Home / China / When The US Put Uighurs In Guantanamo At China’s Urging

When The US Put Uighurs In Guantanamo At China’s Urging

Initially, American interrogators believed Qasim and his compatriots. During a Uighur detainees’ initial year during Guantánamo, reports filed by interrogators found many of them not to be “enemy combatants,” and they were deemed authorised for release. For reasons that have never been done clear, though, they were not released—very likely, this was primarily since there was no place to recover them to, afterwards because, solely for a tiny series of them, a Bush Administration simply refused to let them go. Rushan Abbas, who had been a contributor for Radio Free Asia in Washington and who subsequently spent months in Guantánamo as a interpreter for a Uighurs, told me that Major General Michael E. Dunlavey, a commander of a charge force obliged for interrogating a prisoners in Guantánamo’s early days, had pronounced to her that he’d felt a Uighurs were being incarcerated in error. Years later, he emailed her: “Every time when we review about how a supervision screwed adult a recover of a Uighurs, we feel really angry.” Multiple attempts to hit Dunlavey were unsuccessful, though those remarks are unchanging with a matter he has reportedly made about Guantánamo detainees.

In Qasim’s case, a review by what was called a Joint Task Force Guantanamo, antiquated Feb 21, 2004, that was among a full set of such memos published by WikiLeaks, acknowledges Qasim’s “prior assessment” as “not dependent with al-Qaeda or a Taliban leader.” But, it continues, “new information” indicated that Qasim “is a illusive member” of ETIM, that “is a Uighur separatist classification dedicated to a origination of a Uighur Islamic homeland in China, by armed revolt and terrorism.”

In describing ETIM in those words, officials echoed a portrayals of Uighur “terrorists” that Chinese promotion had been disseminating. The United States had also been  incorporating this arrange of denunciation into a central statements. In late 2002, reversing a progressing resistance, a State Department designated ETIM as a militant organization. A fact sheet on this preference described ETIM as a “violent organisation believed obliged for committing countless acts of terrorism in China, including bombings of buses, film theaters, dialect stores,” and other targets. Between 1990 and 2001, it continued, “members of ETIM reportedly committed over 200 acts of terrorism in China, ensuing in during slightest 162 deaths and over 440 injuries. Its design is a origination of a fundamentalist Muslim state called ‘East Turkistan.’”

This matter repeats total enclosed in a document released by China’s State Council, a country’s categorical ruling body, in that China publicly laid out a box opposite ETIM and other Uighur radicals it blamed for assault in Xinjiang. Missing from a State Department fact sheet, and from other statements of a United States’ position, was any relate of Washington’s prior views—that Uighur grievances were internal and could not be dealt with by counterterrorism methods, or that China done no eminence between those perpetrating assault and those advocating for larger freedom. In a post-9/11 frenzy, and in a zeal to enroll Beijing’s support in a wider War on Terror, a United States had adopted China’s position but qualification.

Article source: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/03/us-uighurs-guantanamo-china-terror/584107/