Five political hot potatos

The Washington Post reports today about five Chinese detainees held at Guantanamo that have been determined to pose no threat to the United States. The men are from the Xinjiang region of China, where their Uighur minority faces political repression and an ongoing influx of Han Chinese that threatens to assimilate their culture.

I think this particular case is interesting because it shows how convoluted U.S. foreign policy goals are working against each other, and against basic American ideology. I'll list off the options and then explain the implications of each:

1) Send them back to China.
This almost assures the men, who are accused by the Chinese of terrorism in their home country, either life in prison or death, especially considering that China executes up to 10,000 people annually (according to representatives of the National People's Congress.) But, then again, how would we respond to some Native Americans who advocated armed resistence against the U.S. government?

2) Give them asylum here in the United States.
And why not? We already host lots of other Chinese dissidents, including the leader of the Falun Gong cult, Li Hongzhi, who is like, the absolutely most wanted man in China in a hundred years. We also have granted asylum to other Uighur nationalists, although they do not advocate violence, as far as I know.

3) Keep them at Guantanamo.
That seems to be the plan right now. But that safe option just reflects how conflicted our policies are right now. Are we for freedom and against terrorism? What about when terrorists turn out to be freedom fighters, or vice versa?