It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US allegedly imprisoned Chinese dissidents in exchange for China's support of Iraq war

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 01:16 PM
link   
The Washington Post reported this morning that lawyers of seven Chinese Muslims imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay since 2002 are alleging they were dissidents against the Chinese government that the U.S. agreed to detain in exchange for Chinese support of the Iraq war.


Citing new laws that allow detainees to challenge their status as "enemy combatants," the lawyers argue that their seven clients -- ethnic Uighurs (pronounced wee-gurs) -- have never taken up arms against the United States or its allies. They contend that the men have been labeled wrongfully as terrorist suspects because they oppose the Communist Chinese government.

In a 58-page filing at the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the lawyers argue that the Uighurs have been held since early 2002 as a way to win Chinese acquiescence for the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Source


If this turns out to be proven, it's absolutely outrageous. The U.S., in an attempt to win support for a war to supposedly free the Iraqis, agrees to imprison Chinese dissidents who support the United States. Yet I've only seen this article posted in two places online. It's a potentially huge story showing the hypocrisy and despicable nature of this administration... but there is silence.

The detainees apparently lived in Afghanistan at one point, and the U.S. claims they were taking part in a terrorist training camp—however, it is unclear how this is known, as the camp was evacuated when the U.S. bombed it, and they wouldn't have been able to identify who was there. The detainees say they have nothing against the United States or its interests and were living in Afghanistan to escape from Chinese oppression.




posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   

The detainees apparently lived in Afghanistan at one point, and the U.S. claims they were taking part in a terrorist training camp—however, it is unclear how this is known, as the camp was evacuated when the U.S. bombed it, and they wouldn't have been able to identify who was there.


How do you know that the base was evacuated? or that 'they' weren't there?

It would seem that the Chinese have no problem jailing their own, killling their own or making them just disappear.

That's why I question this article.



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
How do you know that the base was evacuated? or that 'they' weren't there?


Sorry, should've phrased that better. According to the article, it was evacuated. They were not arrested at that location, but at some point later. From the article, emphasis added:


More than a dozen Uighurs are still in Guantanamo. U.S. officials have determined them to be enemy combatants because of their participation in an alleged terrorist training camp in Afghanistan, which all fled when the United States started bombing the area after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The Uighurs have told military court officials they were not allied with the Taliban and are sympathetic to the United States, which they view as a liberator. They said they were living in a small community in Afghanistan after fleeing oppression in China.

According to military tribunal records and court filings, the men were lured to a mosque in Pakistan, where they were arrested and later turned over to Pakistani authorities. Willett said he believes the men were sold to the United States for sizable bounties and were sent to Guantanamo along with many other detainees captured there.



Originally posted by ferretman2
It would seem that the Chinese have no problem jailing their own, killling their own or making them just disappear.

That's why I question this article.


I'm not sure what you mean exactly. Could you clarify?

Update:

I recognize that at this point, there isn't much public evidence on either side of this story, but I feel it should still be read and discussed so that if, at any point in the future, more evidence does come forward, people will know of the story already and not continue to ignore it.

Additionally, the article mentions that a number of these Chinese Muslims have already been cleared of terrorism charges but have not been released from custody because the U.S. feels they will be imprisoned or tortured in China. The very least they can do after imprisoning them with no trial and finally clearing them of all charges is provide them with stay inside the United States for the time being. Keeping them in prison because they supposedly fear for their safety is stupid.

[edit on 5-12-2006 by LoganCale]



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Logan - Then the title of your thread is mis-leading - no where does it state that the prisoners were help inorder to get Chinas approval.

They were supposedly captured in Pakistan.

Can you point out where it states they were captured, sent to Gitmo, inorder to get approval from China?



posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
Logan - Then the title of your thread is mis-leading - no where does it state that the prisoners were help inorder to get Chinas approval.

They were supposedly captured in Pakistan.

Can you point out where it states they were captured, sent to Gitmo, inorder to get approval from China?





In a 58-page filing at the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the lawyers argue that the Uighurs have been held since early 2002 as a way to win Chinese acquiescence for the U.S. invasion of Iraq.



posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   

In a 58-page filing at the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the lawyers argue that the Uighurs have been held since early 2002 as a way to win Chinese acquiescence for the U.S. invasion of Iraq.


That's the excuse their laywer is giving......(that would be his job to 'prove' his clients are innocent)

There is no other 'source' besides thier lawyer (which has to be suspect due to the job).



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join