US paid $200M to Palau to take care of 17 Uyghur detainees

That there is an extradition treaty between the US and the PRC or that the PRC will present evidence that these people are terrrorists?

 

It would cause a huge political firestorm. I think our government just wants to see this issue gone.

 

Did you even read the article or the thread? It was addressed in the original article and then addressed again multiple times in the thread.

 

This evidence sounds circumstantial at best. IMO if there is solid evidence that these people are plannint terrorists acts against the PRC the PRC should present its case for an extradition hearing and if the evidence is solid they should be extradited to the PRC.

 

Acutally I could care less about where these people are relocated. The only thing I wanted to point out was depending on who is involved the US government and people in the US have totally different reactions for similiar actions.

 

And that's a point that you are illustrating nicely for us with respect to the hundreds of other detainees who were released for the exact same reason (nothing to charge them with) who you seem to have no problem releasing.

 

I do not know much about the other people being released, so I cannot comment on them much. However, I won't defend the release of these people as I do not know the facts. If they had planned on hitting other countries like Russia for example, I have no problem of them being turned over to the Russian government.

If they were just totally innocent people that the US army just happend to nab for what ever reason then they should be released.

 

There's been somewhere between 5 or 600 people released without charges, most of them are either super-low level guys for whom nothing can be charged in a US court or guys taken by mistake in the wrong place at the wrong time. Which appears to be the case for the Uighur detainees.

There are a number of other countries that the US won't return prisoners too, for example the US doesn't want to return militants (actual militants against whom there are actual charges/sentences) to Yemen becuase there is fear tha they will be released or allowed to escape and re-join their old groups.

The US did return some to Russia in 2004 after the Russian's said the they woudl prosecute them and it proved to be a huge embarrassment, first the Russian's let them out to spite the US so that they could go on speaking tours saying how bad the US was ...then after a few years they re-arrested them and convicted them after the first few trials didn't work. An ugly affair all around.

 

Did one american who was captured in one of the Camps did exactly the same thing? Has he been declared innocent as well?

Anyway, the impression, which I got from morning NPR report, is that these guys pose no threat to US and thus should be released from US prisons. I don't think that the US court cares to establish whether they are posing a terrorist threat to China.

 

That was my whole point in this thread.

 

Well, if the State Department itself varies from time to time in its definition/designation of international terrorist organizations, what can you expect from a court which may have to make decisions based on interpretation of the guidelines set forth by the said department?

Also, the independence of judicial system sounds good in theory, but it is also heavily influenced by political and/or societal climate of the time. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were established in the days of Independence, how do you explain slavery was in place for the better part of the first centenary?

 

The state department has nothing to do with the enemy combatant designation, which the SCT has ruled is basically nonsense anyway.

 

I will take your word for it, but the China to Israel comparison made me scratch my head a few times.

 

You might be thinking of John Walker Lindh, the so-called American Taliban. If I recall correctly he was going to be tried but pleaded guilty before trial. I don't know all the facts of his case but from what I remember at the time I don't think he should've been convicted even though he had joined Al Qaeda. He joined before the 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan and had turned down being trained to take on terrorists missions. He was captured by the Norther Alliance, not US soldiers, and there is no evidence supporting that he was fighting or planning on fighting the US.

There are laws regarding extradition and while the US doesn't have an extradition treaty with the PRC I don't see why the US wouldn't extradite them if their is solid evidence. It removes a headache for the US in regard to what to do with these people.

 

You idiotic comments had reached a new bottom. Xinjiang never was "occupied territory." Ethnic Hans were there far before the Uyghurs ever were.

But I'm sure the Chinese government would have no problems mass deporting them to Siberia, where they actually were initially located. Of course, had an alternate history happened, they probably won't have survived the Stalinist purgings.

You really should bother looking up your history before agreeing with Ottomaton.

 

The proper term is "have reached a new bottom" - please try to abide by forum policies in the future, including proper use of verb tenses.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090612/ap_on_re_as/as_us_palau_guantanamo

Chinese Muslims trigger public backlash in Palau

KOROR, Palau – The tiny Pacific nation of Palau's decision to allow 13 Chinese Muslims from the Guantanamo Bay prison camp to resettle there has sparked anger among islanders who fear for the safety of the tranquil tourist haven.

The U.S. government determined last year that the Chinese Muslims, or Uighurs, were not enemy combatants and should be released from the U.S. military prison in Cuba. China has objected to their resettlement, calling the men "terrorist suspects" and demanding they be sent home.

The U.S. has said it fears the men would be executed if they were returned to China.

Palau President Johnson Toribiong explained his decision to grant the Uighurs entry as traditional hospitality, but public opinion has appeared overwhelmingly negative. Some complained Friday that the government failed to consult the people.

"I totally disagree" with allowing the Uighurs onto Palau, Natalia Baulis, a 30-year-old mother of two, told The Associated Press by telephone.

"It's good to be humanitarian and all, but still these people ... to me are scary," she said.

The Uighurs (pronounced WEE'-gurs) have been in custody since they were captured in Afghanistan and Pakistan in 2001.

Fermin Nariang, editor of the Palau newspaper Island Times, said he had been stopped in the streets of the capital, Koror, by residents venting their anger.

"This is a very small country ... and some are saying if the whole world doesn't want these folks, why are we taking them?" Nariang said.

The newspaper quoted islander Debedebk Mongami as saying, "I'm also afraid this news is going to scare the tourists who plan to come to Palau."

The Palau Chamber of Commerce, which represents the country's multimillion dollar hotel industry, did not return calls seeking comment Friday.

Toribiong has denied the move was influenced by any massive aid package from Washington, saying instead that the Uighurs had become "international vagabonds" who deserved a fresh start.

"Palau's people are always on the side of the U.S. government," Toribiong said.

He said Palau would send a delegation to Guantanamo to assess the Uighur detainees. It was unclear when this would happen or when the Uighurs would arrive in the island nation.

Four other Uighurs left Guantanamo Bay for a new home in Bermuda on Thursday. Some residents of the North Atlantic island were also unhappy, with dozens unleashing their anger on the Facebook page of a local newspaper, The Royal Gazette.

Even Britain, which handles Bermuda's defense, security and foreign affairs, expressed displeasure at the deal.

The British Foreign Office complained that Bermuda's leaders failed to consult "whether this falls within their competence or is a security issue for which the Bermuda government do not have delegated responsibility."

Although the Pentagon said the 17 Uighurs were not enemy combatants, the Obama administration has faced fierce congressional opposition to allowing them into the U.S. as free men. China says no other country should take them.

On Thursday, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang told a news conference that the U.S. should "stop handing over terrorist suspects to any third country, so as to expatriate them to China at an early date." He did not say if China would take any action in response.

Toribiong said Palau did not consider China's reaction when it accepted the U.S. request to temporarily resettle the detainees.

Palau has eight main islands and more than 250 islets, and is a former U.S. trust territory that has retained close ties with the United States since independence in 1994.

Some 20,000 people live in Palau, a predominantly Christian nation.

 

You are absolutely right Sammy. What can I say, quick 20 second response. An hastily constructed response appropriate to the initial "argument" it is intended to reply.

Check the grammar to this one too while you're at it so I can take even less time in the future.

 

A hasty man drinks his tea with a fork.

 

I wish somebody somewhere could stop being such a wuss and just take these guys. I don't have any problem if they want to move in next door to me. But, I suppose my representatives in Congress would probably have a hissy fit.