Beijing wants return of Chinese held in Guantanamo

[Coventina]

Source: Reuters

BEIJING (Reuters) - China said on Thursday it objected to any country accepting Muslim Chinese terror suspects held at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, a day after Canada denied it planned to take three.

China has said it wants 17 Uighur terror suspects returned when the prison is closed, as ordered by U.S. President Barack Obama.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said she hoped all sides would respect international law and principles.

"As we have stated before, we strongly oppose any country accepting these people," Jiang told a news conference.



Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE5141H620090205

---

Something tells me those guys are better off in Gitmo...

[Ohio Joe]

1. Perhaps

But if they are indeed Chinese citizens, I think they should be returned.

[EFerrari]

14. No, they are persecuted in China. That would be a death sentence.

[YOY]

2. Your gut feeling may be right.

Those dudes are doomed. I'm sure Gitmo has hardly been kind but the Chinese Police will be even less kind...

Let it be a black spot on China's record and not ours.

[customerserviceguy]

3. How is that any different

from the officials at Gitmo sending detainees to other countries be tortured, so that the "black spot" is on them?

[Xithras]

4. China has been known to execute Uighurs for simply speaking out.

They call it "endangering state security", and executed many people just last year. Hundreds more are rotting in prison cells.

Terrorists or not, these guys will be donating organs within hours of being repatriated. The simple fact that they left China to fight in a foreign land, without the governments permission, assures their execution.

[EFerrari]

13. These people are not terrorists and they can't be sent back to China. n/t

[Romulox]

5. How can we have "Most Favored Nation" status with China on one hand

and yet be reluctant to turn over Chinese nationals due to human rights abuses, on the other?

Answer: hypocrisy.

[HamdenRice]

6. This is why people who know nothing of international law should not play at it

Do you know what these concepts mean and what the relationship between them is?

"Most Favored Nation" is a misleading label for a trade concept. It really should be called "equally treated nation." It means that any nation that gets "Most Favored Nation" status is treated as well as the other most favored nation or nations.

The return of Chinese nationals in in detention would be covered by refugee and asylum law.

"Most Favored Nation" status has absolutely nothing to do with refugee law.

[Romulox]

7. They don't want to turn over the Uighurs because they fear for their treatment

by our "Most Favored" trading partner. :eyes:

"Do you know what these concepts mean and what the relationship between them is?"

Yes, the relationship is that our economic lifelines are tied to a government we don't trust not to be barbaric. :hi:

[HamdenRice]

8. That concern for the treatment is governed by refugee law

and there is no obligation to return any person to a country where that person has a well founded fear of persecution.

Most Favored Nations law has to do with trade, and it does not mean that any "most favored nation" is favored among all others. That would be absurd, because any regular reader of the news knows that a fundamental rule of the World Trade Organization system is that participants have to give most favored nations treatment to all other participants.

A moments logical reflection would convince any rational person that it is not possible for more than one nation to be "most favored" over any other "most favored" nation.

[Romulox]

9. Wow, you are obtuse. I am asking why we can't trust one of our most important trading partners

To respect the basic human rights of its citizens.

"A moments logical reflection would convince any rational person that it is not possible for more than one nation to be "most favored" over any other "most favored" nation."

It's a term of art, bozo. :eyes:

[HamdenRice]

10. Yes, a term of art that you were obviously unfamiliar with until it was pointed out to you

There seems to be a whole range of subjects about which you are tragically and hopelessly ignorant, and that you should avoid if you don't want to embarrass yourself.

Can I remind you of your own subject line and post at the top of this sub thread?

"How can we have "Most Favored Nation" status with China on one hand

and yet be reluctant to turn over Chinese nationals due to human rights abuses, on the other?"

That's about as logical as saying how can ride my bicycle this morning if I'm going to eat fish tonight?

:silly: :crazy: :silly:

:rofl:

It's completely non sequitur, and reveals that you thought there was something unique about most favored nations clauses -- and moreover that it somehow contradicts our obligations under the treaties on the international status of refugees.

I should also point out that once again, you've resorted to ad hominem, although you claim to be opposed to its use as a rhetorical strategy.

Yet more evidence of a messy, contradictory thought process at work. Go figure!

:shrug:

[Romulox]

11. Yes, I was unfamiliar with a term of art that I used several times and even put in scare quotes

You are falling apart, man.

[HamdenRice]

12. Ah, yes, scare quotes. Now it all makes sense. Not.

You would be much better off just admitting that you didn't know what "most favored nations" status meant.

Your increasingly byzantine explanations of your subthread OP are, well :silly: :crazy: :silly:

:rofl:

[Romulox]

17. LOL. Yes, I just independentally created the phrase "Most Favored Nation" to express myself

it is a mere coincidence that this term is used to describe our trading relationship with China (actually, IIRC, "Most Favored Nation" status is archaic; the correct term is "Permanent Normalized Trade Relations", but it doesn't have the same ring.)

But you knew that, didn't you? :silly:

[EFerrari]

15. The simple answer is, our trade relations should never be separate

from humanitarian law.

[Romulox]

16. Agreed. nt