Obama to release Taliban leaders @ GITMO in peace talks deal - WWTTFF!!!!

[Soul Crusher]

Taliban leaders held at Guantánamo Bay to be released in peace talks deal

US agrees in principle to releasing top officials from Afghanistan insurgent group in exchange for starting process of negotiations

 

 reddit this Julian Borger, and Jon Boone in Kabul
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 3 January 2012 14.32 EST Article history 


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/03/taliban-leaders-guantanamo-bay-deal



The US detention centre in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, holds leading Taliban figures such as the former army commander Fazl Akhund. Photograph: John Moore/Getty


The US has agreed in principle to release high-ranking Taliban officials from Guantánamo Bay in return for the Afghan insurgents' agreement to open a political office for peace negotiations in Qatar, the Guardian has learned.

According to sources familiar with the talks in the US and in Afghanistan, the handful of Taliban figures will include Mullah Khair Khowa, a former interior minister, and Noorullah Noori, a former governor in northern Afghanistan.

More controversially, the Taliban are demanding the release of the former army commander Mullah Fazl Akhund. Washington is reported to be considering formally handing him over to the custody of another country, possibly Qatar.

The releases would be to reciprocate for Tuesday's announcement from the Taliban that they are prepared to open a political office in Qatar to conduct peace negotiations "with the international community" – the most significant political breakthrough in ten years of the Afghan conflict.

The Taliban are holding just one American soldier, Bowe Bergdahl, a 25-year-old sergeant captured in June 2009, but it is not clear whether he would be freed as part of the deal.

"To take this step, the [Obama] administration have to have sufficient confidence that the Taliban are going to reciprocate," said Vali Nasr, who was an Obama administration adviser on the Afghan peace process until last year. "It is going to be really risky. Guantánamo is a very sensitive issue politically."

Nasr, now a professor at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, said the Taliban announcement on the opening of an office in Qatar was a dramatic breakthrough.

"If it had not happened then the idea of reconciliation would have been completely finished. The Qatar office is akin to the Taliban forming a Sinn Féin, a political wing to conduct negotiations," Nasr said, but added: "The next phase will need concessions on both sides. This doesn't mean we are now on autopilot to peace."

Michael Semple, a former EU envoy in Afghanistan who has maintained contact with senior Taliban figures, agreed that the deal represented a critical moment.

"This is at last a real process," Semple, now at Harvard University, said. "There is a long list of things we don't have and there has been no progress on substantive issues. But now there is a certain amount of momentum. Every discussion over the past couple of years has been heavy on western enthusiasm with nothing substantial from the other side."

This time, he said, it was clear that the top Taliban council – including its reclusive leader, Mullah Omar – was on board with the proposal. In return, Semple said he thought the release of a few prisoners from Guantánamo Bay was politically feasible for the Obama administration, even in an election year.

"The prospect of ending a costly war in Afghanistan is sufficiently attractive for the Obama administration to move forward with it," Semple said.

"Even if all five of these people they release went straight back to Quetta [the Taliban stronghold in Pakistan] to rejoin a fight, it wouldn't make any real difference."

Negotiations over the opening of a Taliban political office and the release of prisoners have been underway for more than a year in secret contacts in Germany and in the Gulf between US and Taliban officials, but have been continually held up by political obstacles on all sides.

The Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, had preferred Saudi Arabia or Turkey to host the Taliban political bureau, but dropped his opposition to Qatar under heavy US pressure.

Tuesday's announcement was made by email by a Taliban spokesman, Zabiullah Mujahid.

"Right now, having a strong presence in Afghanistan, we still want to have a political office for negotiations," Mujahid said. "In this regard, we have started preliminary talks and we have reached a preliminary understanding with relevant sides, including the government of Qatar, to have a political office for negotiations with the international community."

The announcement was strongly endorsed by former officials who served under the Taliban regime in the 1990s, many of whom have been pushing for an overseas Taliban "address" for years.

"Everyone now agrees on the need for an office: the government, the foreigners and the Taliban," said Mohammed Qalamuddin, one-time head of the Taliban regime's "vice and virtue" police. "Now is the time to talk face to face with the Taliban and ask them what they want and why they are fighting."

He said that a number of leading Taliban took part in the secret talks that led to agreement with Qatar, including the former Taliban ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Shahabuddin Dilawar, the former deputy foreign minister Sher Mohammad Stanekzai and Tayeb Agha, a top aide to Mullah Omar, the mysterious Taliban leader who, even in power, only ever met with a handful of western diplomats.

"The important thing is that all these men are operating with the approval of Mullah Omar," he said.

It is not clear when the office will open, and there is also likely to be disagreement on the role of the Kabul government. A senior Afghan government official said the Karzai administration had accepted the creation of a Taliban office in Qatar only after demanding assurances from foreign powers that any peace process must be kept under the firm control of the Afghan government.

"If it is not led and owned by the Afghan government, it will fail," the official said.

However, Tuesday's Taliban statement said the group was only interested in talking to the "United States of America and their foreign allies," Mujahid said.

Western diplomats hope the opening of an office in Qatar will also lessen Pakistan's control of the Taliban. Pakistan plays host to most of the Taliban leadership, which it sees as an important bargaining counter in negotiations over the future of the region.

[240 is Back]

1) Release them and get the US hostage back.

2) insert a tracking chip into the brain or heart of the terr'ists which can't be removed, without their knowledge, while they sleep.

3) bomb the #@#*&^*)$^* out of wherever he goes, take out their leadership and take no credit for it.


Problem solved!

[Soul Crusher]

 

[Soul Crusher]

I bet this was one of Obama's pot induced ideas he conjured up while at the beach strung out.   

[Soul Crusher]

Bump.   

[Soul Crusher]

Obama's Next Horror: Overtures to Egypt’s Jihadists Reverse Longtime U.S. Policy
Atlas Shrugs ^ | 1/4/12 | Pamela Geller



Obama has recruited the annihilationist leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Sheik Qaradawi, to negotiate with the heinous Taliban. That's like FDR reaching out to Hitler. Today the NY Times is reporting that the Obama administration has begun to reverse decades of US policy as it "seeks to forge closer ties with an organization once viewed as irreconcilably opposed to United States interests." What US interests? Freedom and human rights. Individual rights, equal rights under the law, freedom to worship, freedom of speech, freedom from genocide, Jew-hatred, and misogyny ....... this is unbelievable. If given a second term, Obama might offer to manufacture the ovens and sell it here as a jobs bill.

The administration’s overtures — including high-level meetings in recent weeks — constitute a historic shift in a foreign policy held by successive American administrations that steadfastly supported the autocratic government of President Hosni Mubarak in part out of concern for the Brotherhood’s Islamist ideology and historic ties to militants.

DF opines, "It’s rare that I link to the New York Times, but that story is worth reading today if only between the lines. Undeterred by the colossal failure of his Iran “engagement” policy, Obama is doubling down on another radical Islamist organization, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, adding that to the Taliban in Afghanistan. I doubt the NYT’s editors wanted the piece to read this way, but even they can’t hide the fact that it’s becoming clearer to everyone (but liberals) that Obama is leading America on a dangerous path - and in November we must take our country back."

Overtures to Egypt’s Islamists Reverse Longtime U.S. Policy NY Times

CAIRO — With the Muslim Brotherhood pulling within reach of an outright majority in Egypt’s new Parliament, the Obama administration has begun to


(Excerpt) Read more at atlasshrugs2000.typepad. com ...

[Soul Crusher]

CALIPH-IN-CHIEF OBAMA SET TO RELEASE TALIBAN/AL QAEDA LEADERS AT GITMO

It is as if the USA surrendered in installments and the caliph has been installed in the Oval office. Imagine reading the following on September 12, 2011. We would have stormed the capital. The Obama administration is set to release Taliban leaders with operational ties to Al Qaeda from Gitmo, even before the heinous Taliban has agreed to come to the table for "peace talks". The war criminals set for release are hardcore jihadist leaders who fought on the fields of Islamic imperialism and killed US and coalition troops.

These Muslim leaders would return to the battlefield and serve to inspire and lead the next generation of Muslim soldiers bent on destroying and overthrowing the West. Why would the Obama administration release these mass murderers? For Taliban promises to engage in peace talks? Obama will get nothing in return. The Taliban knows we are leaving Afghanistan, why come to the table? And why did Obama send all of our soldiers over to Afghanistan these past three years under impossible rules of engagement to suffer the largest casualty rates month to month, year to year and then declare suddenly that the Taliban is not the enemy? To get re-elected? Monstrous murder.

Catherine Herridge of  Fox News reports that a senior U.S. official has confirmed that “Mullah Mohammed Fazl is among the prisoners being considered for release.”

Marc Thiessen writes at the American Enterprise blog on Fazi the ghazi:

So who is this Mullah Mohammed Fazl?

Last year, WikiLeaks released a trove of documents it dubbed the “Gitmo Files” with assessments of hundreds of Guantanamo detainees—including Fazl. According to his official record, Fazl is a war criminal who has massacred thousands of people, has close relationships with al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, is involved in narcotics trafficking, and is so senior  in the Taliban hierarchy that he once threatened the Taliban’s supreme leader, Mullah Omar. He is considered to pose a “high risk” to American forces and our allies if released.

Here is the official U.S. government assessment of the man Barack Obama wants to put back on the streets (emphasis is mine):

Detainee is assessed to be a HIGH risk, as he is likely to pose a threat to the US, its interests, and allies…. Detainee is an admitted senior official of the Taliban government and army and was last assigned to the position of Deputy Minister of Defense. Detainee also served as Chief of Staff of the Taliban Army and a commander of the 22nd Division. Detainee is wanted by the UN for possible war crimes including the murder of thousands of Shiites. Detainee had operational associations with significant al-Qaida and other extremist personnel. Detainee wielded considerable influence throughout the northern region of Afghanistan and his influence continued even after his capture. If released, detainee would likely rejoin the Taliban and establish ties with anti-Coalition militias (ACM) participating in hostilities against US and Coalition forces in Afghanistan….

Detainee is wanted by the UN for possible war crimes while serving as a Taliban Army Chief of Staff and was noted having a long record of human rights abuses. Detainee was implicated in the murder of thousands of Shiites in northern Afghanistan during the Taliban reign. When asked about the murders, detainee and [ANOTHER DETAINEE] did not express any regret and stated they did what they needed to do in their struggle to establish their ideal state.

Detainee protected a subordinate accused of mass murder. Detainee’s deputy commander, Mullah Dadullah Lang, aka (Commander Dadullah), was reportedly responsible for the murder of 500 Shia, Hazara, and Uzbek civilians, including men, women, and children, during the winter of 2000. Dadullah Lang’s troops seized the people near Sar-i-Pol, AF, trucked them to Baghlan Province, AF, killed them, and threw the bodies into gorges…. After Mullah Omar found out about the massacre, he ordered Dadullah Lang to be disarmed and brought to Kandahar to explain his actions. Detainee vouched for Dadullah Lang, reportedly telling Supreme Leader of the Taliban Mullah Muhammad Omar that if Dadullah Lang was disarmed, detainee would disarm Mullah Omar. (Analyst Note: Detainee was directly subordinate to Mullah Omar. Detainee’s threat directly against the Supreme Leader of the Taliban indicates he held great authority and power within the Taliban)….

Detainee was reportedly involved in Taliban narcotics trafficking activities….

[Another detainee] stated detainee has continued to spread anti-Afghan government and anti-US messages among detainees at JTF-GTMO [and] lists detainee among several detainees at JTF-GTMO who would likely pose a threat to the Afghan government it released….

Detainee was directly connected to several extremist organizations and facilitated programs supporting the Taliban, including al-Qaida and IMU…. Detainee has specific information relating to several extremist organizations that provide support to the Taliban. Detainee also probably has significant information on Taliban and al-Qaida personnel still active today.

This is the man the Obama administration wants to release—not in return for any concession on the part of the Taliban, mind you, but as a confidence building measure before any talks even begin. Based on this assessment, Mullah Mohammed Fazl is a mass murderer who should not be released under any circumstances. He should be tried by military commission and spend the rest of his life in custody at Guantanamo Bay.

Over at Heritage: Taliban Prisoner Release A Premature, Dangerously Naive Move

The British newspaper The Guardian has reported that the U.S. has agreed in principle to release high-ranking Taliban officials from Guantanamo Bay in return for the Afghan insurgents’ agreement to open a political office in Qatar. If true, this would demonstrate that the Obama Administration is dangerously naïve about the reality of the threat the Taliban continues to pose in the region. It also could reveal that the Administration has no real strategy for achieving U.S. counterterrorism objectives in the region and is desperate to strike a deal with the Taliban in order to justify its troop-withdrawal plan.

A few days ago, the media reported that the U.S. was considering releasing Mohammed Fazl, a “high-risk detainee” held at Guantanamo Bay since 2002. According to the report, a senior U.S. Administration official said that the release of Fazl and four other Taliban members had been requested by the Afghan government and Taliban representatives as far back as 2005. As a former senior commander of the Taliban, Fazl is alleged to be responsible for the killing of thousands of Afghan Shiia between 1998 and 2001.

It is a stretch to portray the Taliban’s opening of an office in Qatar as a major concession by the organization worthy of a reciprocal move by Washington. In fact, allowing the Taliban to open an office outside Afghanistan allows the organization to claim international legitimacy, despite its unwillingness to drop support for international terrorism or to commit to participating in a normal political process in Afghanistan.

It is understandable that the Administration wants to keep doors open for future negotiations with the Taliban. However, releasing senior Taliban prisoners before the group has renounced international terrorism or shown willingness to compromise is reckless.

If the Administration wants to build support on Capitol Hill for such a major gesture toward the Taliban, it must do a better job of explaining its objectives. State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland provided a fumbling response to a reporter’s question yesterday about the actual objectives of engaging the Taliban.

Leaving the door open for negotiations is one thing. But handing over the store before there are clear signs you are accomplishing your objectives is not a negotiation—it is a surrender.

The U.S. must be realistic about the threat that Taliban extremists and their al-Qaeda allies pose. The Administration should not pin false hopes on a political reconciliation process merely to justify a troop withdrawal. Political reconciliation is desirable, but only if it contributes to the goal of ensuring Afghanistan never again serves as a safe haven for global terrorists.

The Taliban’s opening an office in Qatar is not a major breakthrough for peace talks. A genuine breakthrough would be a Taliban denunciation of al-Qaeda and its international campaign of terrorism. There should also be clear indicators that Taliban leaders are genuinely ready for political compromise.

The U.S. misread the intentions of the Taliban and underestimated the strength of its bond with al-Qaeda when it sought to engage them before 9/11. U.S. diplomats, acting largely on inaccurate advice from Pakistani leaders, overestimated their own ability to influence decision-making within the Taliban leadership.

As Michael Rubin, former political adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, has noted, “U.S. attempts to engage the Taliban from 1995 to 1999 represent “engagement for its own sake—without any consideration given to the behavior or sincerity of an unambiguously hostile interlocutor.” Rubin, now a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, details how U.S. State Department officials were repeatedly misled by Taliban officials harboring Osama bin Laden even after al-Qaeda attacked two U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998. As Rubin noted, “face-to-face meetings with Americans served only to reinforce the Taliban gang’s pretensions as a government rather than as an umbrella group for terrorists.”

In seeking talks with the Taliban, the Administration must avoid the same pitfalls U.S. officials fell into during the 1990s that ultimately helped set the stage for the 9/11 attacks. If the Taliban is able to reassert influence in Afghanistan without making the political compromises necessary for peace in the region, the U.S. will not only fail the Afghan people, who have already suffered under Taliban rule, but it will also sacrifice U.S. national security by allowing a violent, anti-Western Islamist ideology to succeed in the region.


Via pamelageller.com.

[howardroark]

Execute those guys. Then proceed to GTFO of Afghanistan.

[Soul Crusher]

Don’t let these Taliban leaders loose

By Marc A. Thiessen, Monday, January 9, 10:24 AM

President Obama is reportedly considering releasing several senior Taliban leaders from Guantanamo Bay as an enticement to get the Taliban to the peace table. If he does so, he will do tremendous harm to American national security — and to his prospects for reelection this fall.

To understand why, consider the individuals White House is considering setting free. Last year WikiLeaks released a trove of documents it dubbed the “Gitmo Files” with assessments of hundreds of Guantanamo detainees — including the five Taliban leaders reportedly under consideration for release. Here is the U.S. military’s assessment of them:

Mullah Mohammed Fazl, deputy defense minister. Fazl is “wanted by the UN for possible war crimes while serving as a Taliban Army Chief of Staff and … was implicated in the murder of thousands of Shiites in northern Afghanistan during the Taliban reign.” He has “operational associations with significant al-Qaida and other extremist personnel,” was “involved in Taliban narcotics trafficking,” and is so senior in the Taliban hierarchy that he once threatened the Taliban’s supreme leader, Mullah Omar. Military officials assess that Fazl wields “considerable influence throughout the northern region of Afghanistan and his influence continued even after his capture” adding, “If released, [Fazl] would likely rejoin the Taliban and establish ties with anti-Coalition militias (ACM) participating in hostilities against US and Coalition forces in Afghanistan.”

Abdul Haq Wasiq, deputy minister of intelligence.  Wasiq “was central to the Taliban’s efforts to form alliances with other Islamic fundamentalist groups to fight alongside the Taliban against US and Coalition forces.” He “utilized his office to support al-Qaida and to assist Taliban personnel elude capture…. arranged for al-Qaida personnel to train Taliban intelligence staff in intelligence methods” and “assigned al-Qaida members to the Taliban Ministry of Intelligence.” If released “he is likely to pose a threat to the US, its interests and allies.”

Mullah Norullah Noori, governor-general of Afghanistan's northern zone. Noori “is considered one of the most significant former Taliban officials detained at JTF-GTMO” who “led troops against US and Coalition forces” and “was directly subordinate to Taliban Supreme Leader Mullah Omar.”  He “is wanted by the UN for possible war crimes,” is “associated with members of al-Qaida,” and is assessed “to be a hardliner in his support of the Taliban philosophy.” He “continues to be a significant figure encouraging acts of aggression and his brother is currently a Taliban commander conducting operations against US and Coalition forces…. (Analyst note: Detainee would likely join his brother if released.”)

Mullah Khairullah Khairkhwa, Herat governor and acting interior minister. Khairkhwa is “directly associated to Usama Bin Laden (UBL) and Taliban Supreme Commander Mullah Muhammad Omar” and was “trusted and respected by both.” After 9/11 he “represented the Taliban during meetings with Iranian officials seeking to support hostilities against US and Coalition forces” and “attended a meeting at the direction of UBL, reportedly accompanied by members of HAMAS.” He is “one of the premier opium drug lords in Western Afghanistan” and was likely “associated with a militant training camp in Herat operated by deceased al-Qaida commander (in Iraq) Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.”

Mohammad Nabi, multiple leadership roles. Nabi is “a senior Taliban official” who was “a member of a joint al-Qaida/Taliban ACM cell in Khowst and was involved in attacks against US and Coalition forces.” He “held weekly meetings” with “three al-Qaida affiliated individuals” to discuss anti-coalition plans, “maintained weapons caches,” and “facilitated two al-Qaida operatives smuggling an unknown number of missiles along the highway between Jalalabad and Peshawar,” which intelligence officials believe contributed to the deaths of two Americans.

All have close ties to al-Qaeda and other extremist groups. All been assessed by our military as posing a “high risk” of returning to the fight if released. And we know from painful experience what happens when hardliners like these are released from Gitmo. In 2007, the Bush administration released a Taliban leader named Mullah Zakir to Afghan custody. Unlike these five, he was assessed by our military as only “medium risk” of returning to the fight. They were wrong. Today, Zakir is leading Taliban forces fighting U.S. Marines in Helmand province, and according to former intelligence officials I spoke with, he has provided the Taliban with an exponential increase in combat prowess.

Releasing more like him would be disastrous for national security. And it would also be politically disastrous for Obama. His likely opponent, Mitt Romney, has already blasted the administration for even considering such releases, declaring “We do not negotiate with terrorists. The Taliban are terrorists, they are our enemy, and I do not believe in a prisoner release exchange.”

If Obama goes through with these releases, expect Romney to make a major issue of it in the fall campaign. Every time the president has picked a fight over terrorist detention at Guantanamo during the past three years, he has lost. He will lose again if he raises it in 2012. The last thing Obama should want is to have Americans discussing his decision to release dangerous terrorists in November. If Obama won’t keep these brutal men locked up for the national interest, perhaps he will for his political self-interest.

[Soul Crusher]

Rohrabacher: Obama Administration Favors Taliban Over Allies (Obama to release dangerous Taliban)
Kabul Press ^ | 1/31/2012 | Rep. Rohrabacher
Posted on February 1, 2012 7:07:27 AM EST by tobyhill

In response to weekend reports that the United States is close to a deal for the release of five Taliban leaders from Guantanamo prison, Rep. Rohrabacher issued the following statement:

“The Taliban is a terrorist organization responsible for the death and maiming of hundreds of Americans in Afghanistan, and were in league with al-Qaida when 3,000 people were murdered in the U.S. on 9/11,” said Rohrabacher. “While President Obama refuses to talk to America’s natural allies in Afghanistan, the Northern Front, he is in the processes of making one-sided concessions to the Taliban that will put some of its worst killers back in action.”

(Excerpt) Read more at kabulpress.org ...

[pedro01]

The British endured many years of terrorist attacks over N.Ireland.

In the end, it was words and not bombs/bullets that resolved things.

Iraq - fucking basket case.
Afghanistan - fucking basket case.

The bombs don't actually seem to be doing the trick

[Soul Crusher]

https://nypost.com/2021/08/16/taliban-leader-was-freed-from-guantanamo-in-2014-swap-by-obama/

[Straw Man]

Trump got Afghanistan to release 5000 prisoners last year as part of is "peace" negotiations

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-afghanistan-taliban/afghanistan-to-release-400-hard-core-taliban-prisoners-in-bid-for-peace-idUSKCN25507I

[Soul Crusher]

Trump got Afghanistan to release 5000 prisoners last year as part of is "peace" negotiations

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-afghanistan-taliban/afghanistan-to-release-400-hard-core-taliban-prisoners-in-bid-for-peace-idUSKCN25507I

The taliban commander who engineered this was released by OFAG against what he was recommended to do.   

[Straw Man]

The taliban commander who engineered this was released by OFAG against what he was recommended to do.   

that was 7 years ago
what does that have to do with what's going on today

BTW - THE TRAITOR ignored the advise of his own Secretary of Defense regarding the Taliban just last year

Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper said Tuesday that he was concerned that then-President Donald Trump "undermined" the US' 2020 agreement with the Taliban by pushing for US forces to leave Afghanistan without the Taliban meeting the conditions of the deal.

The Trump administration's "Agreement for Bringing Peace to Afghanistan" outlined a series of commitments from the US and the Taliban related to troop levels, counterterrorism and intra-Afghan dialogue aimed at bringing about "a permanent and comprehensive ceasefire."

But, Esper told CNN's Christiane Amanpour, "my concern was that President Trump, by continuing to want to withdraw American forces out of Afghanistan, undermined the agreement, which is why in the fall when he was calling for a return of US forces by Christmas, I objected and formally wrote a letter to him, a memo based on recommendations from the military chain of command and my senior civilian leadership that we not go further -- that we not reduce below 4,500 troops unless and until conditions were met by the Taliban."
"Otherwise," Esper continued, "we would see a number of things play out, which are unfolding right now in many ways."

[IRON CROSS]

Hey MENTAL SICKO, Kabul International needs yours "expertise" !.