From their petition:

Although afforded many opportunities by the district court, Respondents never offered evidence that any Petitioner ever participated in terrorist activity, committed any other crime, is hostile toward the United States, or is otherwise a danger to the public.

The parties agree that Petitioners cannot be repatriated to China or any country that would render them to Chinadespite Chinese demandsbecause
they would likely be tortured or worse. The record
is clear, however, that there is nowhere else to go
but the United States. Respondents had publicly
maintained throughout that Petitioners were "enemy
combatants," and the record evidences extensive diplomatic resistance from China to resettlement abroad and failed efforts over five years to obtain asylum from more than 100 countries.

Set them free.

Keep close tabs on them.

Problem solved.

They are considered 'Wrongly-Imprisoned' for a reason.

I know all you pussies out there who jump at the site of your own shadow would like to see them locked away forever but fuck you pussies. America is NOT the land of pussified mother fuckers.

Would it even be legal to "keep close tabs on them?" If they were wrongfully imprisoned, they haven't committed any crime worthy of a supervision sentence.

Sure it is legal Joe.

They aren't citizens.

They would be required to stay in touch with authorities.

Wouldn't there release into the United States be a declaration that they would become full US Citizens??

Larry

There=their geez sometimes I wonder

They could if they applied for asylum Larry.

Although they would have to meet the qualifications for it.

You would think if they are released in the United States it would be an automatic granting of asylum ManyPaths since the Courts would deam their release to China would jeapordize their safety.

Larry

"Wouldn't there release into the United States be a declaration that they would become full US Citizens??"

The lower court denied their release, in part because "Aliens [like the detainees] are not eligible for admission into the United States unless they have applied for admission."

Yes, but they would still need to meet the qualifications for becoming a citizen.

Yes Joe, but since they aren't in the US, they may still apply for and be granted Affirmative Asylum.

"since they aren't in the US, they may still apply for and be granted Affirmative Asylum."

Not necessarily true. Here's an excerpt from the lower court's opinion.

An alien seeking refugee or asylum status (refugees apply from abroad; asylum applicants apply when already here) must qualify as a "refugee" as defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42). Whether they could be admitted under this heading depends on numerical limitations established by the President, and on the discretion of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security. To qualify as a "refugee," an alien must (1) not be firmly resettled in a foreign country, (2) be of "special humanitarian concern" to the United States, and (3) be admissible as an immigrant under the immigration laws. Although the Attorney General and the Secretary are given discretion to waive many of the grounds of inadmissibility for a refugee applicant, the statute specifically prohibits waiver of the "terrorist activity" ground.

And the crux of the opinion follows:

There are many more complications, but the bottom line is clear. Aliens are not eligible for admission into the United States unless they have applied for admission. Numerical limits may render them ineligible, as may many other considerations. The Secretary has wide discretion with respect to several categories of applicants and the decisions of consular officers on visa applications are not subject to judicial review. And so we find it impossible to understand what Judge Rogers is thinking when she insists, for instance, that "the district court erred by ordering release into the country without first ascertaining whether the immigration laws provided a valid basis for detention" of someone who (a) has never entered or attempted to enter the country, and (b) has never applied for admission under the immigration laws.

Well that doesn't mean that they can't apply for it Joe.

Of course if the Federal Government deems them terrorists or criminals it would have a negative impact on their application but they can still apply.

But being granted asylum doesn't make one a citizen.

I say drop them off in West Virginia. Those good old boys will make sure they stay in line.

"America is NOT the land of pussified mother fuckers."

Then why are you here?

Your posts have a tone of "vigilante justice" to them, which isn't really a valid theory on which the Supreme Court will be basing their decision should they accept this case.

Yeah, just kidding a little with the WV post.

I thought that these types of asylum cases didn't count towards the quota. I may have misread that though.

The U.S. has illegally detained the Uighurs.

This group of men fled from China and were caught up in Afghanistan while attempting to remain free.

The Uighurs never fought against U.S. forces and were only detained for their suspected "intelligence" value.

We have no choice but to set them free.

And if we are trying to get other countries to take GITMO detainees, we are much better off taking this group of me than the real McCoys.

Take them back to where we found them. Give them each $10,000 in cash, which is a bargain compared to what we would be handing them here in attorneys' fees and welfare benefits, and let them start their lives over again. In Afghanistan, $10k goes a long way.