US releasing Taliban detainees

| May 7, 2012 | 9 Comments

Here’s another reason to take no prisoners in the war against terror. Fox News is reporting that the US is secretly releasing Taliban detainees in Afghanistan in order to stroke the Taliban at the negotiating table;

Under the risky program, the hardened fighters must promise to give up violence and are threatened with further punishment, but there is nothing to stop them resuming attacks against Afghan and American troops.

“Everyone agrees they are guilty of what they have done and should remain in detention. Everyone agrees that these are bad guys. But the benefits outweigh the risks,” a US official told the Post.

The Washington Post says;

The releases have come amid broader efforts to end the decade-long war through negotiation, which is a central feature of the Obama administration’s strategy for leaving Afghanistan. Those efforts, however, have yielded little to no progress in recent years. In part, they have been stymied by the unwillingness of the United States to release five prisoners from Guantanamo Bay — a gesture that insurgent leaders have said they see as a precondition for peace talks.

Yeah, that’s brilliant. I’m sure they’ll keep their word to not raise their arms because they’re so trustworthy.

You’d think that the US would hold off releasing our own prisoners until the Taliban releases Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl or Warren Weinstein, don’t you think? So since we’re just engaged in a catch and release program, the troops should stop catching them.

Category: Terror War

Loading Facebook Comments ...

Comments (9)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. CI says:

    Regardless of the efficacy of the program writ large, it’s asinine to even consider while they hold Bergdahl prisoner.

  2. Another brilliant move by Chairman Obama. All that’s missing is his “peace in our time” speech.

  3. Sansa says:

    Seems like an improvement on the previous “release most inmates at Gitmo without charge to their country of origin” program.
    Didn’t much in return for that except for silence from conservatives.

  4. Flagwaver says:

    I’ve studied Islamic culture. All of these little things are not going to make the Taliban feel differently or more friendly toward the U.S. It is going to make them feel that the U.S. is weak.

    This is the same group that Obama wants to bring to the negotiating table? I’m not sure if he’s heard, but they have declared war on the U.S. Even after he said he wants to bring them to the table, their response was a new declaration of war.

    Personally, I say we uphold the Geneva Convention. Any combatant caught in civilian attire is to be hanged by the neck as a spy. I wonder if the people that keep crying about the Geneva Convention remember that part of the document.

  5. Hondo says:

    Flagwaver, they probably don’t even know where to find the actual text of the documents, and have never read them. My guess is they are basing their knowledge of the Geneva Conventions on what they read in an e-mail from a friend writing about something an acquaintance once told them they read in a comment at DU. And they probably don’t have a clue that there are multiple Geneva Conventions covering different aspects of warfare and the participants in/persons affected thereby, either.

  6. Sansa says:

    “I’ve studied Islamic culture. All of these little things are not going to make the Taliban feel differently or more friendly toward the U.S. It is going to make them feel that the U.S. is weak.”

    Well, no, not really. Not compared to being the US being losing side in the war they won.

    There was a cost to shifting the bulk of military assets and attention to Iraq from 2002-2008. You know the cost of that just as well as you know how many conversations you’ve had about the Baath party and Saddam in the past month.

    Bush made a series of great decisions in how Afghanistan was overthrown, contrary to some of his strongest advisers. But at the end of the day, it was still just the inconvenient thing he was forced to do before the 10th September 2011 plan for Iraq could go forward.

    Meanwhile, I don’t know how much you think your Islamic studies help, when you could just look at the Taliban’s history of negotiations with opponents. They make the mafia look like a bunch of dyslexic children. If someone, sometime, somewhere didn’t get fcuked over by the Taliban while they got what they wanted, I haven’t heard about it. They’ve been more consistent than gravity on that front.

  7. Yat Yas 1833 says:

    A Muslim friend of mine is always puzzled and troubled by our government. He can’t understand why they acquiesce to the Taliban like they do. He just flat out says, “The only thing they understand is brute force. The only way to stop them is to kill them.” I agree.

  8. Nancy says:

    Must promise to give up violence, LMAO. Outweigh the risks Let’s see what could the risks be…. 1 more soldiers life is to heavy of a risk, we all know the Taliban will only do what they think is in their best interest, they will only negotiate more ways to kill us. Let’s do an exchange, your dangerous prisoners for ours. Yes let us show them how weak we are, release the prisoners we hold and they will chop the heads off of the ones they hold. Yes president Obama we can negotiate with the Taliban. We need Obama out of this war! Agreed take no prisoners… # 7 is right on, & have our leaders learned nothing in the last decade. Sorry for the rant..

  9. eagledavey says:

    waste of time…more soldiers dead thnx to this stupidity

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *