Wage war on the West -your reward is paradise in this life, AND the next. Wow. I hope recruitment doesn’t go up too much. Sounds like a ticket out of poverty.
See Palau! Bermuda! Just wage war against the West, and travel the world!
Count Palau as “fear-gripped”, too
posted at 11:34 am on June 12, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The Obama administration may be celebrating the agreement with Palau that gets 13 of the al-Qaeda-trained Uighurs out of Gitmo, but the Palauans have a much different reaction to the news. Jake Tapper reports that the editor of Palau’s main newspaper gets accosted on the street by angry citizens demanding to know what idiot thought bringing violent Muslim separatists into their tourist haven was a good idea:
The decision by Johnson Toribiong, president of the obscure Pacific nation of Palau, to take in up to 13 Uighurs — Muslim Chinese — currently being held at Guantanamo is meeting some resistance from the general population.
As ABC News’ polling director Gary Langer points out, proportional to population, sending 13 Uighurs to Palau is like sending 188,993 Uighurs to the United States.
The Associated Press reports that Fermin Nariang, editor of the Palau newspaper Island Times, has “been stopped in the streets of the capital Koror by locals venting their anger. ‘This is a very small country … and some are saying if the whole world doesn’t want these folks, why are we taking them?’ Nariang said. The government has ‘fumbled the ball on this one.’”
The AP also reports on more of the surprising sentiment in Palau about having trained terrorists set free among them:
Palau President Johnson Toribiong explained his decision to grant the Uighurs entry as traditional hospitality, but public opinion has appeared overwhelmingly negative. Some complained Friday that the government failed to consult the people.
“I totally disagree” with allowing the Uighurs onto Palau, Natalia Baulis, a 30-year-old mother of two, told The Associated Press by telephone.
“It’s good to be humanitarian and all, but still these people … to me are scary,” she said. …
The newspaper quoted islander Debedebk Mongami as saying, “I’m also afraid this news is going to scare the tourists who plan to come to Palau.”
Tourism accounts for 80% of Palau’s GDP. As I wrote in my “fear-gripped” post earlier this week, the nation depends on Palau’s status as a South Pacific haven, a status which could get damaged by the presence of trained terrorists who allied themselves with groups that like to attack tourist destinations. That is a rational concern, especially given the proximity of another Muslim separatist terror effort in the Philippines, just 2500 miles from Palau. The global economic crisis will hit Palau hard enough without making it into a halfway house for al-Qaeda’s allies.
Image from the Foreign Policy blog Passport, where a commenter left this pithy response:
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Tneloms, the supremes never said “you have to keep them”
You won’t respond, why can’t we just give them to china???
battleoflepanto1571 on June 12, 2009 at 12:26 PM
You can rail on him for closing Gitmo. But this case has nothing to do with that. The courts have ordered that something be done with these specific prisoners. They have been cleared of charges. They cannot be kept in Gitmo even if Obama keeps it open. That’s why I don’t think it’s fair to rail on him for this. Direct your anger at the separate issue of Obama closing Gitmo in regards to the other prisoners there.
tneloms on June 12, 2009 at 12:27 PM
tneloms thinks that we can’t iron out an agreement with China that they won’t torture these individuals…
We can do it with every other country, except China apparently.
Upstater85 on June 12, 2009 at 12:28 PM
I won’t respond? I’ve addressed this several times. It’s illegal. American law forbids deporting people to places where it is believed that they would be abused. No one doubts that the Chinese will abuse them, because they’re separatists. The Pentagon knows this, the previous administration knew this, most people on this blog know this. It’s not in dispute.
tneloms on June 12, 2009 at 12:29 PM
Just like no visa is need to enter the US from Bermuda…
So according to the rules all these wiggers, with the exception of those going to French Guiana, can enter the US and set up shop.
Given the Messiah’s preference for Islam over Judaisn and Christainity, maybe that’s His plan…
BTW:
The distance between the two capitails :Koror, Palau and Manila, Philippines is 823.43 air miles.
Friendly21 on June 12, 2009 at 12:30 PM
Maybe they can film the next Survivor there and let the terrorists be part of the “immunity challenge”.
behiker on June 12, 2009 at 12:30 PM
LOL! Good one.
Daggett on June 12, 2009 at 12:30 PM
there are no court orders that obama has to release these people, or even try them in civilian courts. thats why he has reversed himself and is setting up military tribunals.
and who cares if they are abused? they are NOT AMERICANS…it is not our role to impose our constitution on the world. THEY ARE CHINESE…send them to their country…
right4life on June 12, 2009 at 12:31 PM
tneloms on June 12, 2009 at 12:12 PM
C’mon guys, stop criticizing Obama, it’s harshing my mellow.
This is all Bush’s fault anyway, right?
/sarc
Mord on June 12, 2009 at 12:31 PM
I can just imagine how these policies take shape in the Oval Office.
The One: On the issue of these Gitmo prisoners, what are we doing?
Advisor 1: Sir, we will read them their Miranda rights and cover our legal exposure, then we will ship them off to a distant island.
Advisor 2: Mr. President, I believe that solves that problem.
The One: Cool. Any one want a burger?
mperek on June 12, 2009 at 12:32 PM
I’ll at least accept that you’re giving a concrete answer. However, it’s not workable. I’m pretty sure that 99-100% of people on this blog would agree that the Chinese cannot be trusted to withhold abuse of these prisoners, no matter what agreement we draw up with them.
Also, it’s strange that you would say that we can do this with every other country except China. China is one of the countries we least trust! The others include Iran and North Korea. Yes, we’d trust Italy not to abuse them. But we wouldn’t trust those three, along with a few others. I don’t think this is really in dispute. See how many of your fellow commenters agree that we can trust China.
tneloms on June 12, 2009 at 12:32 PM
And yet, your side also believes they are being TORTURED in Gitmo
So, we can abuse them as a foreign government, but not their home country? What the h#ll kind of logic is that?
Again, why do you think China will abuse them? The British trusted China with an entire ISLAND of separtists, Hong Kong, in 1997. Ditto the Portugese with Macao in 1999. Show me the evidence that the Uighuirs will be treated WORSE than the dreaded “camp x-ray” *spooky sounds*
battleoflepanto1571 on June 12, 2009 at 12:33 PM
..and Bush released most of the Uighurs no differently than this group so what is your point?
lexhamfox on June 12, 2009 at 12:33 PM
The documents provided outpace any Pentagon “decision”. The crux of the issue was politicking to have them “cleared” – without ample evidence to the contrary. Fast forward to the present 2009 – after the proper courts rendered their decision – and the answer is… give them back to China, which Obama won’t due – because as others have pointed out – he rushed to “promise to close GITMO” as a political campaign ploy – which has nothing to do with his elected responsibility – PROTECT THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES.
The quagmire is Obama’s alone, hence the comments here and elsewhere. In case you missed it – Albania accepted 5 Uighurs, then declined any more due to pressure from China.
The world of foreign affairs and security are not neat, simple solutions – and it is not our responsibility to deal with them, it is Obama’s elected duty.
Bringing up 2003 is moot, as is placing blame on Bush – for he was the one who decided to keep them in GITMO until this week.
Send them back to China being they do not have an extradition policy with the US, which you are wrongly arguing they do.
Odie1941 on June 12, 2009 at 12:33 PM
I thought Jack Murtha wanted some of these guys, building them a prison in his district. The bennies would have been three-fold, the Uighers could enlighten the redneck voters while putting these guys in prison plus save and create some jobs all at the same time.
booter on June 12, 2009 at 12:34 PM
This solution makes no sense to me. Obama drops $200 million to relocate 13 terrorists, when sending them on a military transport to China would have cost, just spitballing, $325,000. We’d score some points with the Chinese, and we wouldn’t have to worry about recidivism.
Someone explain this to me…like I’m a five-year-old.
And Obama’s pulling most of the strings in our economy? He can’t run a lemonade stand.
BuckeyeSam on June 12, 2009 at 12:34 PM
One answer…
Upstater85 on June 12, 2009 at 12:34 PM
I didn’t say it’s Bush’s fault. I said that *if* you’re going to criticize Obama (which I’m not), then you should also criticize the Pentagon’s decisions well before Obama became president. Furthermore, you should offer a reasonable, legal alternative for Obama. You didn’t offer much there with your sarcastic comment.
tneloms on June 12, 2009 at 12:35 PM
Palau is awesome. It is great. I have been there several times. I would go again today if I could afford it (it is pricer to fly there than Australia, although I think the diving is better in Palau than Australia and that is saying a lot).
But it is an economy based on tourism. Mostly high end scuba trips, Australians, Asians.
So why bring snakes to paradise?
Mr. Joe on June 12, 2009 at 12:35 PM
I trust them more than you dear leader obama…
right4life on June 12, 2009 at 12:35 PM
Upstater85 on June 12, 2009 at 12:28 PM
—–
Upstater,
There’s an obvious ploy here.
Govt. of Palau takes the Uhigurs, gets paid by the U.S. If they’re smart, they convert that to gold or Swiss Francs.
People of Palau object loudly to this.
Govt. of Palau hears the objections and looks for a solution.
Govt. of China offers a solution – “We’ll take ‘em”.
Govt. of Palau gets paid by China.
Obama feigns outrage that Palau would “turn these poor lambs over to the vicious Chinese”….
Problem solved!
Mew
(note – this is not sarcastic)
acat on June 12, 2009 at 12:35 PM
Bush sent them to Palau for $200 mil of taxpayer monies? Wowsers.
And, obviously, the ones that Bush let go after 2 years are MUCH MUCH MORE dangerous than the ones that are still in custody 9 years later.
Because, yknow, jails usually let out the worst offenders FIRST before the minimum offenders.
battleoflepanto1571 on June 12, 2009 at 12:35 PM
ALSO The Clintonistas trusted Fidel with a little boy…
Upstater85 on June 12, 2009 at 12:36 PM
How do you know that? What is the definition of abusing someone waging war on China? Tell me.
The Uighurs are Chinese and belong back in China. Period.
progressoverpeace on June 12, 2009 at 12:36 PM
COME ONE COME ALL TO THE TROPICAL PARADISE OF PALAU-WHERE YOU CAN LIVE ADVENTUROUSLY NEVER KNOWING WHETHER THAT ‘BOOM’ YOU HEAR IS SURF HITTING THE CORAL REEF OR A UIGHIR BLOWING YOUR WIFE TO BITS.
Thanks to an incompetent boob in the White House:
1 We apologize for a prison that more closely resembles a tropical resort spa.
2 We have bribed Palau $200 million just to reieve 13 terrorit skunks.
3 As a result we have potentially turned the resort paradise of Pal into another Afghanistan.
4 We have also endangered another vacation paradise (Bermuda) with 4 more Uighur skunks.Not sure what kind of bribe we offered Bermuda but the Brits are sure pissed off.
5 We are sending a mixed message,Bomb us and terrorize us and it’s off to Fantasy island for you. Can’t be a better recruting tool for Al Qaeda.
MaiDee on June 12, 2009 at 12:36 PM
So indirectly, without any humane conditions imposed, Obama would be handing them over to the Chinese?
Upstater85 on June 12, 2009 at 12:37 PM
Uighurs are a commodity. We pay through the nose to get rid of them. Next, China pays to acquire them,
burt on June 12, 2009 at 12:37 PM
That is not true. The courts have ruled that they cannot be held indefinitely. Also, the Pentagon has dropped the charges, so they don’t feel that they can try them in tribunals.
I’m not saying I care if they are abused as a matter of principle. It’s a matter of law. It’s illegal for the administratino to deport them to China if they believe they’ll be abused, which they do. You should advocate for changing the law (which almost no Republican or Democrat would do), but you shouldn’t fault Obama for following it.
tneloms on June 12, 2009 at 12:37 PM
GIVE THEM TO CHINA
The Brits trusted China with the Hong Kong separtists
THe Portugese trusted China with the Macao separtists
Surely our sweet, fun-loving “bakers dozen” of wacky afghan-trained terrorists aren’t worse than a whole Island of Jet Li movie watchers????
battleoflepanto1571 on June 12, 2009 at 12:37 PM
If we’d only killed them on the battlefield, this wouldn’t be an issue.
lorien1973 on June 12, 2009 at 12:38 PM
You forgot, China pays with the money that we owe them…
Upstater85 on June 12, 2009 at 12:38 PM
Upstater85 on June 12, 2009 at 12:37 PM
—–
With a sufficient beard that Obama can claim he didn’t know what would happen, yes.
It’s the only way Obama can make this problem go away – and he seems to very much want to make this go away.
Mew
acat on June 12, 2009 at 12:38 PM
I have to admit I blame the Bush administration for the Guantanamo mess. Not because it is or was evil or inhumane or anything like that, just because Bush and his bunch – as with everything else in the Iraq war – failed to understand the temporal constraints they were working under.
It would have been preferable just to ship these folks back to China within a couple weeks of their being captured, if the human-rights agitators wanted to make noise about it let them do so while 9/11 is still fresh.
The Supreme Court acted only because the administration had been dicking around for years with no progress on disposition. Too many lawyers, not enough common sense.
JEM on June 12, 2009 at 12:39 PM
If I was President Hu, that is exactly what I would do and I’d have my secret police on the ground in Palau right now. I also suspect that those were secreted off to Bermuda will be secreted off back to Gitmo. Gordon Brown is already on shaky ground and this very well could sink his reign. He’s really going to be done if the Chinese snatch them from Bermuda and I wouldn’t put it past them to do it and damn the international consequences of British sovereignty.
Texas Gal on June 12, 2009 at 12:39 PM
May I add, unless Barry does something, it would appear he trusts the Chinese to take care of Taiwan.
Upstater85 on June 12, 2009 at 12:40 PM
Not at all. I trust the Chinese to deal with the Uighurs in a fair manner. I would guess that most Americans trust the Chinese to handle the Uighurs appropriately.
progressoverpeace on June 12, 2009 at 12:40 PM
My side? You think that because I disagree with you on this that I’m on the side of people who think these people are being tortured at Gitmo? That’s the problem with people on this blog. No one can rationally disagree with hyperbolic views without being called a lefty troll.
These are separatists who want to fight against the Chinese government. Absolutely no one in our government (or the previous administration) thinks that they won’t be abused. You do not have much company that agrees with you on this.
tneloms on June 12, 2009 at 12:40 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8096925.stm
Upstater85 on June 12, 2009 at 12:40 PM
tneloms on June 12, 2009 at 12:40 PM
—–
Okay, tneloms. Please cite why you believe China will torture these poor terrorist bastards.
Mew
acat on June 12, 2009 at 12:41 PM
OR, OR, OR, they didn’t try to work out a deal, because they were too busy playing games with the Europeans…
At least Bush didn’t boycot Beijing.
Upstater85 on June 12, 2009 at 12:42 PM
Yes…spreading good will around the world and just one more country in which he is improving the U.S. image.
This diplomocy stuff is hard.
lwssdd on June 12, 2009 at 12:42 PM
Why? Because everyone thinks so.
Upstater85 on June 12, 2009 at 12:42 PM
It would appear it’s hard for Hillary to hammer out a deal.
Upstater85 on June 12, 2009 at 12:43 PM
This is a tough situation and the Palau residents are justified in feeling like we’ve dumped a load of toxic waste in their backyard. They’ll need to take that up with their own government though.
As for those who think some are being too hard on Obama, oh well. He got himself elected President by incessantly criticizing his predecessor’s efforts to deal with these very same issues. Because he was going to be better at it than Bush was or McCain could be. Except he’s not. He over-promised and he’s under-delivering.
Bennett on June 12, 2009 at 12:44 PM
Okay, it seems a few of you are settling on the “send them to China” solution and are claiming that we should trust the Chinese. The problem is that the government believes that they’ll be abused, and therefore it’s against the law. We can agree to disagree on the various points within this debate.
tneloms on June 12, 2009 at 12:45 PM
Again, you are AVOIDING the question.
This EXACT THING happened in the run up to the handover of HONG KONG and MACAO. Protestors, attacks, crazy anti-Chinese things, declarations to fight, eruptions right outside of the hall where the handover took place.
And yet, the Brits & Portugese gave up Hong Kong and Macao willfully. How many Hong Kongers or Macao residents were shot in the GObi desert in the aftermath?
Again, the only one who says “OMG! ZOUNDS! NO ONE TRUSTS DEM CHINESE” is YOU. Frankly, I dont care what happens; they are CHinese citizens deserving the Chinese justice system. I’m just saying, awfully picky of your side to claim the wisdom of the Europeans in “avoiding the Iraq War”, “siging Kyoto”, etc.; but now they were stupid for handing over Hong Kong & Macao to be butchered?
I get your point – “China = death”. And maybe you’re right.
But Britain and Portugal didn’t think so, and that was way before a more modern, capitalistic China
battleoflepanto1571 on June 12, 2009 at 12:47 PM
Thank you for providing this. All the reason to send them back to China.
Had Timothy McVeigh escaped to France, would you be cool with him protected under the dear “limited extradition” and abstancia – as Roman Polanski is protected???
Once they trianed in Tora Bora – it became our issue. Since the court decided they could not be kept “indefinately” – it is now China’s domestic issue.
Odie1941 on June 12, 2009 at 12:48 PM
Oh, stop being so damn practical! Don’t you know that it’s all about feeling?
OldEnglish on June 12, 2009 at 12:48 PM
Many people thought that Elian Gonzalez would be harmed (if not physically, then emotionally/mentally).
Our government intervened. They trusted Cuba. He’s gone.
There are ways to make arrangements and deals. It’s called diplomacy.
Upstater85 on June 12, 2009 at 12:49 PM
The chinese interrogators are doing jobs american interrogators aren’t allowed to do!
Heh.
lorien1973 on June 12, 2009 at 12:50 PM
tneloms on June 12, 2009 at 12:35 PM
I don’t have to offer up any solutions, I’m not the guy who said I could heal the world with the powers of my voice. I’m free to critcize Obama for bribing another country with 200 million dollars in order to remove a political thorn in his side.
You keep saying that “everyone agrees” china will abuse these poor, poor terrorists-in-training so therefore it’s illegal to send them back to their own country. What kind of standard is that? All china has to do is tell America that they will not abuse these 13 precious snowflakes and SHAZAAM! no law will be broken, right? After all, we didn’t “believe” china would harm them, so it wasn’t against the law. Obama himself said we can’t go around the world telling other countries how to act. “dictate” was his word I beleive.
Mord on June 12, 2009 at 12:50 PM
Are you saying there was political pressure in 2003 to have them cleared? I don’t think that’s true. I think the Pentagon genuinely believed they should drop the charges.
I don’t think this has anything to do with closing Gitmo. Obama would have to do something with these people even if Gitmo were remaining open, because he can’t hold them indefinitely (as ruled by the courts).
I’m not putting the blame on Bush. I don’t necessarily think the Pentagon did anything wrong in 2003. I’m just saying that that decision is what led to this issue.
It’s not an extradition treaty with China. It’s a general law that says you can’t deport people to a place where you think they’ll be abused.
It sounds like you believe it was a mistake for the Pentagon to drop the charges and that they should be tried in a tribunal. I honestly don’t know enough to decide whether this should be done. But if you believe it, you can’t just blame Obama. The previous administration lifted the charges and didn’t renew them for a long time.
My main point is that if you think Obama should press charges again against these people, then why aren’t you also mad at Bush for not doing so? I blame neither, which I believe is consistent, and you blame only one of them, which I think is inconsistent.
tneloms on June 12, 2009 at 12:50 PM
And let’s not forget empathy as well.
WordsMatter on June 12, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Belief is not proof of anything and beliefs can change on a dime. All it takes is someone saying, “I believe that they will be treated fairly.” That’s it.
How China deals with the Uighurs is not something that has any impact on security, unlike, say, Iran or North Korea – both of whose cases are interesting in that we claim to BELIEVE that they won’t do what they keep saying they’ll do.
This whole “belief” argument and the idea that US security should be held captive to the concerns of some 20 individual threats to the US is pure insanity and Orwellianism at its finest. Congrats, tneloms. You have hit rock bottom.
I bet you’ll be great in arguing for Mirandizing terrorists and getting warrants before all US bombing raids.
This insanity is an omen of the collapse of the US to come. No nation can continue to exist, once it ties itself into such insane knots. And this is nothing but insanity.
progressoverpeace on June 12, 2009 at 12:53 PM
Maybe the terrorist organizations can have their conferences there to offset the loss in tourism, sounds like a great vacation spot.
workingforpigs on June 12, 2009 at 12:54 PM
I BELIEVE that
1) Iran will develop the bomb
2) Gaza will launch rockets over the border
3) Islam is a ridiculous religion
4) Gay marriage is not morally/ethically right
&c…
Why doesn’t the government always listen to me?
Upstater85 on June 12, 2009 at 12:55 PM
They wouldn’t be abused by the Chinese.
They would be interrogated, tried, then shot.
Can’t say fairer than that.
OldEnglish on June 12, 2009 at 12:56 PM
This is one of those rare occasions when the Chinese government has it mostly right.
Daggett on June 12, 2009 at 12:58 PM
tneloms on June 12, 2009 at 12:50 PM
—-
I think Palau are working both sides of the street.
I think the left and the media won’t cover that fact.
I think you have yet to post a cite saying “The Chinese will torture these people”.
I think you are wasting my time.
Mew
acat on June 12, 2009 at 12:58 PM
You’re kidding, right? How many examples do you need me to give that Obama is not bound by the rule of law? Did you see the Supreme Court shrug off the Chrysler bond holder appeal? Have you neen watching him going after private industries to the point where the CEO of Bank of America was practically throwing up in front of Congress in FEAR as he testified on the Merril merger mess. Has Rangel been investigated? Has Pelosi been held to account for saying the CIA Lies all the time? These people are not subject to anything resembling laws or civilized structures. Anything he does with the prisoners at Gitmo is because he wants to do it – there’s no one in this country left who can MAKE him do anything – certainly not the Supreme Court. That ship sailed last week with our last hope.
.
“it does seem like you suggested that Obama ignore the rule of law”
.
Hasn’t he been doing that all along?
BrideOfRove on June 12, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Regardless of how anyone feels, it’s seems incredibly stupid to spend 200 million dollars persuade a country to house 13 suspected terrorists.
Shock the Monkey on June 12, 2009 at 1:00 PM
tneloms, what is YOUR solution
ours appears to be:
1) Send them to China. they are Chinese CITIZENS. they were AT WAR WITH AMERICA. (unless you think they were shooting “homeward bound: incredible journey 4″ and took a wrong turn at Xi’an, ending up in hilariously wacky Tora Bora)
2) Claim no abuse will happen. they’ve ALREADY been “tortured” at Gitmo. Plus, the Brits AND the portugese trusted China with freaking ISLANDS of people in Hong Kong & MAcao.
3) Even if abuse MAY happen, we’ve done it before in the face of your “laws”. We returned Elian Gonzalez to Cuba, and refused to evacuate every anti-Communist we could when we left South Vietnam.
What’s your move? (bonus point if you can do it without mentioning Bush, Karl Rove, or “military industrial complex”)
battleoflepanto1571 on June 12, 2009 at 1:00 PM
Really! For that kind of money, the US should be purchasing an island instead of simply leasing one.
highhopes on June 12, 2009 at 1:01 PM
highhopes on June 12, 2009 at 1:01 PM
—-
We’re paying for trans-shipping….
Logistics are remarkably complex!
Mew
acat on June 12, 2009 at 1:06 PM
Personally, I trust the Chinese to treat a group of separatists with ties to islamic terror organizations in an appropriate manner. It may not be very pleasant, but neither is what these fellows were hoping to accomplish.
I can understand a reluctance to return peaceful political dissidents to China for fear that they may be harmed by the government. But when it comes to terrorists, I would prefer to dispense with moral relativism and send them on their way home.
Tonus on June 12, 2009 at 1:07 PM
Because in the absence of a trial – military trial I will add – the next best thing was to keep them in GITMO. “Indefinately” has many implications, as in “not for ever” – it also means “safely under lock and key and monitored until we figure it out”. Now comes Obama who “figured it out” all right – to the point Palau’s citizens are concerned, of which we have a duty to pretect according to aggreements, China is pissed off (which has far more negative implications than the former) and our tax dollars spent $200M to achieve this juvenille “solution”, hence the outrage.
I never said they should be “charged”, as I agree with the – again – proper courts rulings mentioned several times, they can’t be kept indefinately.
Send them to China to face Chinese charges, within their legal system – as barbaric as you may think it is. And I will add 1 more thing to the “they will be tortured” meme – have you ever visited a state prison in the USA?
The world is not a rosy, linear cake walk. If they in fact are tried and put to death in China – as we do here in America – so be it.
Odie1941 on June 12, 2009 at 1:07 PM
mperek you made me laugh. Your post reminds me of Seinfeld’s Mr. Kruger.
The One = Kruger
Costanza = any of 0’s cabinet members or advisors
Brat on June 12, 2009 at 1:07 PM
Human Rights Watch:
Like that’s a bad thing considering they are in league with Al Quaeda and were caught fighting against the US. What law are we breaking by extraditing them to China? (I’ll play along with your belief that Obama might actually have to follow any laws.)
BrideOfRove on June 12, 2009 at 1:11 PM
President Toribiong has plans for one heck of a Presidential library with that money I bet.
BL@KBIRD on June 12, 2009 at 1:12 PM
Wait, they were “Tortured” in Gitmo, right?
And we have the death penalty in 40-something states.
What’s the diff?
battleoflepanto1571 on June 12, 2009 at 1:13 PM
In other news, Napolitano announced the new DHS Terrorist Travel Agent/Czar to help released AQ terrorists find vacation packages, car rental & cruise deals at rock bottom prices…!!
bigjack on June 12, 2009 at 1:16 PM
Wouldn’t a Chinese prison be far worse than Gitmo or any western prison? Just saying.
KillerKane on June 12, 2009 at 1:19 PM
The British didnt mind that when they handed over a million Hong Kongers in 1997, thousands of who were dissidents, refugees from China, and protested the govt until the minute of teh Handover
Ditto for Portugal handing over Macao in 1999
battleoflepanto1571 on June 12, 2009 at 1:22 PM
Send them back to China. Perfect lesson…moral of the story is don’t go hang out in AQ training camps. In fact our policy should be for anyone we capture to interrogate them, and then hand them over to their country of national origin…unless we think that country will turn them loose…in which case we keep them in Gitmo. But for those situations like China where we’re pretty sure they won’t go free…let the ChiComs have at it.
The Principal Chair on June 12, 2009 at 1:31 PM
Hong Kong was returned to China because of the founding treaty and not because they were comfortable that the Chinese had progressed or had advanced. People still protest in Hong Kong and many who wanted to leave Hong Kong did. Hong Kong and its residents retain a special status within China. What does that has to do with resettling Uighur seperatists who committed no known terrorist attacks and who have already served long periods in prison and were deemed safe to release by the US military?
lexhamfox on June 12, 2009 at 1:31 PM
oh…. my gosh…..
within the same paragraph, you spelled out your own hypocrisy, and proved my point
Hong Kongers STILL protest today… and nobody is killed.
Hence, what proof do you have that the Uighurs will be killed?
Wow… cant believe your last post…. read it again!
battleoflepanto1571 on June 12, 2009 at 1:35 PM
Let’s home the Uighurs think that the paradise of the Bermudas or Palau is better than the paradise that will net them 72 virgins……
originalpechanga on June 12, 2009 at 1:38 PM
I’m sure the PRC will be more than happy to sign an agreement to get these Uighars back.
The PRC is demanding we give back their citizens … we should heed their demands.
To do anything else would be judgmental.
Kristopher on June 12, 2009 at 1:39 PM
According to the CIA’s World Factbook, Palau’s GDP is $164M. $12M in subsidies per terrorist times 13 terrorists is a doubling of the island’s GDP. That makes up for a lot of tourism revenues.
hicsuget on June 12, 2009 at 1:41 PM
Thanks for the link. From the article:
The British government is worried not only about the offence to its dignity – and it does seem odd that it did not get wind of this plan.
After all, it is supposed to be in a “special relationship” with the US government.
But perhaps the new administration has not yet caught up on the niceties of what powers the mother country retains over these “overseas territories”. It is security, defence and foreign policy, if they ever ask.
LOL.. special relationship!
Return Churchill bust
No invite the Queen to D-Day
Sneak off Uighur to British Territory
That’s some special relationship alright. What will it take for the Brits to finally understand the disdain that Obama has for our former Empire?
Honestly, I don’t see the Chinese relying on the security of either of those governments to keep those Uighurs in check.
Texas Gal on June 12, 2009 at 1:48 PM
Where is the hypocracy? Where did I suggest that they would be killed?
My argument is that many other uyghers from GITMO have been resettled without fuss by the prior Administration yet somehow this situation is very different according to Ed. What is the difference?
lexhamfox on June 12, 2009 at 1:50 PM
I have an idea that will really tick off the Weegers.
Knock them all out so they think they died. Then let them wake up in the paradise environment Palau, each with 72 virgins. Only they’re virgin MEN.
Daggett on June 12, 2009 at 1:52 PM
Yes, because the Uighurs bush released in what, 2003, were SOOOOO much more DANGEROUS than the ones to be released now.
Yknow, because prisons have shorter sentences for the MORE dangerous criminals, dont you know
battleoflepanto1571 on June 12, 2009 at 1:57 PM
If you send them to China they will be excuted. If you send them to a country with Al Queda ops they will be heros and become lieutenants. That is why rotting in Gitmo is the only solution. That or start holding tribunals and excute them.
izoneguy on June 12, 2009 at 2:05 PM
More outrage over released Uighurs…
U.S. Sends Gitmo Detainees to British Island. Forgets to Tell Britain. Oops.
Looks like Palau got the bad lobster dinner while Obama Beach just slipped Mr. Browning St. a mickey.
orville on June 12, 2009 at 2:07 PM
why not let Hillary return them on her next flight over there?
workingforpigs on June 12, 2009 at 2:10 PM
We don’t know that, but what if they did? Treason and terrorism should be punished by execution, but that is up to China to decide. The fact that they trained in Afghani terrorist camps is enough for me to say that they deserve execution. Instead, they are carrying on their jihad against non-muslims within our very own system, much more effectively than if they had just bown themselves up somewhere, aided and abetted by the junta in power in Washington.
progressoverpeace on June 12, 2009 at 2:17 PM
One question…
When the first kidnapping/terror attack happens on Palau, how will the left spin it as George Bush’s fault/legacy?
You know they will.
John on June 12, 2009 at 2:21 PM
I have an idea, why not keep Club Gitmo open? Too Simple!
kirkill on June 12, 2009 at 2:27 PM
As an argument for believing the Uighers won’t be harmed I think this is very weak.
Hong Kong and Macau are very prominent in the world and have some considerable value to the Chinese because of their trade arrangements with the rest of the world. This means that shaking those communities could be very expensive so it isn’t worth doing without some very big reason. By contrast the Uighers of Xinjiang are considerably less prominent and not as valuable economically.
There is no coherent attempt at armed rebellion in Macau or Hong Kong … whereas from Xinjiang there are steady rumours of shootings and explosions. Hence there is more reason to be harsh with Uighers than with any ‘rebels’ in Hong Kong or Macau.
Hong Kong and Macau are both too small (Macau is tiny) and resource poor to survive comfortably without strong connections to some other nation and neither has land boundaries other than with the PRC. By contrast Xinjiang province is huge (the largest in China) and has very long land boundaries with Mongolia, Russia, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Khazakstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan and therefore has far more opportunities to be independent and to bring trouble into the PRC. The PRC has more reason to fear Xinjiang gaining autonomy than to fear Hong Kong or Macau having autonomy.
Also Hong Kong and Macau are still treated as ‘foreign’ places by the Chinese government(s). To get from Shenzhen to Hong Kong or vice-versa one must go through Chinese border controls and Hong Kong border controls just as if travelling from, say, Beijing to Paris. By contrast Xinjiang is just a regular part of the PRC.
YiZhangZhe on June 12, 2009 at 2:37 PM
you sure about that huh???
link
oh give me a break…undoubtedly all the president has todo is certify that they won’t be abused…just like the law that says we should move our embassy in israel to jerusalem….the president delays it every six months…for the past 15 years or so…sigh…
you post drivel.
right4life on June 12, 2009 at 2:49 PM
oh yeah obama WANTS indefinate detention…
right4life on June 12, 2009 at 2:53 PM
oops sorry, should have deleted some of that copy….
right4life on June 12, 2009 at 2:54 PM
Hey, they can call it the Mecca of the West. Get to work on it, Peggy. And don’t tell that Ivy League wimp about the project.
/donald draper
andycanuck on June 12, 2009 at 3:10 PM
Looking as if we’re going to have to re-furbish Gitmo as it’s going to be inhabited for a long, long time. I bet Somalia would take them.
jeanie on June 12, 2009 at 3:31 PM
The military said they did not pose a threat to America.
The rest of the world? Your on your own.
davod on June 12, 2009 at 3:47 PM
I’m in a betting mood to day, how much anyone want to bet that a large part of that 12 million a terrorist would go to president johns political party and into his own bank account. Me thinks pres johns may have chicago connections.
peacenprosperity on June 12, 2009 at 4:00 PM
Ser’sek er’a k’sus.
Baluian: The snake is in the grass.
Friendly21 on June 12, 2009 at 4:24 PM
The Messiah wants to close Rush’s store.
Friendly21 on June 12, 2009 at 4:26 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »