Appeals Court Blocks Uighurs Release

An appeals court has blocked the release of 17 Uighurs from Guantanamo to the U.S., at least temporarily. My concern is that the courts will look at the appeal, but allow Judge Urbina's original ruling to stand.

I still believe that Judge Urbina's ruling is myopic, and considering that he is a Clinton administration appointee, I wonder if his political persuasions are clouding his judgment.

Consider the facts of how the 17 Uighurs in question came to be in U.S. custody.

• The Uighurs were training at terrorist training camps in Afghanistan in 2001.
• When the U.S. started bombing Afghanistan following the 11 September 2001 attacks, the Uighars fled the terror camps and crossed the border into Pakistan.
• Pakistani forces captured the Uighurs and transferred them to U.S. custody.
• The Uighurs all have been associated with, or were members of, the East Turkistan Islamic Movement.
• These Uighur Islamic terrorists claim they don't want to commit terrorism against the U.S.; their target is China.

These 17 Uighurs are not some poor, misunderstood civilians who got swept-up in some terror dragnet. These Uighurs are Islamic terrorists who were training in Afghanistan in order to return to China to commit future terrorist attacks there. Here are some recent examples of Uighur terrorism in China.

A Uighur separatist group has taken credit for a deadly bus bombing in Shanghai in May and warned of new attacks in China during the Olympics, a group monitoring threats by extremists on the Internet said late on Friday.

In a video statement, Commander Seyfullah of the Turkestan Islamic Party claimed credit for several attacks, including the May 5 Shanghai bus bombing that killed three; another Shanghai attack; an attack on police in Wenzhou on July 17 using an explosive-laden tractor; a bombing of a Guangzhou plastic factory on July 17; and bombings of three buses in Yunnan Province on Thursday.
Taipei Times, 27 July 2008

---

Two women, including a teenage girl, were among the suicide attackers who launched a series of bomb attacks on a police station, government offices and shops, according to a senior official in China’s troubled north-western region of Xinjiang.

Chinese police in black body armour and carrying machine guns and rifles hunted for three escaped suspects yesterday, after the attacks on Sunday morning, the latest in a series of violent incidents apparently carried out by separatist insurgents and timed to coincide with the Beijing Olympics.
Times Online, 11 August 2008

---

Two police officers who were killed and five who were wounded in an ambush in western China on Aug. 27 were ethnic Uighurs searching for a woman who they thought might have been involved in an earlier attack, said a police officer in the village where the ambush took place.

The attackers were also Uighurs, a Muslim Turkic group common throughout the western region of Xinjiang. Brandishing knives, the attackers set upon a group of unarmed police officers as they were walking through a cornfield in the village of Qizilboy, said the police officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he did not have permission to talk to reporters.
International Herald Tribune, 02 September 2008

For a much more in depth look at the Uighurs, go to the Long War Journal.

Do we really want to release these people into civilian custody in the U.S.? Who will be accountable if any of these Uighurs leave without telling authorities where they are going, for how long, and why? Many of these questions haven't been asked in the media, and I doubt that they will.

If the tables were turned, and the Chinese were holding al Qaeda terrorists who were training to attack the U.S., would we be pleased with China releasing those terrorists in China? The Chinese do have a record of human rights abuses, but that does not mean that we should then simply release 17 individuals with ties to an Islamic terror group who were training to commit terror attacks against the Chinese. Not turning these Uighurs over to the Chinese government due to concerns over how they would be treated in Chinese custody is understandable, but releasing these same Uighurs into civilian custody on U.S. soil does not make any sense whatsoever.

Unfortunately, knowing our court system in the U.S., common sense and protection of the innocent no longer seem to win the day.

USMC 9971 OUT

Guantanamo Detainees To Be Released Into The U.S.

Yes, you read that correctly. U.S. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina has issued a ruling to release 17 Uighur detainees to Uighur families in the Washington D.C. area.

A federal judge yesterday ordered a small band of Chinese Muslims being held at the Guantanamo Bay military prison released into the United States by Friday, rejecting the Bush administration's contention that it could detain them indefinitely without cause.

It was the first time a U.S. judge has ordered the release of a Guantanamo Bay detainee, and the first time a foreign national held at the facility in Cuba has been ordered transferred to the United States.

U.S. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina issued his ruling in dramatic fashion from the bench in a packed courtroom, saying he was ordering the release of 17 Uighurs because the government provided no proof that they were enemy combatants or security risks. Under the order, the men will live with Uighur families in the Washington area until a more permanent situation can be found.

So, if the Uighurs are no longer considered enemy combatants, then why don't we send them back to China?

Uighurs cannot be sent to their homeland because the Chinese government considers them terrorists and might torture them. The United States sent five Uighurs to Albania in 2006, but no other country wants to risk offending China by accepting the others.

See, people like Judge Urbina won't send Uighurs (who were in training camps in Afghanistan in 2001) back to their native China, he won't allow us to continue to detain the Uighurs until we can find a country that is willing to take them, but he will release them into the United States. He is a U.S. District Judge who appears to be more concerned about the so-called rights of those who were training at terrorist camps in Afghanistan, than he is about the safety of U.S. citizens.

If this is how the district courts are going to act, then we need to change how we deal with these individuals on the battlefield or in hostile areas. The Uighurs fled the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan when U.S. bombing began in 2001, and crossed the border into Pakistan. The Pakistanis then captured them and turned them over to us. In similar instances in the future, we will need to interrogate them while in foreign custody, and then leave them in the custody of those who captured them. We have no responsibility to take them into U.S. custody so that they will be safer, and by doing so, putting the safety of U.S. citizens at risk in the event that U.S. courts order those unsavory characters released into the general U.S. population.

And, when we encounter these unsavory characters on the battlefield, and they are in violation of the Geneva Conventions because they are not wearing uniforms and/or carrying their arms openly , then we need to do what the Geneva Conventions allows for such situations; execute them as unlawful combatants. I'd rather not, for humanitarian and intelligence reasons. But when these same individuals could be released into the U.S. by a district judge who disagrees with their detention, then we cannot risk allowing those illegal combatants off of the battlefield.

Personally, I would like the administration to tell the judge that the Uighurs will be released to his court's officers when he sends them to Guantanamo with the proper paperwork to take them into the court's custody. Of course, if there were any paperwork SNAFUs, then those court officers could be guests at Gitmo for a while. To paraphrase Andrew Jackson's statement towards a court ruling that he disagreed with, "Judge Urbina has made his decision, now let's see him enforce it."

USMC 9971 OUT

Hamdan Case Facts

The Hamdan trial by military commission began today, and Hamdan entered a plea of not guilty on the charges against him of conspiracy in violation of 10 U.S.C. 950v(b)(28), and providing material support for terrorism in violation of 10 U.S.C. 950v(b)(25).

The following are the facts found to be true from a December 2007 hearing regarding whether Hamdan was an alien unlawful enemy combatant, and was therefore subject to trial by military commission (pdf). Hamdan is referred to as the accused.

1. In 1996, the accused was recruited in Yemen to go to Tajikistan for jihad. As a result of difficulty crossing the border into Tajikistan, he remained in Afghanistan. Because of his experience driving vehicles, he soon came in contact with Osama bin-Ladin, and was offered work as a driver.

2. The accused began his work driving farm vehicles on bin-Ladin's farms, and afer a probationary period, was invited to join the bin-Ladin security detail as a driver of one of the security caravan vehicles. With the passage of additional time, the accused became bin-Ladin's personal driver sometime in 1997, and continued in that capacity until the fall of 2001.

3. On occasion, the accused also served as a personal bodyguard to bin-Ladin. It was customary to rotate bodyguards as a security measure, and the accused engaged in this rotation. Bodyguards not actually protecting bin-Ladin would serve as fighters, receive training at al-Qaeda training camps, serve as emirs of al-Qaeda guesthouses, and perform other duties during their rotations away from body guarding duties.

4. During this period as bin-Ladin's personal driver and sometimes bodyguard, the accused pledged bayat, or "unquestioned allegiance" to bin-Ladin. The bayat extended to bin-Ladin's campaign to conduct jihad against Jews and crusaders, and to liberate the Arabian Peninsula from infidels, but the accused reserved the right to withdraw his bayat if bin-Ladin undertook a mission he did not agree with. The accused told investigators after his capture that there were some men in bin-Ladin's company who did not agree with everything bin-Ladin did or proposed to do.

5. The accused was aware of two of bin-Ladin's fatwas, including the 1998 fatwa issued by the International Islamic Front for Jihad against the Jews and Crusaders, and which called upon all Muslims to "kill Americans and their allies, both civilian and military . . . in any country where it is possible, to liberate Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Holy Mosque from their grip, and to expel their armies from all Islamic territory ..."

6. During the years between 1997 and 2001, the accused's duties sometimes included the delivery of weapons to Taliban and other fighters at bin-Ladin's request. On these occasions, he would drive to a weapons warehouse, present a document that contained bin-Ladin's order, and his vehicle would be loaded with the required weapons. He then delivered the weapons to fighters or elsewhere as directed by bin-Ladin. On at least one occasion, he took weapons to an al-Qaeda base in Kandahar.

7. As bin-Ladin's driver and bodyguard, the accused always carried a Russian handgun. It is not unusual for men in Afghanistan to carry weapons, and the accused had a Taliban-issued permit to carry weapons when he was apprehended. His duty in case of attack was to spirit bin-Ladin to safety, while the other vehicles in the convoy were to engage the attackers.

8. The accused received small arms and other training at al-Farouq training camp.

9. The accused became aware, after the al-Qaeda attacks on the U.S. embassies in Africa, and after the USS Cole attack, that bin-Ladin and al-Qaeda had planned and executed those attacks. No evidence was presented that the accused was aware of the attacks in advance, or that he helped plan or organize them.

10. Osama bin-Ladin told the accused that he wanted to demonstrate that he could threaten America, strike fear, and kill Americans anywhere. On hearing this declaration, the accused felt "uncontrollable enthusiasm."

11. In the days before 9/11, Osama bin-Ladin told the accused to get ready for an extended trip. After the 9/11 attacks, the accused drove bin-Ladin and his son on a ten-day jaunt around Afghanistan, visiting several cities, staying in different homes or camping in the desert, and otherwise helping bin-Ladin escape retaliation by the United States. During this period, he learned that bin-Ladin had been responsible for the attacks.

THE ANSAR BRIGADE

12. Between the early 1990's and the fall of 2001, there was in Afghanistan a bona fide military fighting force composed primarily of Arabs, known as the Ansars. This force engaged the Soviets during their occupation of Afghanistan. They were subject to a rigid command structure, were highly disciplined, usually wore a uniform (or uniform parts), and carried their arms openly. The Ansar uniforms usually consisted of either completely black attire or traditional military camouflage uniform parts.

13. Taliban leaders did not permit the Ansars to operate independently. As a result, the Ansars were integrated with, subject to the command of, and usually formed the elite fighting troops of, the Taliban army.

14. The Taliban had a conventional fighting force that may well be described as a traditional army. They possessed aged-but-functional battle tanks, helicopters, artillery pieces and fighter aircraft. The Ansars comprised up to 25% of the Taliban army.

15. Osama bin-Ladin contributed forces to the Ansars, and provided them with weapons, funding, propaganda and other support.

16. By 1997, al-Farouq training camp, and several other training camps, were under the symbolic control of bin-Ladin.

17. The Ansars were primarily motivated by the desire to expel the Soviets and other foreigners from Afghanistan, but also fought against the Northern Alliance. Some of the Ansar units rejected bin-Ladin's calls for war against America, and the attacks of 9/11.

18. During the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan ín the fall of 2001, the Ansars were engaged in the defense of Kandahar.

24 NOVEMBER 2001

19. On 24 November 2001, U.S. forces were operating in the vicinity of Takta Pol, a small Afghan village astride Highway 4, which ran between Kandahar and the Pakistani border. Major Hank Smith had under his command a small number of Americans and six to eight hundred Afganis he referred to as his Anti-Taliban Forces (ATF). Their mission was to capture Takta Pol from the Taliban and prevent arms and supplies from Pakistan from entering Kandahar by means of Highway 4.

20. Highway 4 was the main, and perhaps the only, road between Kandahar and the Pakistan border. It was a significant supply route for people and materials transiting between Pakistan and Kandahar.

21. During the battle for control of Takta Pol and Highway 4, U.S. and coalition forces fought all night with the Taliban forces in the area. A U.S./ATF negotiating party attempting negotiations under a flag of truce was ambushed by Taliban forces, and the U.S. and coalition troops engaged the Taliban in combat, taking casualties. The Taliban forces engaged against coalition forces at Takta Pol did not wear uniforms or any distinctive insignia.

22. After an overnight battle on 23-24 November, the Taliban vacated the town, and coalition forces entered Takta Pol the morning of 24 November 2001. They swept and secured the town, and set up a road block south of town to intercept troops, munitions or other war materials, and explosive vehicles before they entered the town. The road block was also intended to prevent munitions and war materials from being carried toward Kandahar.

23. After capturing the town of Takta Pol, and while securing the town and establishing his road blocks, Major Smith and his ATF continued to receive rocket or mortar fire from outside the town.

24. At the same time, Kandahar to the north was occupied by a large number of Taliban forces. Coalition forces, including Major Smith's forces, were preparing to participate in a major battle for control of Kandahar, which was already under way.

25. During the late morning or early afternoon of 24 November, a vehicle stopped at the road block engaged Major Smith's ATF in gunfire. Two men, apparently Egyptians, from the vehicle were killed, and an occupant later identified as Mr. Said Boujaadia was captured.

26. On hearing the gunfire, Major Smith proceeded to the road block, arriving within 3-15 minutes of the firing. By the time he arrived, the accused, driving a different vehicle, had also been stopped at the roadblock. His vehicle carried two SA-7 missiles, suitable for engaging airborne aircraft. The missiles were in their carrying tubes, and did not have the launchers or firing mechanisms with them.

27. The accused was captured while driving north towards Kandahar from the direction of the Pakistani border. The vehicle carrying Mr. Boujaadia and the two Egyption fighters was also traveling north, towards Kandahar when it was stopped.

28. The only operational aircraft then in the skies were U.S. and coalition aircraft providing close air support and other support for coalition troops on the ground.

29. Major Smith's ATF did not have any surface-to-air missiles in their inventory because the Taliban had no operational aircraft in the skies. There was no need for missiles that had no target.

30. After consulting with higher headquarters, Major Smith's forces photographed the two missiles on the tailgate of one of their vehicles, and destroyed the missiles to prevent them or their explosives from being used against Coalition forces.

31. Major Smith took control of the accused from the Afghan forces who, he feared, would kill the accused if he remained in their control. The accused was fed, protected and otherwise cared for while he was in U.S. custody. A Medic checked on him several times a day, and Major Smith visited him at least once a day until he was evacuated by helicopter a few days after his capture.

32. At the time of his capture, the accused was wearing traditional Afghan civilian clothes, and nothing suggestive of a uniform or distinctive emblem.

Keep that all in mind as this goes forward. Hamdan began his association with bin Laden because he was unable to cross into Tajikistan where he intended to engage in jihad, he pledged an oath of allegiance to bin Laden, he received training at the al-Farouq training camp, he admits that he felt "uncontrollable enthusiasm" when he was told of bin Laden's goal to threaten and kill Americans anywhere, he helped bin Laden to escape retaliation immediately following the September 11th attacks, and he was captured in civilian clothes on 24 November 2001 near Takta Pol while transporting surface-to-air missiles. Salim Ahmed Hamdan is not an innocent bystander, but rather an entrenched member of a terrorist organization.

Also keep in mind that, were it not for Major Smith, Hamdan may not be alive today. Major Smith made sure that Hamdan was placed in U.S. custody and seen several times daily by medical personnel to ensure his safety and well-being; all of this taking place in Afghanistan just over ten weeks after the September 11th attacks.

I am concerned that the media coverage will try to twist perception the other way, framing the U.S. military as the bad guys and Hamdan as just some poor Muslim who got wrapped-up in something he didn't understand. Be sure to pass on the truth of this case to any who would present a version that is contrary to the facts.

USMC 9971 OUT

Bin Laden's Driver/Bodyguard May Be Tried By A Military Commission

Salim Ahmed Hamdan's bid to postpone his trial by military commission was denied today. U.S. District Judge James Robertson (a Clinton appointee to the D.C. Circuit) stated, "Hamdan is to face a military commission designed by Congress based on guidelines handed down by the Supreme Court."

That statement seems to be a direct reference to the June 2006 Supreme Court ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld; a ruling that laid the groundwork for the Military Commission Act of 2006, which is the legislation that authorized the commission that Hamdan has been designated for trial by.

Back in 2006, I stated on Nick's blog (my comments are the ones made by Mojo) that Hamdan v. Rumsfeld could end up being bad news for Hamdan. The decision primarily found that the military commissions couldn't take place because they weren't defined by Congress and, as they stood, would be in violation of the UCMJ and/or the Geneva Conventions. That decision left open the possibility that Congress could define the rules for military commissions, however, which they did in late 2006.

Funny, isn't it, that Hamdan's victory in 2006 has created the means for him to be tried in 2008. It has put a big smile on my face so far, and that smile will be even bigger if he is sentenced and that sentence is upheld.

USMC 9971 OUT

Detainees Want To Avoid Release From Gitmo

Some detainees at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility who are eligible for release fear that they will be tortured once they are repatriated in their native lands.

This was supposed to be the moment Ahmed Bel Bacha was waiting for — the end of his five years in prison at Guantanamo Bay. Instead, the Algerian is fighting to stay put rather than return home.

Bel Bacha, reportedly slated to leave Guantanamo Bay soon along with three of his countrymen, fears he will be tortured back in Algeria, a country he had already fled once before to seek asylum in Britain, his lawyers say.

The problem here is that, once again, we are in a no win situation with the hand-wringing set. If we don't repatriate those detainees who are eligible for release because they would likely be tortured by the government that they would be returned to, then the U.S. is attacked for continuing to detain those individuals slated for release. On the other hand, if we do repatriate detainees to countries such as China, Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Syria, or Uzbekistan, then the U.S. is attacked for turning those detainees over to nations known to be abusive to prisoners based upon nothing more that diplomatic assurances that the repatriated detainees will not be tortured.

It is interesting, though, that some of the same groups that have called for the closure of Guantanamo's detention facility are now demanding that the U.S. not release detainees from that same facility. It also makes one wonder if the desire of those groups to have the facility closed is motivated more by a dislike of the U.S. than by any serious concern over the conditions in the facility itself.

USMC 9971 OUT

Doctors Demand U.S. To Allow Gitmo Detainees To Starve

I'm not kidding, and it's not the first time that this issue has come up. In March of 2006, about 260 doctors had a letter published in the Lancet which called for the U.S. to stop force-feeding hunger striking detainees.

A group of 263 doctors from seven countries called on the United States to end the force-feeding and use of restraint chairs for detainees fed through nasal tubes into their stomachs at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. [...]

The Pentagon said there were six detainees currently on a hunger strike, including three being tube-fed. It said the number of hunger strikers peaked at about 130 in September and was as high as 84 in late December, but fell to about a half dozen in January. [...]

The Lancet letter's authors called it a challenge to the American Medical Association.

AMA Chairman Dr. Duane Cady said his group, the largest professional organization of physicians in the United States, has told the military of its opposition to force-feeding hunger strikers, but noted "we are not a regulatory or licensing agency."

Now we have three doctors saying, once again, that it is unethical for military doctors to force-feed hunger striking detainees. This time the call for end to the force feeding is in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Military doctors violate medical ethics when they approve the force-feeding of hunger strikers at the US prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, according to a commentary in a prestigious medical journal.

The doctors should attempt to prevent force-feeding by refusing to participate, the commentary's three authors write in today's Journal of the American Medical Association.

"In medicine, you can't force treatment on a person who doesn't give their voluntary, informed consent," said Dr. Sondra Crosby of Boston University, one of the authors. "A military physician needs to be a physician first and a military officer second, in my opinion."

As of two weeks ago, according to a Guantanamo spokesman cited in the article, there are 23 detainees on hunger strike, and 20 of them are being force-fed.

Now, I can give an educated guess as to what would happen if the U.S. were to allow the detainees starve themselves to death. Muslims would likely take to the streets around the world, protesting loudly (if not violently) in Western nations, and attacking any people or symbols of the West in Arab and Muslim nations. I also believe that there would be an outcry from these same doctors and others on the political left, deriding the military for "forcing the detainees into such a desperate situation," and calling for an immediate closing of Guantanamo to be following quickly by Congressional investigations. I may be wrong, but the scenario I have just laid out is, at the very least, plausible.

Personally, I say let the detainees starve themselves to death. Those Muslims who would riot don't need a reason, they just need an excuse, so that violence is inevitable. As for the doctors and the political Left, just call them out on it and make them explain why we shouldn't have followed their advice, and the advice of their fellow doctors.

After all, back in 2005, several doctors spoke about the elegant and gentle death of starvation and dehydration, and how such a death was dignified and peaceful.

"The process of starving to death seems very barbaric but in actuality is very peaceful."
Dr. Fred Mirarchi, assistant clinical professor of emergency medicine at Drexel University College of Medicine in Philadelphia.

"It's usually quite a peaceful death. The person generally looks as if he or she is drifting off to sleep, and then dies."
Dr. Russell Portenoy, chair of palliative care at the Beth Israel Medical Center in New York.

"From the data that is available, it [the process of dying that begins when food and fluids cease] is not a horrific thing at all."
Dr. Linda Emanuel, the founder of the Education for Physicians in End-of-Life Care Project at Northwestern University.

They generally slip into a peaceful coma. It's very quiet, it's very dignified - it's very gentle."
Dr. Sean Morrison, a professor of geriatrics and palliative care at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York.

"What my patients have told me over the last 25 years is that when they stop eating and drinking, there's nothing unpleasant about it -- in fact, it can be quite blissful and euphoric. It's a very smooth, graceful and elegant way to go."
Dr. Perry G. Fine, vice president of medical affairs at the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization in Arlington, Va.

All those doctors couldn't be wrong, could they? And besides, what should we do when a detainee chooses to starve himself? We already know from those doctors that force-feeding is unethical, and seeing that starvation is so painless and dignified, would those doctors really want the U.S. to do anything more than to inform the detainee of the consequences of his actions so that he can make a voluntary and informed decision?

Let's be humane and allow the detainees such a blissful and euphoric exit. It's the ethical thing to do.

USMC 9971 OUT