Apparently protective custody is now a violation of basic human rights.

That was never established.  All that was established was they were not currently a threat.  They indeed were in the wrong place at the wrong time (Afghanistan) which meant they were not being altruistic.  Once it was determined they would not be a further threat (not no threat), then the trouble of finding someplace to send them was undertaken.  it was not just giving them a plane ticket as no one would have them, so what do  you do?  Hold them until a place is found. Which was done.

Again being in the wrong place at the wrong time. In other words, they were not sitting in a library playing parchesi.  As you also noted, once it was determined they were ok, they were released.

Afghanistan is not some sort of "police action".  it is a war. And you do not know who to trust (as evidenced by the Jourdanian double agent).  And as I have said, and we all know, nothing human is perfect.  The fact that mistakes are corrected as soon as possible when possible is a testament to the "humanity" of the US action, not the inhumanity. 

I dont think anyone has ever said that "no mistakes (or mistaken indentities) have been made".  Only that they are corrected.  But they also dont want to release those that intend to do us harm.  So in war, unlike under normal law (in the US and Germany, surprisingly not in France), they are presumed guilty until proven (or at least indicated) innocent.

Why didn't the US give those uigures a greencard? Or help them - I thought you supported the fight against oppression. And China is oppressive and ruthless at that. Where was it written that you had to release them to China? So the US didn't want to burden diplomatic relations and those guys who were fighting against the evil guys in their homecountry had to suffer for it. How ironic is that? They became the punchline in a really bad joke.

Under the policy, that was their home nation.  You cannot "deport" someone to a new country, because then they are just illegal aliens in that country.

You sound like Jack Bauer lol

All I can say is I wasn't oppressed when I've been to China, of course I didn't voice my opinion. I do believe they are an intolerant nation, but when it comes to terrorists I agree with their policy completely, if guilty they should be executed. I believe the US went far out of the way to protect these men that were seeking to learn the skills to harm others, possibly innocents. Let me put in in a context that might make better sense to you: Would you provide an escape for a pedophile that was planning to molest a neighbors kids, whom you don't like, just because he had no plan to molest your kids and your neighbor might hurt him if he got his hands on him? Even if that same pedophile was hanging out with another group of pedophiles that WERE planning on molesting your kids?

Why on earth would the US ever give someone interested in learning terrorist skills a green card? I noticed Germany didn't show any interest in taking them, are you so heartless over there? Actually, I don't blame you, so why do you expect us to do something so foolish that your country (and many others) wouldn't do? I really love the international out cry about Gitmo, yet no one (except the Chinese) want to take these poor, mistreated souls into their homes. Gitmo could be empty tomorrow. It's so easy to be self-righteous when it's just words.

Gitmo is a military base, it has been since the Spanish American War. The gates were closed when Castro came to power. It is a beautiful place, I've been there. You could say everyone stationed there is imprisoned to a degree. It has been used as a detention camp for illegal aliens (Haitian) held until they could be deported. It has also been used as a refuge camp (for those very same Haitians, as many as 10,000). Of course keeping war detainees there was/is political. It keeps things that shouldn't be complicated, simple. Too many liberal minded folks here are overly concerned about giving our external enemies the same rights as US citizens (ACLU). Imagine if the over 250,000 German and Italian POW's were captured and held in the US today. The US would have not been able to prosecute the war, due to the cost of providing a quarter of a million trials, complete with security, lawyers, appeals and on and on.

Germany didn't want to have to mop up a problem that the US created in the first place, but the social democrats and the greens were all for taking them in. Merkel and her cleavage weren't too inclined though - security threat. There is hypocrisy all around, and I know that yapping about lofty moral principles seems completely out of synch with reality when jihadist terrorists use civil and human rights to try and outmanouver those silly westerners with their bleeding hearts. Germany didn't have a major terrorist attack since the red army faction were hunted down or disappeared, so public oppinion has the luxury of thinking about all of this in abstract terms. The german troops in Afghanistan are hardly on the radar and now 5000 US troops will be moved to northern Afghanistan to do what the germans don't do.. take an active role. There are so many things weird, like training the police in Afghanistan according to western standards. I can't seem to reconcile the image in my head - afghani police securing evidence and interviewing witnesses in a country that seems to be basically lawless, hit by terror attacks and the war against the taleban going on as well.

Those POW's were in uniform and even those that were in camps in the US didn't get a trial. They didn't need one, they didn't do anything other than fighting in a declared war and getting captured. Why would they have needed lawyers or a trial? After the war was over they were released and went home. Some even stayed behind and married american woman. They were never suspected of being terrorists or saboteurs or spies. But catching all the terrorist/taleban (provided that you could identify them without a problem right away) and putting them ina camp just to let them go once the "war" seems to be over doesn't appear to be a very smart idea.

I am glad the swiss arrested that man and hopefully they'll extradite him to the US. I never understood how some people came to Polanskis defense by saying that he was such a great artist and didn't deserve to be arrested for a "minor thing" like rape that happend so long ago. Disgusting. At last we agree on something..

 

It is doubtful that fundamentalism can be defeated by military means. Their ideology is hammered into these people from the day they were born, they don't really know any alternatives. I saw this really moving documentary from a young israeli filmmaker who interviewed woman in a prison that had attempted suicide bombs, recruited people for it etc. Some of these woman had children, and they were able to have them with them in prison till the kids turn 2. It is pretty breathtaking to hear a 18month old boy babble "allah is great". That child doesn't stand a chance - all he learns is what hamas teaches, he's a potential terrorist in the future.

Amending the rules and capturing or kiling every terrorist isn't possible - you have to stop them to teach their children to be terrorists. I have no idea how to accomplish that, but unless the "de jiadification" of those fundamentalist muslims is somehow achieved, I doubt that a victory in this war is possible. Killing cell leaders (and their families) with drones around the world like in Somalia a few months ago is like cutting off a head from Hydra - 2 new ones will appear in its place.

Amending the rules IS possible and I'm speaking of the ones we do catch. Right now it's a win-win for the terrorist...carry out his mission successfully or get captured and live probably in better conditions that he is used to at hotel Gitmo...on the taxpayers dime.

I wasn't refering to the GC when I said that it is impossible, it is more a general statement. Military action is not the sole solution, and more violence would only be counterproductive. Interestingly enough "winning hearts and minds" and the new strategy in Afghanistan to stay in the villages to ensure stability and a positive image of the west are a part of what I called "de-jehadification". If you ammend the rules, nothing much in the overall situation would change. You would kill or capture more, probably have more collateral victims as well, but the problem would still be the same. You can only really change something if the young generation is taught different values.

If someone is not guilty of the charges that said person was arrested for, you let them go. You can't just keep someone locked up because they want to use violence sometime in the future. Otherwise, you would have to arrest all of the US military right away - they train to fight and kill after all. Being detained in, what did you call it, protective custody, for no reason other than those that detained you say "WELL, I have no evidence that you had any connection to jihadist terror networks or planned an attack on us, but I can only release you to those that you are fighting against in your homecountry and they would kill you right away, so bummer for you. You have to wait until someone has enough pity to say that they'll take you in and grant you political asylum - something that WE can't do because it would piss off a big global player and superimportant business partner of ours." Not extraditing them to China is not exactly what I'd call generous and the detention did violate their civil rights. Arrested without evidence, no trial, detained without a trial, no access to a lawyer, no habeas corups rights, no legal measure available to plead their case or to protest, no communication to the outside.. apparently, guilty by association and the reversal of being innocent until proven guilty seem to be no problem here. It is a big problem if someone treats US citizens that way abroad though - then it is no problem to call all of the above violations against basic civil rights.

And so what that they wanted to learn military measures and paid the Taleban to train them in order to fight against the Chinese - you yourself just advocated the use of violence against islamists. So it is only OK if the US military does it to fight fundamentalists (using drones, special forces etc - and there are always innocent victims like family members that are considered acceptable losses), but not OK when others want to do the same to fight off a dictatorial regime and gain their independance or at least autonomy? It isn't like opressed minorities in China have many options. You're a tad hypocritical.