Judge Ricardo Urbina To Uighur Suspected Jihadists: “Welcome to America!”
For years, we immigration reform patriots have warned
that border security equals national security.
If
Juan the
tomato picker and Diego the
drug smuggler, how can authorities possibly
hope to keep out terrorist thugs and
sharia revolutionaries?
An already bad national security situation got
enormously worse October 7 when a judge stepped in to
free foreign jihadists held in
Guantanamo
District Judge Ricardo Urbina ordered the military
to release 17 Chinese Muslim Uighur prisoners captured
in
Afghanistan
Furthermore, Urbina insisted the prisoners be
brought to his chambers, apparently so they could be
liberated on his courthouse steps. Perhaps he has a
colorful photo-op in mind.
If that scenario isn`t bad enough,
Washington
is unwilling to send the Uighurs back home to
badly treated there.
What good is effective border control if judges give the
house keys to sworn enemies?
The White House appealed Judge Urbina`s ruling. As a
result a
three-judge panel temporarily blocked the Uighurs`
release…for the time being.
At this writing, the Uighurs are still behind bars in
Gitmo. But it looks likely they will be settled
refugee-style with fellows of their
ethnic group,
some number of whom reside in northern
Get that? They were born in
China.
They were captured in
they`re coming here.
Needless to say,
sympathetic church people from
Tallahassee have volunteered to
take some Uighurs in their city as well.
For those curious about this latest bit of enforced
diversity, the
Uighurs are a Muslim Turkic people from central
Asia
Xinjizng Uighur Autonomous Region in
China
Beijing
apparently regards them as an
ethnic separatist threat to Communist rule.
The landmark legal decision that propelled the courts
into a new role was the 2008
Boumediene
case, in which the
Supremes overturned years of precedent to give
aliens the
same rights in court that citizens have.
The
Powerline blog remarked about Boumediene:
"What
Warren Court liberals did for
the common American criminal, the Court`s current
liberals are in the process of doing for foreign
terrorists captured or held by American forces around
the world."
The Uighurs` new "right" to release stems
directly from this court decision, which effectively
took an area of national security from the political
realm and moved it to the courts. Former federal
prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, author of Willful Blindness
about his
prosecution of the blind sheik Omar Abdel Rahman for
terrorism,
commented about this aspect of Uighur case on CNN
October 12.
McCarthy:
“And we`re also seeing that when you allow your national
security issues to be delegated to courts, which is a
vast departure from our
founding idea, which is that national security
decisions are the most decisions made by a political
community, they`re made to be made by the political
branches, not by the courts, this is what you see when
you have your most unaccountable officials making these
very important decisions.
“And it actually seamlessly, I think, fits into a lot of
our other discussion because here you have government
colliding with itself to fairly well. We have a treaty
that says that you can`t send people back to a country
where you have
reason to believe that they`ll be persecuted, which
is why we can`t send these—repatriate these guys back to
China.
“We have two statutes that say if you have received
paramilitary training, or you have been involved in
the promotion of terrorism, which there is indication
that these guys have, the government says they`re a
threat to the Chinese, not to us. But under our law,
they shouldn`t be allowed to be brought into the
United States
actually a violation of congressional statutes. And you
have a federal judge who thinks he`s not limited by any
law whatsoever. So you have all these things combining
in a perfect storm. And what it means to the American
people is less security.”
With release looking like a done deal, the Associated
Press has developed pro-Uighur spin so Americans
won`t be fearful of terrorists turned immigrants.
“A Chinese Muslim locked up at
Guantanamo
improbable wish: To move to the
“Statements over the years by the Uighurs held at
Guantanamo
since 2002, reviewed by the Associated Press,
indicate they consider
but are angry they have been imprisoned for so long.”
[Some
at Gitmo see US as ally, Associated Press,
It`s hard to imagine that seven years of imprisonment
have made Uighurs feel more positive about their
American "ally".
But the MSM has aligned itself with the pro-terrorist
left, who remain in denial about the deadly intent of
our enemies.
Here`s more puffery from the AP about some
Americans` new neighbors, fresh from Gitmo:
“For centuries, hospitality to weary travelers has been
part of the Uighur culture. The Uighur land in what is
now the far western
carried merchants traversing the famed
Silk Road
“So in many ways it was only natural for Elshat Hassan,
46, of
his home to the most weary of his countrymen. He plans
to host one of 17 Uighurs who have been detained by the
Guantanamo Bay.
" `They will be free, finally,` Hassan said of the
detainees, describing plans to prepare a traditional
meal for Uighur guests: polo, a
pilaf
consisting of rice, lamb, carrots and onions.`”
For good measure, the story concludes by observing that:
“The detainees` supporters in the Uighur-American
community say Uighurs are staunchly pro-American.”
[D.C.
Uighurs wait to take in Gitmo detainees, By
Matthew Barakat, Associated
Press, October 10, 2008]
The liberal press has also focused its lofty attention
upon the alleged suffering of the prisoners.
A New York Times editorial,
The Rule of Law in Guantanamo (
knowing:
“A federal judge in
Washington
has struck an important blow for the rule of law by
ordering that 17 detainees be freed from
Guantánamo
administration is fighting the ruling to avoid having
the case become an open window into the outlaw world of
President Bush`s detention camps. […]
“They are not enemy combatants, legal or illegal, nor
are they terrorists. Their detention — along with the
detention of others held at Guantánamo without charges
or real hearings — has gravely injured the nation`s
tradition of due process and its international
standing.”
Keep in mind that
at
least 30 detainees released from Gitmo have returned
to terrorist activity. They are a rough bunch, and not
the oppressed victims imagined by the
NYT.
Of course, dangerous foreigners are released into
American communities all the time, sometimes as a
result of the home countries` refusal to accept their
criminal or terrorist people back.
In fact, Rep. Charlie Dent (R-PA) and Rep. Michael
Castle (R-DE) wrote legislation earlier this year to
deal with this recalcitrance. Here`s part of a
press release from Rep. Dent [
10, 2008
“As of February 11, 2008,
eight countries—Laos, Iran, Eritrea, Vietnam, Jamaica,
China, India, and Ethiopia—are refusing to repatriate
[I.E. Receive the repatriation of] a total of
over 139,000 aliens. More than 18,000 of them are
convicted criminals who have been released back onto
American streets. The
AIR
Act would suspend all pending visa applications from
those countries until they agree to repatriate our
deportees. The legislation would also direct the State
Department to withhold
funds
under the Foreign Assistance Act to countries that
persist in this refusal.
“
However, in this instance
China will take its people back and has said that it
might try them on terror charges but would not torture
them.
Washington has encouraged an enormous amount of
Chinese trade which requires a substantial element
of trust, misplaced though it may be. We receive
billions of dollars worth of Chinese products, including
food and
medicine. But the government will not accept
mistreat 17 Uighurs. That`s odd indeed.
And why is it more important for
Washington
to protect foreigners and potential terrorists from the
Chinese than to guard the safety of American citizens?
Does the State Department fear an outcry from all dozen
Uighur-Americans?
Even Senator Lindsay Graham, notoriously the friend of
all immigrants,
introduced a bill that would prohibit the release of
detainees into the
Enemy Combatant Detention Review Act.
Turning the Uighurs loose in
worst precedent imaginable: any unaccountable judge
could endanger American national security on a judicial
whim.
With more Democrats likely in our future, the settlement
of the Uighur terrorist-immigrants could be the first in
a long series of inappropriate kumbaya responses to a
determined and patient enemy. This will only
encourage the
jihadists
to believe that
liberal to defend itself against the
Islamic onslaught of terror and immigration,
like Europe.
And even apart from the security threat, are the Uighurs
assimilable? Will they contribute to the well-being
of
native-born Americans?
Of course, these questions have not occurred to
immigration enthusiasts. They have never met a foreigner
they don`t want to import.
The Uighurs should not be brought to
America
want to send them to
where they were captured
After all, we know
safe—we invaded it to make sure.
Brenda Walker (email
her) lives in Northern California and publishes
two websites,
LimitsToGrowth.org and
ImmigrationsHumanCost.org. As part of her ongoing
self-education program about diversity, she is happy to
now be able to spell and pronounce Uighur (WEE-gur).
