Comments on: Obama Asserts That Innocent Prisoners Have No Right of Release

By: Gustopher

Gustopher — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 16:48:11 +0000

My concern is not that the Uighars represent a threat, but that releasing them into the US under court order would be setting a precedent for the rest of the prisoners at Guantanamo.

They are free to go (back to China where they will be persecuted). We are not detaining them, we are providing them a sanctuary if they (understandably) choose not to go. In the meantime, they can go through the normal immigration channels.

This will end up in the Supreme Court, and after the Uighars lose, we should release them into the US anyway. It's the morally right thing to do, and they pose no threat.

But first, we need to establish the binding precedent that we don't have to let them in. And we should make sure they are as comfortable as possible while they wait.

By: Bill H

Bill H — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 15:07:13 +0000

I supported Obama and voted for him, but I'm reaching the point now that I hear his soaring rhetoric and I see images of things like this court filing, and others like it. I see drones killing 14 terrorists and 700 Pakistani civilians. I see F-18's killing 100+ Afgan women and children in Obama's War of choice. "Your actions speak so loudly," Mr. Obama, "that I can't hear what you say."

By: G.A.Phillips

G.A.Phillips — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 10:51:40 +0000

Obama Asserts That Innocent Prisoners Have No Right of Release

Silly rabbit, only liberals in power have rights.Everyone else who thinks the have them are liberal voters.

now imagine what the rest of us simple terror suspects get and you might get some were.

By: Alex Knapp

Alex Knapp — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 02:29:18 +0000

PD -

a) I didn't realize that I had missed the question, but yeah, this is my answer.

b) I was blogging in a hurry and had totally forgotten about the few that Albania agreed to take.

I don't think that eliminates my overall point, though

By: PD Shaw

PD Shaw — Sun, 31 May 2009 22:41:48 +0000

Alex wouldn't answer the question a few blogs ago as to whether he thought the Uighur detainees should be released to America. I suppose this is the answer.

This is wrong:

Of course, right now no country is willing to accept them. Why? The biggest excuse is that they won’t accept them because the U.S. won’t.

The government decided 15 of them could be released in 2003, some of them were released to Albania. By 2005, when the situation first received publicity, about 20 countries -- including Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, and Turkey had turned down U.S. overtures to give them asylum.

WaPo Link

By: Stormy Dragon

Stormy Dragon — Sun, 31 May 2009 19:04:31 +0000

Since releasing them into the US population is an absolute non-starter (just ask your congressperson), what do you propose?

That Americans ought to be ashamed of themselves?

By: Mike

Mike — Sun, 31 May 2009 18:13:05 +0000

give enough "incentives" (IE bribes) and a country will take them - tell them they can get into NATO or some other fun club - the US picked them up and imprisoned them, the US has a duty to figure out what to do with them

By: Phil Smith

Phil Smith — Sun, 31 May 2009 17:39:28 +0000

I gotta cut Alex some slack, at least he's being consistent in his criticism.

By: charles austin

charles austin — Sun, 31 May 2009 17:26:48 +0000

Since releasing them into the US population is an absolute non-starter (just ask your congressperson), what do you propose?

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Sun, 31 May 2009 17:12:42 +0000

I think you might want to re-examine the law on this one, Alex.