Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Citing a lack of evidence, Afghan authorities released from prison 65 men Thursday over strong objections from U.S. officials, who said they pose a threat to security forces and civilians. "We took this decision according to our law," said Mohammad Ishaq Aloko, the Afghan attorney general. In a statement posted on its website, the U.S. Embassy in Kabul called the move "deeply regrettable," saying the Afghan government "bears responsibility for the results of its decision."
Abdul Shukor Dadras, head of the Afghan Review Board, said the attorney general ordered the releases from the Parwan Detention Center - formerly known as Bagram prison - after a careful review of 88 cases. The U.S. military in Afghanistan said some of the men are linked to attacks that killed or wounded 32 American or coalition service members and 23 Afghan security personnel or civilians.
But a 23-page document obtained by CNN Pentagon Correspondent Barbara Starr from a U.S. military official who asked not to be identified said about 19 of the released men were associated with direct attacks that killed or wounded 60 U.S. or coalition force members. There was no immediate explanation for the discrepancy. According to the document, 25 of the men were linked to the production or placement of IEDs; 33 tested positive for explosive residue when processed after capture; and 26 were associated with attacks that killed or wounded 57 Afghan citizens and Afghan National Security Forces.
Prior to the prisoners' release, U.S. authorities had repeatedly aired their displeasure over the plans. "We have made clear our judgment that these individuals should be prosecuted under Afghan law. We requested that the cases be carefully reviewed," the U.S. military said ahead of the release. "But the evidence against them was never seriously considered, including by the attorney general, given the short time since the decision was made to transfer these cases to the Afghan legal system."
More Afghanistan releases 65 prisoners despite U.S. objections - CNN.com
The U.S. military regards some of the dozens of prisoners released by Afghan authorities on Thursday as dangerous militants and killers and warns they will return to the battlefield. Afghanistan is a sovereign country, Karzai told reporters in a joint press appearance in Ankara with Turkish and Pakistani leaders. If the Afghan judicial authorities decide to release a prisoner, it is of no concern to the U.S., and should be of no concern to the U.S. Karzai said he hoped the U.S. would stop harassing Afghanistans judicial authorities. I hope the United States will now begin to respect Afghan sovereignty. U.S. and Afghan forces risked their lives to ensure the safety of the Afghan people, U.S. Forces-Afghanistan said in a statement, urging the Karzai government to consider the potentially lethal effects of todays releases and its impact on the future security of the Afghan people.
USFOR-A noted that some of the 65 prisoners released from the Parwan detention facility at Bagram have killed coalition and Afghan forces, as well as Afghan women and children. More than two dozen of the individuals released were linked to the production or emplacement of improvised explosive devices, the number one killer of Afghan civilians, it said. We believe some of the individuals previously released have already returned to the fight. Additional released detainees may continue to fill the ranks of the insurgency. With no legal consequences, these individuals may return to the same criminal behavior that led to their original capture.
Thursdays releases come 11 months after Kerry said the administration had great confidence that U.S. interests would be fully protected following the handover of the Parwan facility to Afghan control. We have worked out complete arrangements, Kerry said alongside Karzai in Kabul. [Top U.S. commander] General [Joseph] Dunford is here he is absolutely confident, as is the president of the United States, that in this arrangement, the sovereignty of Afghanistan is fully protected, but that President Karzai agrees there are certain people there who shouldnt necessarily be out, creating problems. And so were very comfortable that the sovereignty is fully protected and the interests of the United States with respect to prisoners are fully protected, Kerry added. Theres great confidence about that, or this would not have occurred. More than 2,300 American troops, along with another 1,100 from Britain and other contributing nations, have been killed in Afghanistan since the war began in October 2001.
Karzai: Afghan Release of Dangerous Militants ?of No Concern to U.S.? | CNS News
This is a time when foreign troops are leaving, international assistance will decrease dramatically, Afghanistans economic problems will become much more, the drugs trade and other criminal activity will worsen, and security will worsen, said Ahmad Majidyar, a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a frequent adviser to the U.S. Army. But if you see it from the view of Afghans, they are much more optimistic about their future than people here in the West. Only time will tell if that optimism is misguided. The last time foreign troops left Afghanistan, the new Soviet-backed president, Najibullah, spoke of a new beginning and offered reconciliation to his enemies. He ended up castrated, dragged to death behind a truck and his blood-soaked body hung on public display.
Even if history does not repeat, theres no dout that president of Afghanistan is one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. President Hamid Karzai, who has led Afghanistan since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion to oust the Taliban, has been the target of multiple assassination attempts and plots. Whoever succeeds him is likely to become more of a target with the withdrawal of NATO troops, who have had a large role in protecting the president. Of course, there is more that goes into the calculation of running for office in Afghanistan than a sense of duty or patriotism. Theres power, sure, adoring crowds are attending pre-election rallies by the tens of thousands. But theres also the lure of becoming the leader who takes the country from chaos to stability and rights a ship that many feel Karzai has left listing at a critical moment.
An Afghan riot police officer looks over the crowd at a rally for Afghan presidential candidate Ashraf Ghani in Kabul. Rallies frequently attract thousands of people and can become rowdy as spectators jostle to get closer to the candidates.
There are potentially more sinister reasons, too: In a country that has ranked last on Transparency Internationals corruption index for two consecutive years, the post also offers the opportunity for the winner to become very rich. Though the presidential salary is a meager $525 per month, Karzai and his family are thought to have amassed a considerable fortune during his time as president. What motivates the major candidates and how that plays out when one of them takes office could be key both to Afghanistans struggle to emerge from three decades of non-stop war as a stable, democratic nation, and the legacy of the U.S.-led military intervention in Afghanistan, which has dragged on for 12 1/2 years and become deeply unpopular among Americans.
With Karzai constitutionally banned from seeking a third term, this election marks the first democratic transfer of power in the countrys history. Its hugely important, said Kate Clark analyst with the Kabul-based Afghanistan Analysts Network. Hopefully it will institutionalize the idea that you have political change without assassination, revolution or war.
MORE
The day was not bloodless. At least 20 people were killed in violence across the country Saturday, among them seven military personnel, nine police and four civilians, Afghan Interior Minister Mohammad Umer Daudzai told reporters. And in many rural areas, turnout was reported to be nearly nonexistent as residents cited fears of the Taliban. But the fact that the Taliban were apparently unable, or unwilling in the face of heavy security presence, to project violence or intimidation beyond their traditional strongholds was seen by many Afghans as a blow to the insurgent group, at least in the war of perceptions.
Not only Afghans pinned their hopes on the election. U.S. and NATO leaders also hailed the relatively high turnout and mostly peaceful balloting as a sign of Afghans commitment to a democratic future and, as U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel put it,a testament to the tireless efforts and sacrifices of American, ISAF, and Afghan personnel. The role of the Western-trained Afghan security forces was key, said Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, commander of the International Security Assistance Force, who described their efforts to secure the elections as extraordinary. In taking stock of what the election means for the country and the Taliban insurgency, what is clear is that much remains unclear. Analysts and officials cautioned that it is too soon to draw major conclusions from an election day that could see the first democratic transfer of power in Afghanistans history. The votes remain untallied, allegations of fraud remain uncounted and unconfirmed. Nevertheless, election day offered encouraging signs.
A man inspects ballot boxes at a storage facility at Afghanistan's Independent Election Commission on Sunday, April 6, 2014, a day after the country's historic presidential vote. The winner won't be know for some time, but whoever prevails will have the task of governing a country beset by corruption and with an entrenched insurgency.
About 7 million people voted, according to election commission officials, which, barring massive fraud, would mark about a 50 percent increase over the validated votes from 2009. In that election, more than one million votes were thrown out and President Hamid Karzais main challenger, Abdullah Abdullah, quit in disgust before a scheduled run-off. Nearly 1,000 of roughly 7,300 polling centers were closed Saturday because of security fears. Of those, most were in more rural areas, election officials said. There were few surprises on the preliminary lists of areas where low turnout and allegations of fraud were reported, most of them in traditional Taliban strongholds where intimidation is a powerful tactic and sympathy for the insurgent movement often lingers.
Judging by the dozens of Tweets sent throughout election day, and two lengthy messages condemning the election, the Taliban were closely watching the vote. Their post-election press release claimed that Afghans boycotted the election en masse and that the Taliban launched more than 1,000 successful attacks. Voters and the Afghan government largely rejected the Talibans claims. Many voters saw the election as a direct challenge to the Taliban, and plenty of ink-stained middle fingers (which the insurgent group threatened to cut off) were aimed at the Taliban in photos posted on Twitter, though the tweets represented the minority of Afghans with access to social media.
MORE
It frustrates me that we are so, so obviously going to stay in Afghanistan, and yet President Obama continues to claim that we are leaving in 2014 as planned. If we remain in Afghanistan after the war is considered "over", the American people and most throughout the world will forget our troops are even there, and they will be able to perform with impunity from American public opinion. This is an endless pit, and if we are to stay in Afghanistan, we shouldn't consider the war "over".
To be fair, a security deal between Secretary of State Kerry and Hamid Karzai is still in the works, so technically they have not agreed to allow us to stay yet. Kerry is asking for legal immunity for troops that remain in the country past 2014, where they cannot be tried under Afghan law, but instead must be extradited to America where they may or may not be charged. This is the clause that caused Iraq to refuse to allow us to stay following that war. I understand this is standard practice, but it seems a bit fishy to me for us to tell the Afghan government what's what when we're on THEIR turf, dealing with THEIR culture. If we are in their country, we should be subject to their legal system. If we don't like some of their legal procedures, we should try harder not to commit crimes. If this is too complicated for us to handle, we should leave. Anyways, just my opinion.
