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

Really? When, and under what circumstances did they say this? And what section of the US Code did they violate by saying this?

The US State Department classifies them as one

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/rpt/fto/2801.htm

 

That did not violate any US code. I just want to make sure terrorist is not defined by what they do but by who they target.

 

It is defined by what they do - that's why at least 600+ detainees have already been released.

 

Yes, but what makes Hamas differ from the Uyghur fighting in China? Yet because they are fighting in China and not Isreal they are not terrorists.

 

Not really, it's because they are not threatening US interests or US nationals, which is what lands you on the State Department terrorist list.

There's thousands of terrorist organizations that are not on the US terrorist list, ranging from IRA splinter factions to Indian Communist Guerillas. You're reading too much into it.

 

Of course, if they did not committ or plan to committ any terrorist acts they should be released. If they committed or plan to committ terrorist acts against China they should be released as well. If they plan to committ terrorist acts in Cuba or North Korea then we should fund them.

 

Sammy, you linked source is dated October 8, 1999.

Here's a much more recent (April 30, 2007) update on foreign entities that the U.S. State Department consider as terrorist organizations:

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2006/82734.htm

"Supporters of terrorist groups such as al-Qaida, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), the Islamic Jihad Union (IJU), and the East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM)."

These Uihgur terrorist suspects are associated with ETIM.

 

ETIM is not on the US State Dep't list of designated terrorist organizations, which carries certain legal ramifications.

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm

YOur list is not the official FTO list.

edit: It appears they are on the TEL (terrorist exclusion list) - which is a patriot act thing that is not the same as the FTO list (most of the difference stems from the ability to prosecute people for donating to w/respect to FTO, but not with respect to TEL)

 

I undertand the logic pretty well. When fighting terrorist, do not consider the acts of terrorism, but who is involved, that is the key. Other nations should do the same, why bother worrying about global terrorism?

 

I agree - now, I asked you before and I'll ask you again - what crime did these men commit that they should be charged with under US law? The DOJ couldn't come up with anything - do you have a better theory?

You need to provide some proof please. As I stated before, despite what the Bush administration may have tried to do, in this country you need to prove somebody commited something or there is some legal cause to detain them.

YOu seem to be just whining because these guys are Chinese - again, hundred of prisoners of various nationalities were released because the US was unable to prove they commited any crime - I don't see Afghan or Pakistani or Saudi CF.net members whining in this thread the way you are. I mean the US has released hundreds of people from those countries out of Guantanamo.

 

This list does appear to be the most recent. I'll give you that.

However, the criteria for designating these terrorist organizations is defined as:

"Legal Criteria for Designation under Section 219 of the INA as amended:

3. The organization’s terrorist activity or terrorism must threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security (national defense, foreign relations, or the economic interests) of the United States."

Here's the question: isn't the relation with PRC as well as the economic interests of the U.S. a matter of U.S. national security?

 

Sure you could make the argument that the secretary should designate them an FTO rather than just the TEL, but there are hundreds of small-fry terrorist organizations, operating anywhere from NOrthern Ireland to Southern Indiia, that are not on the list. ETIM doesn't appear to be a particularly active or even a large domestic threat even within China.

Edit: I should also say, as a consequence they probably dont' get much financing from the US whic is what the FTO list is primarily about stopping.

 

Here is what I read on wikipedia

link

They were there traing with Taliban, or Al Qaeda just for fun.

 

I don't know what evidence is against these guys but if the PRC has evidence that these people are terrorists and / or planning to commit terrorist acts then they should present the evidence and demand that they get extradicted to the PRC.

I don't think the US and the PRC have an extradition treaty but I'm sure if a clear cut case was made that the US would be willing to extradite them.

 

You would most likely be wrong.

 

Again I'm asking you what crime they committed. You need to give some evidence here that these are dangerous international terrorists and somehow are being given a pass only because they are Chinese, which is apparently your theory.

The DOJ hasn't applied a very high standard to prosecuting people involved with terrorism or any type of revolutionary activity. Patriot Act laws are enforced against former Hmong freedom fighters in Laos, who, if you know a bit of history, were US allies for the Vietnam war and afterward. In fact there's a criminal trial pending against General Vang Pao, the US' former #1 ally, for trying to overthrow the Laos government right now.

 

If you consider training with Taliban and Al Qaeda not evidence, I guess there no evidence. If the US sees a camp of Al Qaeda training in Africa we should just assume they are fine since they have not attacked yet.

Al Qaeda was once financed by the US in case you forgot, Ladin was trained by CIA and US supported Iraq in the war between Iran and Iraq.

 

I've been to Palau, paid my own way too!

 

From the wikipedia source linked by pirc1 earlier, the Uyghur captives in the very least admitted they received instruction on disassembling Ak-47 rifles, and firing a few rounds. They sought out the training in order to go back to China and defend their fellow Uyghurs against their Chinese occupiers. I don't know about you, but it sounds to me like confession of attempting to commit terrorism against China.

Let's just say the standard is ever evolving.

 

Uh, two federal courts have ruled that there was insufficient evidence of this so called "training" - for the people that the US even bothered to designate as enemy combatants - so maybe you should re-open the case and point the court to the wikipedia link...

provided this "confession" is even admissible in a court of law (and as stated above, this has been heard by a court of law twice) - what section of the US Code should they be prosecuted under? 18 U.S.C. is the criminal title - knock yourself out, cause the DOJ couldn't find anything, much like they couldn't fina anything for the 100's of other released detainees.