk Road days) And so they ended up working for the Taliban which has successfully attracted militants from all corners of the Muslim world.

I suppose everyone here has forgotten that Uighur Separatism in the Xinjiang province is active as hell and that news has largely been suppressed. Why the fuck does China want them? SO they can interrogate them to death and find out their activities and how they fucking got to Afghanistan and the links involved.

Other countries shipped these people to the US without a shred of evidence as to who they really are or what they did. Why the fuck should we detain them for crimes NOT committed against this country? We have no charges to put against them. We accepted responsibility for them. If we cannot return them home, then we fucking well should release them in our country. Yes, I believe that. I wouldn't even have a problem with them being released in my home town.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Other countries shipped these people to the US without a shred of evidence as to who they really are or what they did. Why the fuck should we detain them for crimes NOT committed against this country? We have no charges to put against them. We accepted responsibility for them. If we cannot return them home, then we fucking well should release them in our country. Yes, I believe that. I wouldn't even have a problem with them being released in my home town.

They have no US citizenship. And no citizenship will be granted. ARe you suggesting the government breaks laws and release illegal immigrants? Do you realise that it all sounds stupid?

[Alyeska]

Other countries shipped these people to the US without a shred of evidence as to who they really are or what they did. Why the fuck should we detain them for crimes NOT committed against this country? We have no charges to put against them. We accepted responsibility for them. If we cannot return them home, then we fucking well should release them in our country. Yes, I believe that. I wouldn't even have a problem with them being released in my home town.

They have no US citizenship. And no citizenship will be granted. ARe you suggesting the government breaks laws and release illegal immigrants? Do you realise that it all sounds stupid?

I am suggesting that the Untied States fucking own up to its mistakes and release these people. If it requires paperwork, do the fucking paperwork. We took responsibility for these peoples lives. They have committed NO crime against the US. We have no justification to hold them indefinitely.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I am suggesting that the Untied States fucking own up to its mistakes and release these people. If it requires paperwork, do the fucking paperwork. We took responsibility for these peoples lives. They have committed NO crime against the US. We have no justification to hold them indefinitely.

Release where? Into the sea and watch them drown?

They have been found to have raised arms or conspired against the United States or their allies, but they cannot be tried with 100% surety of a conviction. They will not be granted a citizenship and no one wants to grant them asylum, and many of their home countries don't give a shit, and those that do, will simply execute them after a lengthy session of torture. All fine to go onto the high pedestal and pontificate, but it does not change the realities of the law.

[Lord of the Abyss]

They have been found to have raised arms or conspired against the United States or their allies,

And how do you know THAT, either ?

[Stark]

Why are idiots so big on 'reality' of 'law' or politics when it supports their position, but not when it has obvious explanations for the actions of others? Shit I wonder what 'realities of the law' might be behind Canada's refusal in this case!

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

They have been found to have raised arms or conspired against the United States or their allies,

And how do you know THAT, either ?

You mean the US ARmy goes around rounding up people to prison for fun? What next? Another conspiracy theory?

Why are idiots so big on 'reality' of 'law' or politics when it supports their position, but not when it has obvious explanations for the actions of others? Shit I wonder what 'realities of the law' might be behind Canada's refusal in this case!

Sure. Why not? If the organiser of the Bali Bombings were returned, it's very likely he will also be put into detention without trial, especially if he ended up in Malaysia or Singapore. And if he were in Indonesia, I would place bets there would be a jail break within weeks to months.

[Alyeska]

Release where? Into the sea and watch them drown?

Real clever fuck face. Release them into our country as FREE MEN.

They have been found to have raised arms or conspired against the United States or their allies

What court of law shitstain?

but they cannot be tried with 100% surety of a conviction.

Oh, so they have NOT been found guilty of ANYTHING.

They will not be granted a citizenship and no one wants to grant them asylum, and many of their home countries don't give a shit, and those that do, will simply execute them after a lengthy session of torture. All fine to go onto the high pedestal and pontificate, but it does not change the realities of the law.

So we fucking grant them asylum in the United States. We assumed control of their lives and we don't have the fucking right to lock them away for the rest of their lives when they haven't committed a single fucking crime against this country.

Are you a fucking idiot or something?