POL - Shouldn't the US feel some kind of obligation?
 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060417/...NlYwMlJVRPUCUl


Excuse me, but I just don't understand how, from an ethical standpoint, the US government can justify continuing to imprison these guys while asking other countries to bear the burden for a mistake we made.

What kind of compensation did you have in mind?

Releasing them from Guantanamo and letting them come to the US.

Well if the chinese are ready to kill them they prob. arent too innocent. Just not the terrorists we thought, but im betting prob. pretty bad guys overall...

Maybe. I wonder how the press would handle that decision?

Yeah, these aren't just simple peasants caught up in the war. These were, terriorist in training.

I'd give them the choice to go back to China or stay where they are until either the US finds them a country to take them or they die of old age.

That sounds more than fair to me.

The US shouldn't be asking other countries to do something we're not willing to do ourselves.

The Uighurs are an oppressed minority in China.

I agree, the US shouldn't be asking other countries to do something like that, that's why I'd suggest either waiting for a country to step up and take them (which is what I meant by finding them a country) or give them the choice I outlined above. That's the obligation I think the US has and that's about as far as I'd go.

Sadly, there are lots of oppressed people in the world. I don't think that justifies them all training to become terrorists.

Boston Tea Party

The Crusades

i think that those are not comparable. One was a minority revolting against their leadership the other is an aggressive attack to take land, and spread faith. I think my framework is correct however Im sure there are differing opinions on "why" these things occurred.

I don't follow. If they were training with the Taliban where "they were learning techniques they planned to use against the Chinese government", then why not send them back to China and let them be punished for their crimes??

Cause we want them to start shit with China? Or maybe we didn't have enough evidence to support the claim they were learning to start shit with China.

Isn't Az-Hakim going back to St. Louis?

That was my point.

You seriously can't be justifying terrorism on a single event that happened hundreds of years ago can you?

not at all, just that revolutionaries are not automatically "terrorists" as W would have it be defined. Unfortunately this is the debate that crosses paths with the history writers vs. losers of battles.

At this time we are the red coats, per se, on a more global scale. I happen to like where we are in history so I do not look back at the past 250 years and see bad decisions for the most part.

They can go home or they can rot, they don't belong in the United States.

Maybe because China's policy towards Uighurs is not something we want to support... Supporting China's crackdown on Uighurs in violation of human rights standards is one of those dirty little compromises we made in pursuance of the "with us or against" policy on terrorism. Now it seems we're having second thoughts about how far we're willing to pursue that, and I say kudos to the U.S. for not just handing them over. If they're not enemy combatants, which the military commission has said they're not (and did so in a process where the presumption lies against the detainees (i.e. guilty until proven innocent)), maybe they should be allowed to file for political asylum in the U.S.

And that petition should be denied.

If you want people to take you in and protect you, DONT TRAIN TO BE A FUCKING TERRORIST. Don't get caught fleeing from a terrorist training camp, don't get involved with terrorists.


seems simple enough, they should not be given access to this nation.

Thanks for the info. I'm not exactly mr up-to-date on current events or politics. I must agree with Render though, although they may have not been enemy combatants, I really don't think I would want to give citizenship to 2 men who were caught fleeing a Taliban terrorist camp.

the fact that they were hanging with the Taliban is the kink in the argument, vanilla, Id say let them apply for asylum but throwing in the fact that they were hanging with the enemy is mucho different.

I agree. Nothing is stating that they aren't allowed in the US because they are Uighurs. They aren't be allowed in the United States because they were training at terrorist camps in Afghanistan.

couldn't agree more

If that's not reason enough to keep somebody out of our country, nothing is.

Well, from some Googling I did, it appears the Uighur "terrorism" doesn't amount to much, and the Chinese government is the chief perpetrator of violence in that region. I'm not convinced it's legitimate to call these two terrorists under the circumstances.

Being that I really don't know anything about this or what Uighur even is, I may have no clue what I'm talking about, but isn't being caught fleeing from a taliban terrorist camp a legitimate reason enough??

I think these are two separate issues.

Issue 1. The two Uighur militants probably should not be allowed entry into the US by virtue of being caught in a terrorist training camp.

Issue 2. The Chinese basically used 9/11 as an excuse to abuse it's ethnic minorities even further. The United States does not want to legitimize Chinese human rights policy by returning the militants, and I tend to agree with this reasoning.

Bellbottoms

I'm not sure exactly what they were caught doing. But I'm inclined to think that if we had ANY evidence that they were training in terrorist camps that we wouldn't be looking to find a coutry to take them off of our hands. We'd just leave them where they were. If they were training in a terrorist camp, then I'd be really disappointed if we were doing anything more generous than letting them rot in jail in Gitmo.

This is more or less what I thought as well. And if that is the case, I think we have some obligation to get them out of Gitmo..

I can see why we would be against the human rights violations against the Uighur, but is it really right for us the hold these men from justice in their home country if they were training in a terrorist camp? I'm just asking a question here. And here is another. How is the US holding them for life in prison without trial not a human rights violation in and of itself?

Fair questions.

As for your first question--it may not be right for the US to interfere in the domestic politics of other countries or to use individuals as pawns to further policy goals, but US foreign policy aims certainly do seem to be at play here. These guys will not be going back to China for the same reasons that Posada (the highest profile terrorist the US happens to be harboring) is not going to be returned to Cuba or Venezuela.

As for the second question--yes, another conundrum. I think the US really does want to be rid of them ASAP, but have found no takers...

Give them to Iraq.

Do we have formal relations with Venezuela? We do, don't we?



I blame Canada.

As far as I know we do.

:D That would have been a much better response and gotten my point across much better.

There is one thing that I don't understand. At least here (Spain) being part of a terrorist group is a crime. Are they part of a terrorist group?

If there are proofs of this, they should be prosecuted (probably in Afghanistan)

If there are not proofs, the US has to compensate these people. Probably with the compensation there will be countries willing to accept them

Not to mention, who would play catcher?