Actually we have taken the Uighurs, they are under our custody? protection? Everyone else has the same problem, if they take them can they imprison them? Do they have to release them? Can they make them stay in the host country? Do they want them to stay? It’s a tough call.

Turns out our government won’t take these Uighurs either. So apparently China is the dominant nation of the planet now? I say this because nobody seem to want to “upset them”. Am I right?

“The Holy Bible tells us, ‘Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.’ … The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God’s vision. Now, that must be our work here on Earth.”

President Obama – Cairo, Egypt June 2009

Best. President. Ever.

I never said anything about the phrase war on terror. The case of these 17 men doesn’t have anything to do with the justification of failure thereof for the Iraqi invasion.

I never said the US was at war with the Ugihrs.

I never said I was in favor of holding them indefinitely. I’ve always been in favor of prosecuting and trying terrorists as criminal conspirators.

What I said, is that 10 of these guys were apprehended, and admitted to they were in Afghanistan to receive paramilitary training to join the ETIM, an organization that is recognized by the UN as a terrorist group, or call it a criminal conspiracy.

I said that there was a sticky situation regarding them and that I could see the argument that 10/17 of these guys constitute a potential security risk.

If the other 7 guys where there on business fine, then release them, give them a million dollars and a new Cadillac.

However, as you spelled out the 10 guys seeking to join ETIM can, and I believe should be treated as criminals.

The fact they weren’t picked up in China _is_ the evidence, they were picked up in Afghanistan, looking for paramilitary training and to join a terrorist organization or criminal conspiracy, whichever you prefer; again, this is by their own admission.

ETIM is the same as RIRA or ETA are or the FLQ were. Then we should charge them with criminal conspiracy to commit murder and set a trial date or return them to China.

If you are talking about the “war on terrorism” then please note: (1) that catchphrase died with the Bush administration; (2) it never was a real war, it was (a) a collection of laws and international conventions to deal with dangerous malcontents and (b) another false pretense to invade Iraq:

Cheney said in an interview on Fox News:

“On the question of whether or not Iraq was involved in 9-11, there was never any evidence to prove that,” he told the Fox host. “There was “some reporting early on … but that was never borne out… [President] George [Bush] … did say and did testify that there was an ongoing relationship between al-Qaeda and Iraq, but no proof that Iraq was involved in 9-11.”

How important is Cheney’s admission?

Well, 5 hours after the 9/11 attacks, Donald Rumsfeld said “my interest is to hit Saddam”.

He also said “Go massive . . . Sweep it all up. Things related and not.”

One would – if one were to look at the rational rather than emotional arguments or economic arguments (!) – come to the conclusion that terrorists are essentially politically motivated criminals, as McDonald has concluded:

The Director of Public Prosecutions and head of the Crown Prosecution Service in the United Kingdom, Ken McDonald — Britain’s most senior criminal prosecutor — has stated that those responsible for acts of terror such as the 7 July 2005 London bombings are not “soldiers” in a war, but “inadequates” who should be dealt with by the criminal justice system. He added that a “culture of legislative restraint” was needed in passing anti-terrorism laws, and that a “primary purpose” of the violent attacks was to tempt countries such as Britain to “abandon our values.” He stated that in the eyes of the British criminal justice system, the response to terrorism had to be “proportionate, and grounded in due process and the rule of law”:

“London is not a battlefield. Those innocents who were murdered…were not victims of war. And the men who killed them were not, as in their vanity they claimed on their ludicrous videos, ‘soldiers’. They were deluded, narcissistic inadequates. They were criminals. They were fantasists. We need to be very clear about this. On the streets of London there is no such thing as a war on terror. The fight against terrorism on the streets of Britain is not a war. It is the prevention of crime, the enforcement of our laws, and the winning of justice for those damaged by their infringement.”

So yes Jayson, let’s not simplify things too much, but on the other hand there is a need to weed out some of the crap.

The Uighurs were not even picked up in China, cannot be tied to any crimes via any reasonable application of a valid justice mechanism, and have been detained for an ungodly length of time.

It is time to set the imprisoned Uighurs free and make reparations for their improper imprisonment in America’s Guantanamo torture gulag. If no country will take them back, then the best option I can think of – this late at night – are to drop them off in Antarctica with a year’s worth of provisions (as a partial reparation payment) and a promise to return each year with another years worth of provisions as a sort of annuity payment of reparations for the survivors. It worked in Australia. ;-)