World News & Breaking News II

Blackstone said:

I have no objections with your theory.

Click to expand...

Okay then.

So do you agree that based on what we know, the likely intentions and reasoning behind the release was similar to what I described?

"official" reasons for nations doing things are often worth little salt. As critical observers we need to read between the lines. In that sense, I think shen's reasoning is not far from the truth at all.

Hell, in this case we don't even need to read between the lines -- the statements and evidence is all there, it just needs to be pieced together, and then you get the picture.

Well whatever the between the lines it the official release was due to then being categorized as not a enemy threat to the US or her allies. They were released quite publicly with names photographs and destinations more then available to PRC intelligence and security apparatus. I have little doubt that between the lines this second action of "open release" was done intentionally to allow the PRC to tag these guys, and we should have little doubt that they are under close surveillance by the PRC.

Bltizo said:

Okay then.

So do you agree that based on what we know, the likely intentions and reasoning behind the release was similar to what I described?

"official" reasons for nations doing things are often worth little salt. As critical observers we need to read between the lines. In that sense, I think shen's reasoning is not far from the truth at all.

Hell, in this case we don't even need to read between the lines -- the statements and evidence is all there, it just needs to be pieced together, and then you get the picture.

Click to expand...

BLitzo, I disagree with the above statement. When I say I don't object to your theory, I mean just that. Full stop. Now if you ask if I subscribe to it, then I'm not so sure. I say that because a case could be made for US extending goodwill to China by highlighting Xinjiang terrorist activities too. In addition, there might be actual concerns by US officials for "human rights abuse" if they were to turn the suspected terrorists over to China (yes, yes, we abuse some terrorist suspects too). Which scenario is closer to what really happened? I don't know.

Bltizo said:

Okay then.

So do you agree that based on what we know, the likely intentions and reasoning behind the release was similar to what I described?

"official" reasons for nations doing things are often worth little salt. As critical observers we need to read between the lines. In that sense, I think shen's reasoning is not far from the truth at all.

Hell, in this case we don't even need to read between the lines -- the statements and evidence is all there, it just needs to be pieced together, and then you get the picture.

Click to expand...

Extradition requires a treaty between the two entities which I believe there is none. Secondly, other reasons include the belief whether a fair trail would be given and the issue of capital punishment. Releasing to a third party was an expedient solution which the US had done for other difficult cases. I remember there were so much legal complexities and huddles involved when Australia tried to extradite a similar case even considering there was a formal extradition treaty.

Blackstone said:

And what does that have to do with Shen's charge (I paraphrase) the official reason US released Xinjiang terrorists is because they were training to attack China instead of the US?

Click to expand...

If I understand you correctly, you are objecting to Shen's post on the grounds that you don't believe the US released those guys specifically to attack China.

I didn't read Shen's post that way. He said they were released because they were "only" training to attack China, not the US.

solarz said:

How so? Literally, the US released them on the grounds that they did not fit the definition of "enemy combatants", more specifically the part about them acting against the US.

Click to expand...

This US administration has been releasing all sorts of dangerous terrorists.

The Uighurs were captured in Afghanistan and held for years. The US studied their status in depth and released a lot of the result...and we have no idea what types of back channel information has been passed to the PRC.

For this administration, using technicalities for releasing these sorts of people is not new. But the fact remains, it became apparent that tmany of hese people were not directly affiliated with the Taliban or Al Quida. The law states that in order to be "enemey combatants," they had to be. The US is restricted by its own legal proceedings, passed by Congress, so a change int the status of those we new were not involved was going to happen sooner or later.

However, there were a number of Uighurs detainees where we did not know, and even highly suspected that they were involved. They could have found reasons to keep those people.

My guess is that the PRC knew and knows a lot of info about these characters, and that they are keeping an eye on them. The PRC agreed to come tpo RIMPAC and participate in the largest US sponsored military exercises available. The Chinese recently particpated in Australia in more military exercises in the out back.

I do not believe China would proceed with such exercises, which bring the two nations closer together, if it thought for a moment...for an instant...that the US had, in essence, turned loose these people purposefully to go off and fight against China and export terrorism there.

That part of the accusation, IMHO, just does not pass the smell test.

Having said that, tIMHO, he Obama adminsitration has made a lot of real dunder-head moves when it comes to the fight against radical Silamic Terrorism. Any of these people who were caught planning to undertake terrorism attacks against any peaceful nation, particularly one of the US's largest trading partners, should never have been released at all.

Even with the US law, pretexts and loopholes could have been found to keep them legally if they had wanted to. I have to believe that it was a pure political move, meant to placate this admin's base...but I also have to believe that a LOT of info was passed to the PRC regarding these people.

Breaking down the nubers held and released:

2006 - 5 relatively minor Uighur detainees released who had minimal or no traiing and were not considered dangerous.
2009 - 11 serious Uighurs captives released, 7 listed as "Enemy combatants," but whose status was changed.
2010 - 2 Uighurs captives released, one of which alleged to have spent time at a Taliban camp, but denied it.
2012 - 2 Uighur detainees released. One alleged Al Quida member, one alleged guarded Al Quida safe house.
2013 - 3 Uighur detainees released, all of whom originally listed as "Enemy combatants," but whose status changed.

IMHO, and from what I have read, outside of maybe the 2006 releases, who appeared to have been caught up in the war without being active recruits or members of combatant groups, many of the others should not have been released at all.

Brumby said:

Extradition requires a treaty between the two entities which I believe there is none. Secondly, other reasons include the belief whether a fair trail would be given and the issue of capital punishment. Releasing to a third party was an expedient solution which the US had done for other difficult cases. I remember there were so much legal complexities and huddles involved when Australia tried to extradite a similar case even considering there was a formal extradition treaty.

Click to expand...

Blackstone said:

BLitzo, I disagree with the above statement. When I say I don't object to your theory, I mean just that. Full stop. Now if you ask if I subscribe to it, then I'm not so sure. I say that because a case could be made for US extending goodwill to China by highlighting Xinjiang terrorist activities too. In addition, there might be actual concerns by US officials for "human rights abuse" if they were to turn the suspected terrorists over to China (yes, yes, we abuse some terrorist suspects too). Which scenario is closer to what really happened? I don't know.

Click to expand...

I'll reply to both at the same time, as they concern a similar topic regarding extradition/fair trial/and their status of punishment once back in China.

Look, if the US and China had talked about the status of these individuals at the time, then I would not hold the position I do. But as far as I can remember such discussions did not occur, and these individuals who have said in plain and simple words that they wished to commit terrorist acts against China, were released.

If they'd tried to negotiate over their fates with China then that's a fair go, but that wasn't what happened.
I can understand why the US wouldn't extradite them to China, but the fact that they would free individuals with self declared violent aims says to me that terrorism has differing definitions depending on who you are committing it against.

@ Jeff

The military and political relationship between China and the US is a complicated one.

In some domains they can cooperate and be friendly, but on others they poke each other in the eye, and sometimes at the same time.
It's the strangest relationship between two world powers in recent years.

Blackstone said:

Serious accusations require serious evidence, but all you have are hearsay, innuendos, and guilt by associations. In other words, you can't produce anything concrete to prove your case. No officials of the US government would say what you claimed in public.

Click to expand...

I never wrote the US government release these terrorist to attack China. You read it that way for some reason.
Since these terrorists are Chinese citizens, illegally in a foreign country to conduct terrorist training, even if they are not deemed a direct threat to the US and cannot be legally held in the US, the properly thing to do under international laws would be to deport them to China, not extradite, DEPORT. But no, can't trust the Chinese not to torture them, but it is okay for us to waterboard them. Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy!

Blackstone said:

And what does that have to do with Shen's charge (I paraphrase) the official reason US released Xinjiang terrorists is because they were training to attack China instead of the US?

Click to expand...

How is what I wrote contradicted by what solarz wrote?