From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The United States government has held twenty-two Uyghurs in Guantanamo Bay detainment camp. Eighteen of the detainees were present at Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs) conducted by the U.S. military to review their cases.

Uyghurs are an ethnic group from Xinjiang province in the west of China.^[1]

The Uyghurs call their homeland East Turkestan.

The Washington Post reported on August 24, 2005 that fifteen Uyghurs had been determined to be "No longer enemy combatants" (NLEC) after all.^[2] The Post reported that detainees who had been classified as NLEC were, not only still being incarcerated, but were still being shackled to the floor. Five of these Uyghurs, who had filed for writs of habeas corpus, were transported to Albania on May 5, 2006 just prior to a scheduled judicial review of their petitions. The remainder still appear to be incarcerated at Guantanamo as of July 2, 2006.

• Most of the Uyghurs were alleged to be members of the East Turkistan Islamic Movement.
• Most of the Uyghurs were alleged to have completed military training.
  • Some of the allegations stated that the military training camp was in the Tora Bora mountains.
• Most of the Uyghurs were alleged to have accepted training that was sponsored by the Taliban, or Al Qaeda.
• All of the Uyghurs were alleged to have fled when their camp was bombed as part of the United States bombing campaign.
• Many of the Uyghurs were alleged to have engaged in hostilities in Tora Bora.

All the Uyghurs who were asked about the East Turkistan Islamic Movement denied any contact with this organization. They all denied any participation in any political parties or organizations.

All the detainees either denied receiving any training on the AK-47, or they said that the training they had received was minimal—that they were shown how to disassemble the rifle, and were allowed to fire a couple of rounds. They all described being trained individually, by Uyghurs named either Abdul Haq, or Hassan Maksum. They all denied being trained on any other weapons, or seeing any of the other Uyghurs receive training on any other weapons.

All the Uyghurs reported that they did not expect their camp to be bombed. Some of them acknowledged that they had heard of the attacks of September 11, 2001 on the radio. But none of them knew that the Taliban were accused of involvement. They all acknowledged having fled the camp when it was bombed. They all claimed they were unarmed. One of the Uyghurs said Maksum was killed in the bombing.

None of the Uyghurs described seeing the United States as an enemy. All of the Uyghurs who mentioned the Chinese government described them as oppressive occupiers. Some of the Uyghurs said that they sought out the training in order to go back to China and defend their fellow Uyghurs against their Chinese occupiers.

Some of the other Uyghurs said they sought out the camp of fellow Uyghurs because they were waiting for a visa to Iran, one of the countries they had to pass through on their way to Turkey. They had heard that Turkey would grant them political asylum.

The Asian Times reported, on November 4, 2004, that there had already been internal discussion over how the USA could release Uyghurs, without putting their safety at risk.^[3]

From July 2004 through March 2005 all 568 of the detainees held at Guantanamo had their detention reviewed by Combatant Status Review Tribunals. 38 of the detainees were determined to be NLEC. Five Uyghurs were among the 38 detainees determined not to have been enemy combatants, and were transferred from the main detention camp to Camp Iguana.

This conclusion was remarked on by the first Denbeaux study, that pointed out that many of the detainees who remained incarcerated had faced much less serious allegations than the Uyghurs had faced.

On May 10, 2006 Radio Free Asia reported that the five Uyghurs transported to Albania were the only Uyghurs who had been moved to Camp Iguana.^[4]

None of the Uyghurs wanted to be returned to China. The United States declined to grant the Uyghurs political asylum, or to allow them parole, or even freedom on the Naval Base.

Some of the Uyghurs had lawyers who volunteered to help them pursue a writ of habeas corpus, which would have been one step in getting them freed from American detention.

Five of the Uyghurs were transported to Albania, on Friday May 5, 2006. Those Uyghurs were scheduled to have arguments for their writ of habeas corpus argued in US District Court on Monday May 8, 2006.

Barbara Olshansky, one of the Uyghur's lawyers, characterized the sudden transfer as an attempt to: "...avoid having to answer in court for keeping innocent men in jail,^[5]"

Some press reports state that the Uyghurs have been granted political asylum in Albania. But the U.S. government press release merely states that they are applying for asylum in Albania.

On May 9, 2006 the Associated Press reported that China denounced the transfer of custody.^[6][7] China called the transfer of the Uyghurs to Albania a violation of international law. Albania agreed to examine the evidence against the men.

Radio Free Asia reports that the five were staying at a National Center for Refugees in a Tirana suburb.^[4]

On May 24, 2006 Abu Bakr Qasim told interviewers that he and his compatriots felt isolated in Albania.^[8] Qasim described his disappointment with the United States, who the Uyghurs had been hoping would support the Uyghurs quest for Uyghur autonomy.

In an interview with ABC News Qasim said that members of the American-Urghur community had come forward and assured the American government that they would help him and his compatriots adapt to life in America, if they were given asylum in America.^[9]

An article in the December 5, 2006 edition of The Washington Post reported on a legal appeal launched on behalf of seven of the Uyghurs remaining in detention in Guantanamo.^[10] The article reports that the Uyghurs' lawyers argued that the evidence against their clients was essentially identical to that against the five Uyghurs who were released; that the process by which their "enemy combatant" status had been determined, and reviewed, was flawed.

The article went on to quote Washington officials, and former officials, about whether the group that the Uyghurs were accused of belonging to had been added to the State Department's list of Terrorist organizations largely to secure Chinese acquiesence to the then imminent American invasion of Iraq.^[10] The article quotes the Uyghurs' lawsuit:

"In the crisis atmosphere of the time, the interests of a few dozen refugees paled beside the urgency of the Administration's war plans,"

The article quotes Susan Baker Manning, one of the Uyghurs' lawyers:^[10]

"It is amazing to me that the U.S. has agreed to, in effect, hold political prisoners for China in exchange for anything. That goes against everything that we, I thought, stood for in this country."

Guantanamo spokesmen, Commander Jeffrey Gordon, responded to the appeal with the comment: "There is a significant amount of evidence, both unclassified and classified, which supports detention by U.S. forces,"^[11] According to the Associated Press Gordon told reporters: "...the seven had 'multiple' reviews and were properly classified as enemy combatants."

An article about the Uyghurs' appeal, in The Jurist, citing the Fifth Denbeaux Report: The no-hearing hearings, called the Uighur's Combatant Status Review Tribunals "show trials".^[12]

An article published on April 18, 2007 discussed the diplomatic problem posed by finding a new home for the Uyghurs in detail.^[13] The article quotes their lawyer, Sabin Willett:

"No country will take them because either they've read all the newspapers printing claims by U.S. authorities that Guantanamo is a place where the worst of the worst are being held, and they believe that it's true, or, these countries say, 'Well if these guys are innocent, then why don't you, the United States, take them? Why won't you take them if they're not bad guys?'
"And the U.S. doesn't really have a good answer for that."

This is said to be David Hicks's cell, in Camp Six. The windows looks down on central common rooms, which are left vacant, as a change in policy, to turn the facility in a "supermax" facility, made common rooms redundant. The inset picture is of a "reading room". Captives are, occasionally taken to these "reading rooms", during their one-hour per day they are taken from their cell. However, they remain in isolation. Only one captive at a time is allowed in each reading room or exercise yard.

On March 11, 2007 the Boston Globe reported that the 17 remaining Uyghur captives had been transferred to the newly built Camp Six, in Guantanamo.^[14] The Globe reports that the Uyghurs are held for 22 hours a day in cells without natural light. The Globe points out that prior to their detention in Camp Six, they were able to socialize with one another, but that they couldn't speak to the prisoners in neighboring cells because none of them speak Arabic or Pashto,. The Globe quotes Sabin Willett, the Uyghur's lawyer, who reports that, consequently, there has been a serious decline in the Uyghur's mental health.

According to the Globe: "The military says the Uighurs were put there either because they attacked guards or trashed their quarters during the riot last May."^[14]

The Globe quotes Sabin Willett's explanation for the Uyghur's new harsher detention. Willett: "...links their assignment to Camp Six to a filing he made seeking their release."^[14]

In the Summer of 2006, the habeas corpus submissions known as Hamdan v. Rumsfeld reached the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled the Executive Branch lacked the Constitutional authority to initiate military commissions to try Guantanamo captives. However, it also ruled that the United States Congress did have the authority to set up military commissions. And, in the fall of 2006 the Congress passed the Military Commissions Act, setting up military commissions similar to those initially set up by the Executive Branch.

The Act also stripped captives of the right to file habeas corpus submissions in the US Court system.^[13] The earlier Detainee Treatment Act, passed on December 31, 2005, had stripped captives of the right to initiate new habeas corpus submissions, while leaving existing habeas corpus motions in progress.

The Detainee Treatment Act had explicitly authorized an appeal process for Combatant Status Review Tribunals which failed to follow the military's own rules.^[13] And Sabin Willet, the Uyghur's lawyer, has chosen to initiate appeals of the Uyghur's Combatant Status Review Tribunals.

"Each Uighurs' CSRT was inconsistent with the standards and procedures specified by the Secretary of Defense, because none appropriately applied the definition of 'Enemy Combatant'. The CSRT Procedures defined an 'enemy combatant' as: 'an indidvidual who was part of or supporting the Taliban or al-Qaida forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.'"

However, Willet argues, the Combatant Status Review Tribunals failed to consider the interrogators conclusions that the Uyghurs were not enemies, had not supported the Taliban, and had not engaged in hostilities.^[13]

Assistant Attorney General Peter D. Keisler lead the response team. Keisler's team accused Willet of trying to:^[13]

"...recreate the habeas regime that Congress recently abolished."

They said the argument boiled down to:^[13]

"[Should] detainees captured on a battlefield during a time of war, be given unprecedented access to our nations courts and to classified information, even after Congress emphatically rejected such an approach?"

Radio Free Asia named the five released Uyghurs.^[4] But the report identified the Uyghurs with different transliterations than that used in the U.S. press release: Ababehir Qasim, Adil Abdulhakim, Ayuphaji Mahomet, Ahter and Ahmet