In the tangled legal-military web we call Gitmo, the tale of the men from Uighur has remained largely untold. (Yeah, I had never heard of it before either, nor could I pronounce it; it's WEE-goor.) It's a classic American story with a postmodern twist: persecuted minority members flee from tyranny, searching for a better life for their loved ones -- then get scooped up in the "war on terror" (hey, a $5,000 bounty for each) and sit in a Guantanamo prison for three years with no access to their families, a lawyer or even the charges against them. Finally, a few months ago, The Boston Globe reports, a military tribunal agreed the 16 men were not "enemy combatants." Not terrorists. But they're still in prison.
Uighur is an autonomous region in northern China with names that also defy spellchecking and whose people are largely Muslim. "There might not be a more pro-US Muslim group in the world because the Uighurs have traditionally suffered under the oppression of the Communist Chinese. I can remember a time when we liked people like that," the Globe quotes the Boston-based lawyer of two of the Uighurs. His clients and their compatriots are in legal limbo because the US fears, justifiably, that the men would be killed if returned to China. And no other country will accept the refugees. The lawyer wants them to be moved to a hotel at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Station, but the military authorities have balked because, well, those guys could still present a "safety and security problem," says prison spokesman Army Major Jeff Weir. "They have been detained in here with some very bad people, under some very bad influences." This is a reasonable rationale for continued incarceration in a US-run justice system?
After hearing the petition to free the Uighurs, Federal District Judge James Robertson may up the ante. Tuesday's Globe reports that he says he could order the prosecution to bring the detainees to his courtroom -- in Washington DC. More likely is that he'll tell the Army to move the stranded Uighurs to Gitmo's facility used for for Cubans, Haitians, et al. seeking asylum.
While US media haven't done much with the story, the plight of the Uighurs has merited mention overseas, providing the brightest spot in the saga so far. The sister of one of the detainees called the lawyer from her home in Sweden with tears of joy: "She thought her brother was dead."
One might be tempted to say the same for an American sense of justice, but not in all corners of the country, or of the military. Monday's Wall Street Journal reports that two Air Force prosecutors quit last year in protest over "an environment of secrecy, deceit and dishonesty." The WSJ refers to emails by Maj. John Carr and Maj. Robert Preston saying that the actions of their fellow prosecutors "may constitute dereliction of duty, false official statements or other criminal conduct."
Maj. Carr writes that [then-chief prosecutor] Col. Fred Borch "repeatedly said to the office that the military panel will be handpicked and will not acquit these detainees, and we only needed to worry about building a record for the review panel."
.... Instead of "at least a minimal effort to establish a fair process and diligently prepare cases against significant accused," Maj. Carr wrote, he found an amateurish attempt "to prosecute fairly low level accused [terrorists] in a process that appears to be rigged. It is difficult to believe that the White House has approved this situation, and I fully expect that one day, soon, someone will be called to answer for what our office has been doing for the last 14 months."
Personal note: I am reminded of the winners of this year's ACLU Medal of Liberty awards: the five Judge Advocate General Corps lawyers representing the first round of Gitmo defendants. Disclosure: I'm on the board of the local ACLU chapter. A fellow board member who had attended the ceremony said these officers have pretty much torpedoed their JAG careers by taking their defense duties seriously. The terms "legal ethics" and "military justice" are not archetypal oxymorons.