Gitmo Chinese Terrorists' Release into the U.S. is Imminent

[peejay 327]

Chinese Terrorists Release in U.S. Imminent, No Answers From Holder

by Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA)

Posted 05/05/2009 ET

Should foreigners picked up conducting terrorist training with Al Qaeda and subsequently held at Guantanamo Bay just be released into our communities, no questions asked? Believe it or not, it could happen. And soon.

The Obama administration is ready to release a number of Chinese Muslims, known as Uighurs, held at Guantanamo Bay since 2002 into the United States, according to several recent press reports.

Information I have received, however, indicates that the 17 Uighurs being held at Guantanamo may be more dangerous than the public has been led to believe. Both the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security have reportedly raised serious concerns about the release of the 17 detainees, who are said to be members of the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement, a terrorist organization affiliated with Al Qaeda.

To be clear, we are not talking about transferring these folks to prisons in the United States. They would released, free and clear. They would be walking our streets, shopping in our malls, eating in our restaurants.

Last Friday, I wrote President Obama asking that all the information about the capture and detention of the 17 Uighurs -- including a threat assessment for each detainee who would be released into the United States -- be declassified and released to the public. Any intelligence assessment of the Uighurs also must take into account not only their previous training at terrorist camps but their potential subsequent exposure to the likes of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11 who also took pleasure in beheading Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.

The American people have a right to know all the facts. Following the precedent the Obama administration set in declassifying the Office of Legal Counsel interrogation memos, it has a moral obligation to declassify all relevant information related to the Uyghur detainees. This administration has already shown that it has no qualms about releasing selected classified documents. It can’t just pick and choose what classified information it deems worthy of releasing.

It is worth noting that after learning that the decision could come any day now, I requested briefings from a number of relevant agencies -- but all have told me that the Department of Justice is preventing them from speaking to me directly on this issue. Is the Attorney General preventing agencies from answering Members’ questions?

This is not the transparency and accountability the president promised, nor is it the open and constructive relationship he claims to want with Congress. This is not change. This is an administration intent on keeping Congress and the American people in the dark about critically-important national security issues.

I have written Attorney General Holder two letters asking a series of questions about the transfer of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. The first was dated March 13; and the second was dated April 23. I have yet to receive a response to either. My office has been told by the White House that some of the questions that I have asked can’t even be answered.

When Attorney General Holder appeared before the Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations subcommittee last month, he pointedly said he would not play “hide and seek” with information. What is he hiding? The Attorney General, in my opinion, is ‘slow rolling’ information as terrorist detainees are released into the United States.

On Sunday, “60 Minutes” had a disturbing segment which touched on the radicalization of Guantanamo Bay detainees. The story indicated that in Saudi Arabia alone, of the 117 men returned from Guantanamo, 11 have shown up again on Saudi Arabia’s most wanted terrorist list.

I fear political expediency may be clouding judgment. That is inexcusable in a post-9/11 world. The American people have a right to know everything there is to know about these people who could potentially be released into our neighborhoods. The stakes are simply too high for the administration to reasonably think that the American people should simply take their word for it that these men pose no security threat.

Mr. Wolf, a Republican, represents the 10th District of Virginia in the U. S. House of Representatives.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31729

________________________________________________________________

Sessions Named Ranking Judiciary Republican

More questions about Gitmo terrorists to be released into the USA

by Connie Hair

Posted 05/05/2009 ET

Updated 05/05/2009 ET

Yesterday, in a move very pleasing to conservatives, Senate Republicans chose Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) to be the new Republican ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee. The leadership seat was vacated by Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) when Specter switched to the Democrat Party in an attempt to win re-election next year. Republican voters in Pennsylvania made it quite clear early on that he would be ousted during the primary election. Principle and party have never been important to Specter.

Sessions will now be the point man in Republican examination of President Obama’s nominee to replace Supreme Court Justice David Souter who is retiring next month. That battle may be the most important of Obama’s first term.

Sen. Sessions -- a former state attorney general -- has a reputation for tough questioning of witnesses. He was one of the leaders in the 2007 fight against the McCain-Bush-Kennedy immigration amnesty bill and earlier this year led conservatives challenging Eric Holder’s nomination for attorney general on the grounds of Holder’s opposition to Second Amendment rights, abortion and a variety of other key issues. (He has a 98% lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union.)

Back in April, Sessions took the lead on what has quickly become the most urgent assault on public safety we face today from the Obama administration: the decision to release al Qaeda-trained terrorists -- captured in an actual al Qaeda training camp -- from Gitmo into Northern Virginia as early as this week.

Sessions sent a letter on April 2nd to Attorney General Eric Holder demanding answers to reports that these terrorists would be released into our cities with a public stipend.

“According to the [news] report, you are considering releasing, among others, the seventeen Uighur detainees who received military training, including firearms training, in terrorist camps in Afghanistan for potential terrorist actions against Chinese interests,” Sessions said in the letter. “Your comments were followed one week later by Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair’s announcement that, not only may detainees be released, but the government would need to provide ‘some sort of public assistance for them to start a new life.’”

“I find these reports very troubling in light of recent Pentagon reports that have shown as many as 60 former Guantanamo detainees have resurfaced on foreign battlefields, including in leadership roles,” Sessions continued. “With this history in mind, I would oppose any release of trained militants or terrorists into the United States. Such an action would be contrary to national security interests, as well as federal law.”

Sessions went on to point out that a recent D.C. Circuit Court ruling found that the Obama administration lacks the authority for their proposed action.

Sessions said in the letter, “Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held in Kiyemba v. Obama, 555F.3d 1022 (D.C. Cir. 2009) that federal courts lack the constitutional authority to order the release of the Uighur detainees into the United States. See id. At 1029 (“[N]ever in the history of habeas corpus has any court thought it had the power to order an alien held overseas brought into the sovereign territory of a nation and released into the general population.”). Accordingly, the Obama administration is under no obligation to release the Uighurs or any other Guantanamo detainees into the United States. In fact, the administration is likely legally barred from admitting the Uighurs or other dangerous detainees into the United States.”

As of the deadline for this article, Holder has not responded to these questions from a member of the United States Senate.

Wolf against the Uighur Release

In another strong attempt to protect the people of Virginia from the Obama administration’s plans to release these terrorists into our communities, Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) also sent a letter to the Attorney General and spoke of the dangers these terrorists pose on the House floor last Friday and called for a release of all of the classified information this administration possesses on these Uighur terrorists:

“Following the precedent that the administration set in declassifying the Office of Legal Counsel interrogation memos, it has a moral obligation to the American people to declassify all relevant information related to the Uyghur detainees,” Wolf said in his floor speech. “This administration has already shown that it has no qualms about releasing selected classified documents. The White House just can’t pick and choose what classified information it deems worthy of releasing. It can’t have it both ways. It shouldn’t release information that conveniently makes their case without making information with profound national security implications available to the American people.”

Wolf revealed that President Obama is stonewalling all inquiries to any of his executive branch agencies about their plans to release terrorists onto U.S. soil.

“After learning that this decision was imminent, I requested briefings from a number of relevant agencies -- but all have told me that the Department of Justice is preventing them from speaking to me directly on this issue,” Wolf said. “Is the Attorney General preventing agencies from answering Members’ questions?”

President Obama is probably the one preventing his agencies from answering any questions regarding these reckless plans that will endanger American lives. Obama is personally accountable for the actions of these terrorists should they be released by his administration onto American soil. The final decision to release these terrorists is his and his alone.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell offered a far better solution from the Senate floor on Monday regarding the release of these terrorists and the arbitrary date this administration has set for the Gitmo closing without any real plans for what to do with the dangerous terrorists held there.

“Clearly, the administration lacks a plan and a safe alternative for closing Guantanamo,” McConnell said. “So let me make a suggestion: it should reconsider its arbitrary deadline on Guantanamo just as it reconsidered its commitment to arbitrary withdrawal deadlines on Iraq. Once the administration has a plan to safely detain, prosecute, or transfer these detainees, the Congress should be consulted and briefed to evaluate this proposal. With no safe alternative, this is the only sensible approach.”

It is unlikely that sanity will prevail.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31730

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I believe the thinking is that they'd be executed in China.

The military tribunals determined that "Enemy combatant" status did not apply to these individuals, so their status on release from Guantanamo Bay is rather difficult to determine. Technically speaking, they have no committed any crimes, nor have they been deemed to be part of the terrorist resistance to the US military. So what should be done with such people?

I tend to think that the US has a responsibility to them, whether we agree with that or not.

Incidentally the Chinese government's attitude to the Uighurs is somewhat questionable - and I've read that the Chinese government has applied terrorist status to Uighur political groups as a way to squash a predominantly peaceful separatist movement in the region.

Edited May 5, 2009 by Private Pike

[Ban Hammer 14,600]

send them to cali or ny.

[peejay 327]

I believe the thinking is that they'd be executed in China.

The military tribunals determined that "Enemy combatant" status did not apply to these individuals, so their status on release from Guantanamo Bay is rather difficult to determine. Technically speaking, they have no committed any crimes, nor have they been deemed to be part of the terrorist resistance to the US military. So what should be done with such people?

I tend to think that the US has a responsibility to them, whether we agree with that or not.

Incidentally the Chinese government's attitude to the Uighurs is somewhat questionable - and I've read that the Chinese government has applied terrorist status to Uighur political groups as a way to squash a predominantly peaceful separatist movement in the region.

So why the reluctance of the administration to come clean and inform the American people on this issue?

If there is even any question of danger to the American public then these questions should not be dismissed without thourough public vetting. After all, the administration has no qualms about releasing classified information it deems bolsters its position on the issue of Gitmo. Why not release information on the backgrounds of terror suspects they wish to release on the streets of America? Why shouldn't this be made public?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I believe the thinking is that they'd be executed in China.

The military tribunals determined that "Enemy combatant" status did not apply to these individuals, so their status on release from Guantanamo Bay is rather difficult to determine. Technically speaking, they have no committed any crimes, nor have they been deemed to be part of the terrorist resistance to the US military. So what should be done with such people?

I tend to think that the US has a responsibility to them, whether we agree with that or not.

Incidentally the Chinese government's attitude to the Uighurs is somewhat questionable - and I've read that the Chinese government has applied terrorist status to Uighur political groups as a way to squash a predominantly peaceful separatist movement in the region.

So why the reluctance of the administration to come clean and inform the American people on this issue?

If there is even any question of danger to the American public then these questions should not be dismissed without thourough public vetting. After all, the administration has no qualms about releasing classified information it deems bolsters its position on the issue of Gitmo. Why not release information on the backgrounds of terror suspects they wish to release on the streets of America? Why shouldn't this be made public?

Beats me. The administration has been pretty selective so far on what information it releases pertaining to the disposition of Guantanamo detainees.

Presumably if we trusted the previous government's approach of applying enemy combatant status to these people via the assumption of "where there's smoke there's fire", perhaps we shouldn't question the current govt on this issue as they've obviously got our best interests at heart.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Again it begs the question of why we allowed our government to do this to begin with. Why did we give them these broad anti-terrorist powers?

[peejay 327]

I believe the thinking is that they'd be executed in China.

The military tribunals determined that "Enemy combatant" status did not apply to these individuals, so their status on release from Guantanamo Bay is rather difficult to determine. Technically speaking, they have no committed any crimes, nor have they been deemed to be part of the terrorist resistance to the US military. So what should be done with such people?

I tend to think that the US has a responsibility to them, whether we agree with that or not.

Incidentally the Chinese government's attitude to the Uighurs is somewhat questionable - and I've read that the Chinese government has applied terrorist status to Uighur political groups as a way to squash a predominantly peaceful separatist movement in the region.

So why the reluctance of the administration to come clean and inform the American people on this issue?

If there is even any question of danger to the American public then these questions should not be dismissed without thourough public vetting. After all, the administration has no qualms about releasing classified information it deems bolsters its position on the issue of Gitmo. Why not release information on the backgrounds of terror suspects they wish to release on the streets of America? Why shouldn't this be made public?

Beats me. The administration has been pretty selective so far on what information it releases pertaining to the disposition of Guantanamo detainees.

Presumably if we trusted the previous government's approach of applying enemy combatant status to these people via the assumption of "where there's smoke there's fire", perhaps we shouldn't question the current govt on this issue as they've obviously got our best interests at heart.

Who is this "we"?

There is absolutely no similarity involved in the situation of detaining terror suspects captured on foreign soil and the situation of releasing these terror suspects onto the streets of the USA. I can damned sure tell which one is in my best inerests and which one is not.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I believe the thinking is that they'd be executed in China.

The military tribunals determined that "Enemy combatant" status did not apply to these individuals, so their status on release from Guantanamo Bay is rather difficult to determine. Technically speaking, they have no committed any crimes, nor have they been deemed to be part of the terrorist resistance to the US military. So what should be done with such people?

I tend to think that the US has a responsibility to them, whether we agree with that or not.

Incidentally the Chinese government's attitude to the Uighurs is somewhat questionable - and I've read that the Chinese government has applied terrorist status to Uighur political groups as a way to squash a predominantly peaceful separatist movement in the region.

So why the reluctance of the administration to come clean and inform the American people on this issue?

If there is even any question of danger to the American public then these questions should not be dismissed without thourough public vetting. After all, the administration has no qualms about releasing classified information it deems bolsters its position on the issue of Gitmo. Why not release information on the backgrounds of terror suspects they wish to release on the streets of America? Why shouldn't this be made public?

Beats me. The administration has been pretty selective so far on what information it releases pertaining to the disposition of Guantanamo detainees.

Presumably if we trusted the previous government's approach of applying enemy combatant status to these people via the assumption of "where there's smoke there's fire", perhaps we shouldn't question the current govt on this issue as they've obviously got our best interests at heart.

Who is this "we"?

There is absolutely no similarity involved in the situation of detaining terror suspects captured on foreign soil and the situation of releasing these terror suspects onto the streets of the USA. I can damned sure tell which one is in my best inerests and which one is not.

"We" the voting public of course (though actually that would technically exclude me - as an LPR I'm just along for the ride and my taxes pay for this stuff whether I agree with it or not).

Again - the determination was made that Guantanamo Bay was necessary for the incarceration and interrogation of these people based on a shared assumption that the people in the facility not only deserved to be there but that the lack of evidence of any criminality on their part justified the "Enemy Combatant" status and the suspension of Habeas Corpus.

But to your argument - sure there is a similarity. In fact, there absolutely is.

The fact is - the tribunals that the government set up (partly as a result of not a little public and political pressure) were set up to determine the guilt, innocence and potential threat posed by the people in custody. By that lesser yardstick of justice its been determined that those people are guilty of no crime, and that the enemy combatant status does not now apply to them.

What justification do we then have to hold them further, or else deport them to a country where they will most likely be executed?

Its a thorny issue all right.

Edited May 5, 2009 by Private Pike

[peejay 327]

What justification do we then have to hold them further, or else deport them to a country where they will most likely be executed?

How do you know they will be executed? How do you know they are not a threat to the American people?

So why not send them back to their own country if no one else in the whole wide world will take them in? Better that than the streets of the USA.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What justification do we then have to hold them further, or else deport them to a country where they will most likely be executed?

How do you know they will be executed? How do you know they are not a threat to the American people?

So why not send them back to their own country if no one else in the whole wide world will take them in? Better that than the streets of the USA.

I don't know any of these things. Neither do you.

From what I've read the reason they won't deport the Uighurs to China is that they will be subject to torture and/or execution (because there is a track record of abuse of political dissidents in that country).

Generally speaking we grant asylum to such people.

Edited May 5, 2009 by Private Pike

[peejay 327]

What justification do we then have to hold them further, or else deport them to a country where they will most likely be executed?

How do you know they will be executed? How do you know they are not a threat to the American people?

So why not send them back to their own country if no one else in the whole wide world will take them in? Better that than the streets of the USA.

I don't know any of these things. Neither do you.

From what I've read the reason they won't deport the Uighurs to China is that they will be subject to torture and/or execution (because there is a track record of abuse of political dissidents in that country).

Generally speaking we grant asylum to such people.

Again...who is this "we"? Don't involve me in this fiasco. I don't want these people in my community without a whole lot more detailed disclosure. NIMBY!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What justification do we then have to hold them further, or else deport them to a country where they will most likely be executed?

How do you know they will be executed? How do you know they are not a threat to the American people?

So why not send them back to their own country if no one else in the whole wide world will take them in? Better that than the streets of the USA.

I don't know any of these things. Neither do you.

From what I've read the reason they won't deport the Uighurs to China is that they will be subject to torture and/or execution (because there is a track record of abuse of political dissidents in that country).

Generally speaking we grant asylum to such people.

Again...who is this "we"? Don't involve me in this fiasco. I don't want these people in my community without a whole lot more detailed disclosure. NIMBY!

This country's immigration laws generally provide sanctuary for people in the event that its demonstrate that the immigrants removal to their home country would likely result in torture, execution or poltical imprisonment. I rather suspect that there's no public disclosure on the disposition of aslyees.

This isn't a typical case of course - but I expect similar principles would apply.

Edited May 5, 2009 by Private Pike

[peejay 327]

What justification do we then have to hold them further, or else deport them to a country where they will most likely be executed?

How do you know they will be executed? How do you know they are not a threat to the American people?

So why not send them back to their own country if no one else in the whole wide world will take them in? Better that than the streets of the USA.

I don't know any of these things. Neither do you.

From what I've read the reason they won't deport the Uighurs to China is that they will be subject to torture and/or execution (because there is a track record of abuse of political dissidents in that country).

Generally speaking we grant asylum to such people.

Again...who is this "we"? Don't involve me in this fiasco. I don't want these people in my community without a whole lot more detailed disclosure. NIMBY!

This country's immigration laws generally provide sanctuary for people in the event that its demonstrate that the immigrants removal to their home country would likely result in torture, execution or poltical imprisonment. I rather suspect that there's no public disclosure on the disposition of aslyees.

This isn't a typical case of course - but I expect similar principles would apply.

Oh, come on, man! So if you don't think foreigners picked up allegedly conducting terrorist training with Al Qaeda and subsequently held at Guantanamo Bay aren't just typical immigrants seeking asylum, what are they? I don't know about your comfort level, but I do believe there is enough smoke going on there to give a strong indication of fire. I don't know why no one else in the world doesn't want them, but I surely think they are better off "home" (or anywhere else) than loose on the streets of America. If it's an either / or proposition...I know which choice I'd take.

I certainly don't want innocent people to be tortured, imprisoned, or executed solely for political belief, but why take a chance with the safety of the American people. Gambling should not be an option.

Edited May 5, 2009 by peejay

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What justification do we then have to hold them further, or else deport them to a country where they will most likely be executed?

How do you know they will be executed? How do you know they are not a threat to the American people?

So why not send them back to their own country if no one else in the whole wide world will take them in? Better that than the streets of the USA.

I don't know any of these things. Neither do you.

From what I've read the reason they won't deport the Uighurs to China is that they will be subject to torture and/or execution (because there is a track record of abuse of political dissidents in that country).

Generally speaking we grant asylum to such people.

Again...who is this "we"? Don't involve me in this fiasco. I don't want these people in my community without a whole lot more detailed disclosure. NIMBY!

This country's immigration laws generally provide sanctuary for people in the event that its demonstrate that the immigrants removal to their home country would likely result in torture, execution or poltical imprisonment. I rather suspect that there's no public disclosure on the disposition of aslyees.

This isn't a typical case of course - but I expect similar principles would apply.

Oh, come on, man! So if you don't think foreigners picked up allegedly conducting terrorist training with Al Qaeda and subsequently held at Guantanamo Bay are just typical immigrants seeking asylum, what are they? I don't know about your comfort level, but I do believe there is enough smoke going on there to give a strong indication of fire. I don't know why no one else in the world doesn't want them, but I surely think they are better off "home" (or anywhere else) than loose on the streets of America. If it's an either / or proposition...I know which choice I'd take.

I certainly don't want innocent people to be tortured, imprisoned, or executed solely for political belief, but why take a chance with the safety of the American people. Gambling should not be an option.

Whatever you or I believe, its surely the law of the land that will rule on the final disposition of these people. But this is not a typical scenario by any means.

The point of course is that we should never have opened this door to begin with.

[peejay 327]

What justification do we then have to hold them further, or else deport them to a country where they will most likely be executed?

How do you know they will be executed? How do you know they are not a threat to the American people?

So why not send them back to their own country if no one else in the whole wide world will take them in? Better that than the streets of the USA.

I don't know any of these things. Neither do you.

From what I've read the reason they won't deport the Uighurs to China is that they will be subject to torture and/or execution (because there is a track record of abuse of political dissidents in that country).

Generally speaking we grant asylum to such people.

Again...who is this "we"? Don't involve me in this fiasco. I don't want these people in my community without a whole lot more detailed disclosure. NIMBY!

This country's immigration laws generally provide sanctuary for people in the event that its demonstrate that the immigrants removal to their home country would likely result in torture, execution or poltical imprisonment. I rather suspect that there's no public disclosure on the disposition of aslyees.

This isn't a typical case of course - but I expect similar principles would apply.

Oh, come on, man! So if you don't think foreigners picked up allegedly conducting terrorist training with Al Qaeda and subsequently held at Guantanamo Bay are just typical immigrants seeking asylum, what are they? I don't know about your comfort level, but I do believe there is enough smoke going on there to give a strong indication of fire. I don't know why no one else in the world doesn't want them, but I surely think they are better off "home" (or anywhere else) than loose on the streets of America. If it's an either / or proposition...I know which choice I'd take.

I certainly don't want innocent people to be tortured, imprisoned, or executed solely for political belief, but why take a chance with the safety of the American people. Gambling should not be an option.

Whatever you or I believe, its surely the law of the land that will rule on the final disposition of these people. But this is not a typical scenario by any means.

The point of course is that we should never have opened this door to begin with.

Again and yet again...who is this "we"? As far as I'm concerned these guys are doing just fine down in Gitmo. And if they end up somewhere else beside America I'm cool with that too.

And it is Obama that wants them released into America. The point of this convoluted thread is that I don't agree that is an acceptable conclusion to this.