their lawyers’ claim that they were never enemies of the United States and were mistakenly swept into Guantánamo
===============================
Very correct.

They are not America's enemy, they are the enemies of the Chinese people, they anre the Americans friends and aides.

What they have done is only receiving terrorist training with the "Al-Qaida terrorists" in the same base.

dyn seems very familiar with terrorist training location, Why didn't FBI employ you for anti-terrorist project?

"they are the enemies of the Chinese people"
------------------------------------------------
The representation of People。。。。。
Have you attend the 17th Congress?

Actually, dyn, if you do some reading here:

http://detainees.mcclatchydc.com/

You'll find that most, if not all, Uyghurs have little-to-nothing to do with Al Qaeda or any so-called terrorists. These interviews and investigations were done on recently released Guantanamo inmates.

Most Uyghurs that were imprisoned were just an unlucky bunch that went to Afghanistan or Pakistan at the wrong time before the invasion by the United States. But this is certainly a step in the right direction.

Please see the transcript of the hearing by the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Human Rights on this issue which was partially posted by Michael on this very site.

BELLINGER: .....We made the decision early on that because we thought they would be mistreated if returned to China, that even though a number of years back we had concluded not that they were wrongly picked up — they were picked up because they were in a training camp in Afghanistan — but it was concluded rapidly that they were not trying to fight us, but they were trying to fight the Chinese.

Looks China's anti-terror effort is going good, so US　has to send in some reinforcement.

@CMD

If they were indeed in a camp then this makes them freedom fighters does it not? Training for military engagement with China?? Terrorists are within the country not without. Therefore these people were not terrorists but freedom fighters is logical.

@roebuck

"Terrorists are within the country not without. Therefore these people were not terrorists but freedom fighters is logical."

Right. Osama Bin Laden is a great freedom fighter by your impeccable logic.

When the U.S. military in Afghanistan first encounter Uyghur terrorist attacks, they framed that Chinese goverment sent "Uighur Chinese People's Volunteers" to stop U.S. Military operations.

See now, they have changed their mind.

Americans shameful!

@cmd

I said training for 'military engagement' with China not terrorist attacks. Is there no difference in your logiuc? Be careful. For if so, all military actions are terrorism. Would you have a clear answer for this?

Bin laden is a terrorist because [he] does not engage in direct military enagagement in my understanding.

@ roebuck

Just type in "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" into Google and you will see that there is no clear delineation between the two, much less consensus on what terrorism actually is. Maybe a more apt term would be ‘insurgent’: “a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially: a rebel not recognized as a belligerent”.

The bulk of AQ recruits are trained as insurgents – think those battling against the U.S in Iraq or even, to a much lesser and ambiguous extent (and arguably), some Uighur elements in Xinjiang. Exceptional individuals are hand-picked to conduct classic transnational terrorism, and they are provided with advanced training and material or monetary support – think the majority Saudi contingent who flew into the WTC 2001. No Uighur has even been proven or found to be in the latter category.

@ CMD

Anyone silly enough to suggest China is safe from terrorism should be taken with caution, no disagreements there. What is contested is the level of threat these insurgents pose or their exact numbers, which is not helped by Beijing’s inconsistent reportage (oscillating in quantity and quality depending on their mood or the intended audience), take for example for example the factually contradictory and numerically inaccurate 2004 report, “East Turkistan Terrorists Cannot Get Away with Impunity” (see Millward 2004 or Clarke 2008) ripped to shreds by academics both inside and outside China and as worthless as scrap paper. On the end, anyone who believes in this reports rhetoric should also be taken with caution.

On the *other (omitted) end.... o.0

@Jimba,

It's quite possible that Beijing exaggerates the level of terrorist threat to serve political purpose. There had been a sea change in government's handling of inter-ethnic disputes in Xinjiang in recent years. Which is not necessarily for the better.

According to Uyghurs themselves, whereas there used to be a perception that local government tend to favor minorities (Well in Uyghurs' case, majority) in Han-Minorites disputes, since late 90s esp after 9.11, the situation completely reverse itself.

Fortunately, most educated Uyghurs equally detest the handful terrorists.

If you read Chinese, you can read opinions of Uyghurs at

http://mkh.5d6d.com/

The site is geared toward Uyghurs who were educated in Chinese language school, or minkaohan.

Most of them live in China, so don't get them in trouble now.

While you will never get this impression in the Western Media, there are a whole class of Uyghur people who are fiercely proud of their Uyghur history and heritage and also acknowledge that they are citizens of China and part of China's muti-cultural fabric.

Granted, Han-Uyghur relations is not at its best. I know some people from Shanghai who have rather idiotic if not downright racist views toward Uyghur. But go back 40 years, you can find much more offensive views harbored by not a few Southern Whites against blacks in United States.

No reason China will not change for the better.

@ CMD

thanks for your thoughtful words above. My earnest question to you is however, will there be anything left of the Uyghur in forty years time , the way things are going and if the Han racism towards them you mention continues to increase?

what happened to that coward James, hed love this story because his jihadi brothers may be getting out soon.

the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is how many white people love you and your cause. the more white people love you, the less of a terrorist you are.

Racism is a problem everywhere and everytime, all people raised at home will have to learn and relean how to get along and accept people of different dialect groups, then people of different color, finally love all things living. You will know this if you live long enough.
Unfortunately, there are always simple minded but xenophobic groups who harbor evil idea of preventing people from reaching this ideal stage of universal love.
Frankly speaking, these people live to create problem to the nature and the world. Its a waste of resources to have such people around. These unsophisticated groups is every things we know as satan. They lie, they spill blood, they use double standard everywhere everytime. They don't give a shit saying all man are born equal and yet happily keep slave at home.

James & Jimba vs. cripes & dyn

There's a tag team ultimate fighting match I would pay to watch. A fight to the death (I would hope)...

Hey Jake:

James had already bid farewell to this site. He has to be reincarnated in another name.

Michael posts some very useful articles, props to him; but I am no longer interested in tempestuous "ad hominem" arguements. Sorry Jake, try elsewhere.

@ khan re:

"Frankly speaking, these people live to create problem to the nature and the world. Its a waste of resources to have such people around. These unsophisticated groups is every things we know as satan. They lie, they spill blood, they use double standard everywhere everytime. They don't give a shit saying all man are born equal and yet happily keep slave at home."

this sounds like the CCP to me . Is this what you mean?

@ Jimba , Hear, hear,

"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.

Other common subtypes of the ad hominem include the ad hominem circumstantial, or ad hominem circumstantiae, an attack which is directed at the circumstances or situation of the arguer; and the ad hominem tu quoque, which objects to an argument by characterizing the arguer as acting or arguing in accordance with the view that he is arguing against."

wiki

Dear Michael thanks for the great blog. Heres a little going home present for you from the BBC. A nice selection of Uyghur music

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/worldroutes/pip/wu6u7/

Maybe they can count on a Islamic US president? Obama perhaps?

This sound like CCP to me, spec said. Of course, to red neck everything which offend them are either call communist, niger or chink and they will run amok, start putting bullets in the head of people like say Martin Luther King.
Luckily the world is begining to see through their lie.

@ khan

its 'nigger' not Niger. The latter is a country. Um, here in the civilized west we no longer use such racist terms. Is that what you Han call those who arent yellow or white? So archaic.

@roebuck
"Um, here in the civilized west we no longer use such racist terms. Is that what you Han call those who arent yellow or white? So archaic."

Nigga Please!

Roebuck said "here in the civilized west ...blah blah blah...."

Hey kid, you don't know what you are talking. Go learn political history 101 free on the internet from western historian Michael Perantis. Just access www.informatinclearinghouse.info, or www.counterpunch.com.
If you need more to convince yourself, listen to Douglas Blackmon talking to Bill Moyer on his book "Slavery by another name" and learn a lilttle more about collective amnesia in the so call civilized west.

@ khan. No thanks I dont get my information from the net. Especially pseudo scholastic stuff. thanks for the absurd tip. So thoughtful. I also dont respond to ultra racist commentators.

Uighur Justice

By NURY A. TURKEL
FROM TODAY'S WALL STREET JOURNAL ASIA
June 26, 2008

The controversy over the right of habeas corpus for U.S. terror detainees has obscured the fact that the legal process put in place by Congress for settling other detainee appeals has been quietly at work. On Monday, an appeals court hearing one such case found that Huzaifa Parhat, a Uighur from China, was not an "enemy combatant." The court ordered the military to release him, transfer him to another prison or hold a new hearing.

Mr. Parhat and the 16 other Uighurs currently detained in Guantánamo have all been cleared for release by the U.S. military. Congress is also supportive. On June 4, Rep. Bill Delahunt (D., MA) and Dana Rohrabacher (R., CA) proposed resettlement for them in the U.S. The two Congressmen have also petitioned Defense Secretary Robert Gates for assistance.

Resettling these detainees might not be simple, but after their six years of detention, it is the right thing to do. Uighurs are an ethnic Turkic people who live in China's vast northwest regions. The 17 Guantánamo Uighurs were captured in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Many were snared by bounty hunters and sold to the U.S. military. Some of these Uighurs may admittedly be fighters. But they have no beef with the U.S. or its allies -- their fight is against China.

Like Tibetans, Uighurs have endured decades of discrimination and brutal oppression under Chinese rule. A religious and ethnic minority, they are routinely denied basic civil, religious and political rights. Uighurs are -- almost without exception -- the only ethnic group in China to be routinely executed for political offenses. Since 9/11, China has used the U.S.-led "war on terror" as an excuse to oppress Uighurs with impunity, persecuting many who have peacefully protested their treatment. China regularly dubs Uighur historians, poets and writers "intellectual terrorists" and sends them to jail. In 2005, a young intellectual, Nurmemet Yasin, was sentenced to a decade in prison for writing an allegory likening the Uighur predicament to that of a pigeon in a cage.

To its credit, the Bush administration has refused China's requests to repatriate the Guantánamo Uighurs, recognizing that such an action would effectively condemn them to prolonged torture, imprisonment or death once they reached China. In 2006, however, the U.S. sent five Uighurs to Albania, without notifying their attorneys. Today, four of them reside there in a kind of permanent limbo, unable to reconstitute their families or to work, while the fifth is seeking asylum in Sweden.

Until Communist China recognizes Uighurs' democratic freedoms, U.S. resettlement is a far better solution. Uighurs constitute perhaps the most pro-American and pro-Western Muslims in the world. In the early 20th century, the Uighurs' homeland of East Turkistan was the first secular and democratic republic in the Muslim world, outside of Turkey. The Uighurs want to re-establish this republic, complete with guarantees of religious freedom and peaceful enjoyment of their human rights. Many Uighurs fully agree when America professes the need to end tyranny in the world. They maintain that democracy and respect for human rights is the best defense against terrorism.

Americans, the most welcoming of people, certainly have a right to ask why they should welcome the Guantánamo Uighurs. Many probably don't realize that they are already living amongst Uighur-Americans. Uighurs have fled Chinese communist persecution since 1950s. Most of us were granted asylum by the U.S. government and are now contributing members of American society as scientists, professors and doctors, among other professions. Uighurs have one of the highest percentages of asylum approval in the U.S.

Opening America's doors to the Uighurs would be a constructive step toward regaining the respect of American allies who have been critical of the Bush administration's detention policies. Remember: Uighurs remain in Guantánamo not for the danger they pose to the U.S., but for the danger China poses to them. According to media accounts, American diplomats have reached out to over 100 countries to seek resettlement for the Uighurs. But these efforts have largely failed. A number of countries have reportedly been threatened with economic and political repercussions by China, should they accept any of the Guantánamo Uighurs.

China's reaction to a U.S. resettlement of Uighurs would be fiercely negative. But the U.S. can explain that it is acting in accordance with the rule of law. Further, none have been judged to a threat to the U.S. If the U.S. resettled the 17 Guantánamo Uighurs, the over 10 million Uighurs inside China would learn of this decision via America's Radio Free Asia broadcasts -- as they have learned of so many others of American efforts to promote human rights inside China. They would understand that American society will not assist China in crushing the Uighurs and their secular democratic aspirations.

@roebuck,

In case your vocab do not extend to "Urban" and you misunderstood my meaning,

I will use an entry from online Urban Dictionary to elucidate.

That "Nigga Please" is used as in

"Nigga Please!, You look like you just came out of the thrift store with yo cheap ass. Yo mom was a poor white trash hooker and you look straight up retarded! Crazy fuckin' crackass, think they can talk down to us like that"

charming. Let's show a bit of refrain, hey fella's. I would rather read sense than non-sense.

@ Jimba.

Thanks. So charming these cro-magnum Han racists. My god. Can you believe that approach and those words? Anyway, we all know what is behind it. Chiao.

It's Cro-Magnon, fool (or is it James?).

Change of topic maybe. Found this article, made me giggle.

China admits tiger photos faked (whoops)

"China has sacked a number of government officials and arrested a man in connection with a set of fake photographs that local authorities had said was proof of the existence of a highly endangered tiger.

In October, forestry officials in Zhenping county in northern Shaanxi province published photos of a tiger in a forest setting, saying they were proof of the existence of the South China tiger. A local farmer who produced the photos was paid a 20,000 yuan ($3000) reward.

Nine months later, officials admitted the photos were faked, state media said, citing sources at a press conference held by the Shaanxi province government.

Thirteen local officials, including Zhu Julong, deputy head of the province's forestry bureau, and its top wildlife official Wang Wanyun, were sacked, Xinhua said.

Zhou Zhenglong, the farmer who claimed to have taken the photo using a digital camera, was arrested on suspicion of fraud, Xinhua said, after police seized a picture of a tiger which he borrowed from a farmer in another village to produce the photos.

The scandal has captivated local media and many Chinese who have viewed the saga as symbolic of common people's lack of trust in local authorities.

China has been rocked by a number of major scandals involving official endorsement of photos of rare wildlife in recent years.

In February, the chief editor of a Chinese newspaper quit after one its photographers faked a prize-winning photo of endangered Tibetan antelopes appearing unfazed by a passing train on the Qinghai-Tibet railway."

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=268368

An update from the New York Times:

Evidence Faulted in Detainee Case
July 1, 2008
The New York Times
By WILLIAM GLABERSON

In the first case to review the government’s secret evidence for holding a detainee at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, a federal appeals court found that accusations against a Muslim from western China held for more than six years were based on bare and unverifiable claims. The unclassified parts of the decision were released on Monday.

With some derision for the Bush administration’s arguments, a three-judge panel said the government contended that its accusations against the detainee should be accepted as true because they had been repeated in at least three secret documents.

The court compared that to the absurd declaration of a character in the Lewis Carroll poem “The Hunting of the Snark”: “I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true.”

“This comes perilously close to suggesting that whatever the government says must be treated as true,” said the panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The unanimous panel overturned as invalid a Pentagon determination that the detainee, Huzaifa Parhat, a member of the ethnic Uighur Muslim minority in western China, was properly held as an enemy combatant.

The panel included one of the court’s most conservative members, the chief judge, David B. Sentelle.

The release on Monday of the unclassified parts of the decision followed a brief court notice last week. The notice said a classified decision had directed the government to release Mr. Parhat, transfer him to another country or conduct a new military hearing at Guantánamo to determine if he had been properly classified as an enemy combatant.

The Justice Department declined to comment on the ruling.

Although the decision was a defeat for the Bush administration, it was unclear what it might mean immediately for Mr. Parhat, a former fruit peddler who in recent years sent a message to his wife that she should remarry because his imprisonment at Guantánamo was like already being dead.

American officials have said that they cannot return Mr. Parhat and 16 other Uighur detainees at Guantánamo to China for fear of mistreatment and that some 100 other countries have refused to accept them.

Detainees’ lawyers said the ruling in the case of Mr. Parhat, who says he went to Afghanistan in 2001 to escape China, could broadly affect other detainees because of its skeptical view of the government’s evidence.

A lawyer representing other detainees, Marc D. Falkoff, said the evidence against many of the 270 men now at Guantánamo was similar to that in the Parhat case.

“This opinion shows that the government is going to have a hard time defending the military’s decision to detain many of these men,” said Mr. Falkoff, a professor at Northern Illinois University College of Law.

Pentagon officials have claimed that the Uighurs at Guantánamo were “affiliated” with a Uighur resistance group, the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, and that it, in turn, was “associated” with Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

The ruling released Monday overturned the Pentagon’s finding after a 2004 hearing that Mr. Parhat was an enemy combatant based on that affiliation. He and the 16 other Uighurs were detained after the American invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.

The court said the classified evidence supporting the Pentagon’s claims included assertions that events had “reportedly” occurred and that the connections were “said to” exist, without providing information about the source of such information.

“Those bare facts,” the decision said, “cannot sustain the determination that Parhat is an enemy combatant.”

Some lawyers said the ruling highlighted the difficulties they saw in civilian judges reviewing Guantánamo cases.

“This case displays the inadequacies of having civilian courts inject themselves into military decision-making,” said Glenn M. Sulmasy, a law professor at the Coast Guard Academy and a national security fellow at Harvard.

The appellate panel reviewed Mr. Parhat’s case under a limited procedure Congress provided for challenging military hearings at Guantánamo. The case was argued before the Supreme Court’s decision on June 12 that detainees have a constitutional right to seek release in more expansive habeas corpus proceedings.

The 17 Uighurs now held at Guantánamo say they are allies, not enemies, of the United States.

The Uighur Muslims, who come from an area of far western China they call East Turkestan, claim oppression at the hands of the Chinese government, including forced abortions and relocations of educated people to remote areas.

The Chinese government has described the East Turkestan Islamic Movement as a terrorist organization. American officials agreed in 2002, when they were pressing for Chinese support for military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The decision was written by Judge Merrick B. Garland, an appointee of President Bill Clinton. It was joined by Chief Judge Sentelle, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, and Judge Thomas B. Griffith, a 2005 appointee of President Bush.

@ CMD

Your present acronym is open to many interpretations from those commentataors who have warmed to you. For example 'Cerified Master of Deception' or delusion. I wont go on, lets use our imaginations - I have 5 or 6 written here, thety are all extremely humouroes and strangely apt, but lets see what others can come up with.

As far as James goes maybe he should be coaxed out of his training camp deep in the middle kingdom somewhere to answer your missives for himself. Perhaps yo uare the gal to do that.

New developments from NY Times

====================================

July 1, 2008
Evidence Faulted in Detainee Case
By WILLIAM GLABERSON

In the first case to review the government’s secret evidence for holding a detainee at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, a federal appeals court found that accusations against a Muslim from western China held for more than six years were based on bare and unverifiable claims. The unclassified parts of the decision were released on Monday.

With some derision for the Bush administration’s arguments, a three-judge panel said the government contended that its accusations against the detainee should be accepted as true because they had been repeated in at least three secret documents.

The court compared that to the absurd declaration of a character in the Lewis Carroll poem “The Hunting of the Snark”: “I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true.”

“This comes perilously close to suggesting that whatever the government says must be treated as true,” said the panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The unanimous panel overturned as invalid a Pentagon determination that the detainee, Huzaifa Parhat, a member of the ethnic Uighur Muslim minority in western China, was properly held as an enemy combatant.

The panel included one of the court’s most conservative members, the chief judge, David B. Sentelle.

The release on Monday of the unclassified parts of the decision followed a brief court notice last week. The notice said a classified decision had directed the government to release Mr. Parhat, transfer him to another country or conduct a new military hearing at Guantánamo to determine if he had been properly classified as an enemy combatant.

The Justice Department declined to comment on the ruling.

Although the decision was a defeat for the Bush administration, it was unclear what it might mean immediately for Mr. Parhat, a former fruit peddler who in recent years sent a message to his wife that she should remarry because his imprisonment at Guantánamo was like already being dead.

American officials have said that they cannot return Mr. Parhat and 16 other Uighur detainees at Guantánamo to China for fear of mistreatment and that some 100 other countries have refused to accept them.

Detainees’ lawyers said the ruling in the case of Mr. Parhat, who says he went to Afghanistan in 2001 to escape China, could broadly affect other detainees because of its skeptical view of the government’s evidence.

A lawyer representing other detainees, Marc D. Falkoff, said the evidence against many of the 270 men now at Guantánamo was similar to that in the Parhat case.

“This opinion shows that the government is going to have a hard time defending the military’s decision to detain many of these men,” said Mr. Falkoff, a professor at Northern Illinois University College of Law.

Pentagon officials have claimed that the Uighurs at Guantánamo were “affiliated” with a Uighur resistance group, the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, and that it, in turn, was “associated” with Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

The ruling released Monday overturned the Pentagon’s finding after a 2004 hearing that Mr. Parhat was an enemy combatant based on that affiliation. He and the 16 other Uighurs were detained after the American invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.

The court said the classified evidence supporting the Pentagon’s claims included assertions that events had “reportedly” occurred and that the connections were “said to” exist, without providing information about the source of such information.

“Those bare facts,” the decision said, “cannot sustain the determination that Parhat is an enemy combatant.”

Some lawyers said the ruling highlighted the difficulties they saw in civilian judges reviewing Guantánamo cases.

“This case displays the inadequacies of having civilian courts inject themselves into military decision-making,” said Glenn M. Sulmasy, a law professor at the Coast Guard Academy and a national security fellow at Harvard.

The appellate panel reviewed Mr. Parhat’s case under a limited procedure Congress provided for challenging military hearings at Guantánamo. The case was argued before the Supreme Court’s decision on June 12 that detainees have a constitutional right to seek release in more expansive habeas corpus proceedings.

The 17 Uighurs now held at Guantánamo say they are allies, not enemies, of the United States.

The Uighur Muslims, who come from an area of far western China they call East Turkestan, claim oppression at the hands of the Chinese government, including forced abortions and relocations of educated people to remote areas.

The Chinese government has described the East Turkestan Islamic Movement as a terrorist organization. American officials agreed in 2002, when they were pressing for Chinese support for military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The decision was written by Judge Merrick B. Garland, an appointee of President Bill Clinton. It was joined by Chief Judge Sentelle, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, and Judge Thomas B. Griffith, a 2005 appointee of President Bush.

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

CMD's a women!?!

Article

Uighurs at Guantanamao

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/mariner/20080630.html

From

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-worthington/guantanamo-as-alice-in-wo_b_110128.html

Guantanamo as Alice in Wonderland

Until now, however, the tribunals' failings had never been deconstructed by a US court, and certainly not with the acute savagery reserved for last week's ruling in the case of Parhat v. Gates. As one of dozens of cases that had been stuck in a legal roadblock after the executive persuaded Congress to change the law to remove the prisoners' habeas rights (a decision which was only finally reversed three weeks ago, when the Supreme Court granted the prisoners constitutional habeas corpus rights), the bare bones of the Parhat verdict, reported last week, were explosive enough. In a one-page ruling, the judges in the Court of Appeals in Washington -- noticeably, two Republicans and a Democrat -- "held invalid a decision of a Combatant Status Review Tribunal" that Huzaifa Parhat -- one of 18 Uighurs (Muslims from an oppressed outpost of China), who are not even alleged to have raised arms against the US -- was an enemy combatant," and "directed the government to release or transfer" him (or to hold a new tribunal "consistent with the Court's opinion").

Now that the full opinion has been released, however, the damage to the administration's credibility is even more pronounced. Tearing into the so-called evidence, the court reserved particular venom for the government's claim that Parhat was an "enemy combatant" because he was "affiliated with forces associated with al-Qaeda and the Taliban." The government's verdict hinged on a claim that the camp in which the Uighurs had been living in Afghanistan (before it was bombed by US forces, forcing them to flee to Pakistan, where they were sold to the US military) was run by a man who ran a Uighur independence movement (the East Turkistan Independence Movement), which was allegedly "associated" with al-Qaeda and the Taliban, even though, as the judges noted, "no source document evidence was introduced to indicate ... that the Detainee had actually joined ETIM."

Furthermore, the judges scolded the government for its shoddy attempts to link ETIM to the Taliban and al-Qaeda, noting that, as the Afghan government, the Taliban had provided "housing" to a variety of groups, "which no doubt ranged from orphanages to terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda," but that these groups were not all "'associated' with the Taliban in a sense that would make them enemy combatants," and singled out for particular criticism a piece of exculpatory evidence -- a claim by another Uighur that the camp actually predated the Taliban regime -- which was excluded from Parhat's CSRT.

They also took exception to the government's claim that its "evidence" was reliable because it was repeated in a number of different classified documents, noting that the sources for this supposed "evidence" were both vague and impenetrable. They explained that descriptions of ETIM's activities, and its purported relationship to al-Qaeda, were repeatedly described "as having 'reportedly' occurred, as being 'said to' or 'reported to' have happened, and as things that 'may' be true or are 'suspected' of having taken place. But in virtually every instance, the documents do not say who 'reported' or 'said' or 'suspected' those things... Because of those omissions, the Tribunal could not and this court cannot assess the reliability of the assertions in the documents. And because of this deficiency, those bare assertions cannot sustain the determination that Parhat is an enemy combatant."

@ Jimna

Of course CMD is a woman. Its plain to tell.

Michael,

would you count to 100 before pasting moon&star (you know what I mean) skeleton heads on your posts? It is used TOO frequently and certainly doesn't boost the PR of your blog. And if you are familiar with Chinese web slangs, such images damage personal "RP".

@ gao

once again you totally miss the point. Dont you understand what the skull means? It means the end of Chinese colonial rule in Turkestan.

http://www.ww4report.com/node/5739

Uyghur detainees faced Chinese torture methods at Gitmo
Submitted by Bill Weinberg on Sun, 07/06/2008 - 01:16.

A three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit has released declassified portions of a June 20 decision that a Combatant Status Review Tribunal had improperly designated a Chinese Uighur detained at Guantanamo Bay as an "enemy combatant." In the opinion, Judge Merrick Garland dismissed government arguments that classified documents established Huzaifa Parhat's terror connections, finding: "Parhat has made a credible argument that—at least for some of the assertions—the common source is the Chinese government, which may be less than objective with respect to the Uighurs."

Last month, the court ordered the US government to release or transfer Parhat. Barring release or transfer, the order directed the US to "expeditiously hold a new Tribunal consistent with the court's opinion." Parhat can challenge his detention in federal court and seek immediate release through a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to the US Supreme Court's ruling in Boumediene v. Bush.

In April, US Department of Justice lawyers defended Parhat's detention in oral arguments before the court, claiming he is an "enemy combatant" due to his ties with the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), a militant group that calls for separation from China and was designated as a terrorist organization by the US in 2002. The DoJ acknowledged that Parhat did not fight against the US and that there is no evidence that he intended to do so, but said he can still be held under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Act of 2001 because ETIM is affiliated with al-Qaeda. (Jurist, July 1)

Since 2001, the US has held at least 22 Uighur detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Most of these are judged to have never been a threat to US national security, and are slated for release. Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell said on August 12, 2003 that these Uighurs will not be returned to China. The Uyghur Human Rights Proect joins Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch in expressing grave concern for their safety if they are deported to any other nation where they might face the danger of torture. (Uygur Human Rights Project, July 3)

In a hilariously ironic development, the New Yort Times reported in a front-page story that military trainers at Guantánamo Bay in December 2002 gave an entire interrogation class—with a chart delineating "coercive management techniques" such as "sleep deprivation," "prolonged constraint," and "exposure"—that had been copied verbatim from a 1957 Air Force study of Chinese Communist techniques used in the Korean War against US POWs. (NYT, July 2)

Roebuck,

What you said it means is your understanding. With half or more of the population as Han and strong economical integration your fantasy isn't happening any time soon. Perhaps you will be interested in how the Southern Huns and other ethnics interacted with Han during the 2nd/3th centuries. Personally my father's lineage comes close to the nomadic regions and as many in the country I don't loathe the ethnics but the speculators that make ethnical difference into an execuse for violence (in neigbhours' land)

The 1st skull: interesting...
The 2nd skull: this guy really want to press it...
The 3rd.. ....
The nth: lame.

god no gao0not the fucken second and third centuries again yu mindless tool.

History is of convenience when you need examples, something a babe can't boast of having. Does Roebuck have to resort to curses or what?

As for the "chinese methods" Roebuck referred to, they are nothing more than universal methods throughout the human diaspora. Maybe next week some less creative journalist will come up with a report of "Insight: US agents assassin insurgent buddies with Chinese bullets". Never short of such babbling these days.

Gao

you are an absolute idiot and the one who babbles meaningless crap. A cry baby as well. I wont curse you any more you are your own curse. I pity you and by the way you really coem across as an unintelligent moron...do you realize that? Give up. Your enclitic barded bastardized English is bad enough without the absurdity and nonsense of your reasoning and twisted statements. Yes history is convenient. history is also twisted by the twisted. Unwind poor fella; and get out of the second century CE.

Ha Roebuck, my English is better than Roe's Chinese and I feel content, period.

@ gao

You should be reminded this is an anglophone blog and not a Chinese language blog. Stop being so sino-centric. For all you know Roebuck may speak fluent Chinese and be far more proficient in it than you are in your what he calls bastardized English. Go on Chinese blogs if you want to be fluent is my advice. Other wise heed advice - most of your postings are rendered meaningless by extremely poor 'enclitic' language. The content is bad enough as it is, deploarable actually; the language it is wrapped in, not much better.

Just the kind of behavior you would expect from members of the genetically challenged Haplogroup O.