It is interesting to note what Andy McCarthy doesn’t argue in this carefully worded post on the Uighur Muslims — he doesn’t argue that they pose a threat to Americans, or that it is morally defensible to hold them. Instead he makes what I’ll assume is an accurate argument:
…just because courts have the power to review whether a prisoner is properly designated an enemy combatant does not mean they have the power to order the release into the United States of those found not to be enemy combatants.
Mr. McCarthy also argues that some Obama supporters are going to be sorely upset about this:
The Uighurs appealed, and today the Justice Department filed its responsive brief. Solicitor General Elena Kagan argued — consistent with the Bush administration position — that the Uighurs have no right to be released into the U.S.
Of course, it is perfectly consistent to say that these people “have no right” to be released into the United States, and that given how we’ve treated them we nevertheless possess a moral obligation to release them here. I don’t know whether the Obama Administration intends to adopt that position, but if they don’t they deserve strenuous criticism.
This is premised on my understanding that when people say these Uighur Muslims “received Al Qaeda training,” they are referring to the fact that they were shown how to fire a single gun in an Afghan village where they settled as refugees. Am I missing something?