Via Andrew Sullivan, Radley Balko responds to Andy McCarthy's argument that Chinese accounts of violence involving Uighurs "proves" that they're all terrorists:
There was once a time when, if an ethnic minority was rising up against an oppressive communist regime, you could count on National Review to side with the rabble-rousers fighting for political freedom, not the commies. But I guess that was pre-September 11. Now it's apparently all about siding with whoever is killing Muslims.
Seventeen Uighurs were imprisoned at Guantanamo, but were ordered released because the Combatant Status Review Tribunals determined they weren't actually enemy combatants. Only four of them have yet been released to Bermuda, and Palau is set to take more. McCarthy however, is convinced they're dangerous.
I guess what I find most shocking is McCarthy's embrace of collective guilt. Balko points out that McCarthy is eagerly embracing the accounts of the state-controlled media of China to make his point, but even if the reports regarding Uighur violence were entirely accurate, it hardly follows that the Uighurs at Guantanamo were dangerous or guilty of any crime--indeed, the Bush administration, rather than Bill Ayers the Obama administration that determined the Uighurs were not enemy combatants. McCarthy's argument simply seems to be (a) Uighurs are Muslim and (b) all Muslims are terrorists therefore (c) doesn't matter whether they're guilty of a crime or not, they are, by definition, guilty.
Obviously, if you believe that someone's ethnic background or religion makes them by definition guilty then there's nothing wrong with torturing them or locking them up forever. But what's really scary--and I realize others have said this before, but it bears repeating--is that McCarthy is a former assistant U.S. attorney, and yet to him, due process is a gum wrapper.
-- A. Serwer
