Angry? Not as angry as the US government

So, the US is angry because a US judge has ruled that 17 ethnic Uighur detainees held at Guantánamo Bay should be released into the United States.

And who wouldn’t be in their place? What’s the world coming to when you can’t hold a few hundred prisoners indefinitely without a trial in a remote prison camp?

A White House spokeswoman yesterday was complaining that the ruling “could be used as a precedent for other detainees” held at Guantánamo.

Now, I kind of thought that might be a good idea. But no, a federal court making an independent judgment on whether holding someone without charge for seven years was permissible is something the US government is determined to crack down on. They’re appealing.

The judge in this case, Ricardo Urbani, got his punches in first though, including with some pretty choice language: “I think the moment has arrived for the court to shine the light of constitutionality on the reasons for the detention.”  (Blimey, the spirit of George Washington and Benjamin Franklin lives on).

This whole farce would almost be funny if it weren’t so tragic. Years ago the US authorities said that these 17 men weren’t posing any risk to the US. But still, they have to be held on a point of (warped) political/legal principle as part of the US’s (increasingly weird) “war on terror”.

As readers of this blog will already know, former UK resident Binyam Mohamed is one of 250 prisoners still trapped at Guantánamo – please take action for him here.

And, if you’re feeling angry – don’t be. Or at least, channel it into an Amnesty action. It’s very calming!