Saturday, August 27, 2005

Finland turns down US request to give asylum to Chinese Muslims held in Guantanamo

Finland is just beyond Political Correctness:

Finland turns down US request to give asylum to Chinese Muslims held in Guantanamo

A group of 15 Chinese Muslims, or Uighur, being held in the US military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are still being kept at the prison, although they had been cleared for release nearly two years ago. The Washington Post reports that the US does not know what to do with the prisoners. Experts believe that if they were sent to China, they could face torture or execution. The US has asked about 20 countries, including Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, and Turkey to give them asylum. The US Defense Department reportedly ordered the release of 15 of the Uighur already in late 2003, and again in March this year. Five of the group had been in the wrong place at the wrong time. They were captured by Pakistani bounty hunters in order to cash in on the rewards offered by the United States for Muslim extremists in the area. Ten of the prisoners were classified as "fairly harmless". They had operated against the Chinese Communist government. Seven of the Uighur were classified as "enemy combatants" and were kept imprisoned.

13 Comments:

At August 27, 2005 12:55 AM, Blogger sissyblue said...

I say "Ship them back to CHINA". Maybe next time they'll think twice about their evil ways.... Oh ya, there probably wouldn't be a NEXT TIME if they were shipped back!

 
At August 27, 2005 1:53 AM, Blogger TheKaffir said...

I agree with sissyblue. Who cares if they are tortured in China?

 
At August 27, 2005 5:08 AM, Blogger sissyblue said...

Thanks the kaffir, Why are the people in Europe so afraid of people "paying" for their crimes, i.e. the Death Penalty... I don't get it. But then, I don't get why we don't just ship the AHs back to China...

 
At August 27, 2005 6:18 AM, Blogger Mike H. said...

What strikes me is that Europe won't extradite prisoners to the US because of the death penalty, and yet they refuse to accept those who the US wants to save from death. I thought they had liberal immigration laws and a high regard for life.

 
At August 27, 2005 2:13 PM, Blogger erp said...

Not reported by the media, Amnesty International nor Democrats in congress is that the prisoners at Gitmo would be really tortured and killed if they were sent back to their own countries.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 
At August 27, 2005 2:44 PM, Blogger sissyblue said...

I just saw something on TV about the UN saying the UK can not deport their trouble-makers because they MIGHT be tortured (even though the UK has assurances from the receiving countries that it won't happen). This is getting interesting. It might be time to tell the UN to shut the h-ll up! Amazing.

 
At August 27, 2005 9:09 PM, Blogger P. Froward said...

If they really are in fact harmless, I think we (the US) ought to take them in ourselves. Why not? We've got millions of immigrants already. If I were Finland, I'd be asking why the US doesn't just do that. I suspect the reason is that we're not really all that certain.

 
At August 27, 2005 9:29 PM, Blogger erp said...

prof. I doubt they're harmless and I think it's the president's way of bringing the battle back to the carpers.

 
At August 28, 2005 5:34 AM, Blogger GunJam said...

fjordman: hank you for posting this: I had not read this.

As an American, I do NOT want these prisoners released in my country.

This event shows that those European politicians and bureaucrats (The Red Cross chief among them) who so righteously complain and moan about how cruel we Americans are to incarcerate throat-slitters don't have the spine to put their money where their mouths are.

My verdict (to those same politicians and bureaucrats): Then kindly shut up about what we do with our terrorist prisoners.

 
At August 28, 2005 8:37 AM, Blogger P. Froward said...

Well, the excuse is that we're not doing it through the UN. But if we did try to work with the UN on this, well... can you imagine UNHCR staffers not deliberately obstructing the whole thing and turning it into a morass, and a PR bonanza for the tranzi left? Me neither. It's a microscopic repeat of the ICC idiocy with Darfur: They refuse to do anything unless we play the UN game (which would mean doing precisely nothing, but with more talk), and then blame us when nothing gets done. This works fine for the eurotranzi crowd, because they really couldn't care less if anything gets done or not. I doubt that they're capable of understanding that we do care.

But anyway, yeah, it's possible that with these particular guys we don't care any more than the Finns do, and we just brought it up to yank their chain. Good.

 
At August 28, 2005 8:05 PM, Blogger the adventuress said...

European governments, what a bunch of hypocrites. They shriek about Gitmo, then refuse to take in the Gitmo detainees. I thought Gitmo detainees were all innocent lambs of Christ illegally persecuted and tortured by the Evil Amerikkkans? If so then why are the Europeans so scared to take them in?

I think we should put 'em on a boat and give them some food and a map of Europe's best harbors.

 
At August 29, 2005 1:27 AM, Blogger John Sobieski said...

Regarding the UN, there are 55 OIC states that essentially vote as a bloc and have wide influence in all organizations at the UN other than the SC. In addition, there are a number of other states (Venezuela, Cuba, Zimbabwe, etc) that ally with the OIC gang. The UN should be moved to Europe, and the Western states should abandon it and start a new organization for democratic Infidel states. It's going to end up that way anyway as Islam becomes more 7th century and more intolerant of a world that is not all for Islam, and only for Islam.

 
At August 29, 2005 2:58 AM, Blogger Don Miguel said...

"The UN should be moved to Europe, and the Western states should abandon it and start a new organization for democratic Infidel states."

There has actually been an idea floating around for a years among democratic UN states that a new "democratic UN" be created with the requirement that a state has to be democratic to join. I don't know if this has ever been given any serious state-sponsored thought, but most ME and African states would obviously be ineligible to join.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home