Afghanistan War: US Secretly Released Detainees From Military Prison

Former Taliban fighters, who control Dawlat Shah district under the direct command of Gul Dada (2R), surrender their weapons as they join Afghan government forces during a ceremony in Laghman province on May 7, 2012. (STRDEL/AFP/GettyImages)

WASHINGTON, May 7 (Reuters) - The United States has been secretly releasing detainees from a military prison in Afghanistan as part of negotiations with insurgent groups, the Washington Post reported in its Monday editions.

The "strategic release" program has allowed American officials over the past several years to use prisoners as bargaining chips to reduce violence in restive provinces, it said, citing U.S. officials who it said spoke on condition of anonymity.

The freed detainees are often fighters who would not be released under the legal system for military prisoners in Afghanistan. They must promise to give up violence, the report said.

Officials would not say whether those who have been released have later returned to attack U.S. and Afghan troops, the Post said.

Releases have come amid efforts to end the war through negotiation, which is central to the Obama administration's strategy for exiting Afghanistan, the report said.

Those efforts 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 insurgent leaders have said they see as a precondition for peace talks, the report said.

Unlike at Guantanamo, releasing prisoners from the Parwan detention center does not require congressional approval and can be done secretly, the Post said.

The program's goal is to quell violence in areas where NATO is unable to ensure security. Releases are intended to produce tactical gains, the Post said.

U.S. officials would not say how many detainees have been released under the program, though they said such cases are relatively rare. The program has existed for several years.

"The Afghans have come to us with information that might strengthen the reconciliation process," the newspaper quoted U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker as saying. "Many times we do act on it."

Releases through the secret program from Parwan must be approved by the top U.S. military commander and military lawyer, and are the only exceptions to the prison's judicial review board, the Post said.

It quoted one official as saying the procedure was "outside of our normal protocol," the paper said.

(Reporting By John Crawley; Editing by Eric Walsh)

Earlier on HuffPost:

Comments

[lcarrollccc]

09:47 AM on 05/09/2012

As the mother of a soldier currently in Afghanistan, I am APPALLED to read this piece. As another reader mentioned below, how can they return the very men (if you can call them that) who fought and wounded and/or murdered our troops to society to repeat those very actions? That is truly a slap in the face to our troops and to the families of the wounded and fallen warriors. This so-called war sickens me, what with the way we are constantly apologizing for every little thing we do over there, being shot at by our supposed Afghan allies, and lied to at every turn, yet we must abide by their religious rules? I can't even send any products containing PORK over there because it offends them! REALLY? If it wasn't for ROE, we would have been done over there a long time ago. GET THEM OUT OF THERE ALREADY!

[peterphx12]

09:57 PM on 05/08/2012

To make it short, the Taliban are the boss. The US have to negotiate with them to receive the peace of mind? That's enough for the big picture. At home they let corporations rip people off and steal people's money, while abroad they chicken out.

[PeterGator]

08:57 PM on 05/08/2012

Nothing new here. Didn't the US release over 300,000 rebels during prisoner exchanges during the Civil War ? Some people claim that many of them picked up arms and went back to the front lines. But no one knows how many actually kept their oaths or how many betrayed the oath.

[HomeGrower]

03:43 PM on 05/08/2012

One question...when did we start negotiating with terrorists?

Ever since Jefferson took it to the Barbary Pirates in 1800, our policy has been to NOT negotiate with terrorists. 200 yrs later...O changes this policy.

This could be the worst decision of his presidency.

And then....to let them go with only their promise not to bear arms against us again.....please tell me this is a joke.

[PeterGator]

08:34 PM on 05/08/2012

You do realize that Washington and Adams both paid tribute to the government of Morocco to protect us from the pirates ? I think the pact that started the payoffs was in January of 1787 (I might be wrong on the date)
And, of course, we co-operated with the Chinese and Russian communists during WW2. We have a history of doing what is temporarily expedient. At times we have been allies of Iraq and Iran.
Why is it any different now ?

[HomeGrower]

08:57 PM on 05/08/2012

I know early on we paid tribute to the Barbary pirates...cuz we didnt have a navy to protect our ships. Jefferson ended that.

I think its incorrect to call China and Russia...terrorists. The same for Iraq/Iran. Just cuz we dont agree with them politically, doesnt mean they're terrorists. And, even if terrorists come from their country...doesnt mean their govt approves. Thats like saying all Americans are racists cuz the KKK is here. O is negotiating with..not a govt..but a terroist group.

Thats how its different.

[dbarr24]

09:17 AM on 05/08/2012

Whatever. I just want to say that I am very proud of the president. I am a white guy, I come from a very conservative family, especially my dad. I know why most white people dislike the president so much, so much more than they did, for instance, Clinton. Obama dont drink, dont cheat on his wife, he is devoted to his kids, whatever. You would think that, after having Bin Laden killed that if there was a democrat that the republicans could at least respect, it would be Obama. But no sirree bob. It is fairly obvious why, nobody is being fooled. But you know what, at least I can be proud of my country that there were enough fair minded people to elect him. I swear, I freakin LOVE the dude- i wish he had a twin brother who could run in 4 more years

[leeferguson]

08:56 AM on 05/08/2012

"Officials would not say whether those who have been released have later returned to attack U.S. and Afghan troops, the Post said."
Duh!
I'd keep my mouth shut on that one too!
lol

[nothappywithbarry]

08:44 AM on 05/08/2012

Sure did not take AOL very long to get this story off

appeasing all the crying lib follows again

[nothappywithbarry]

05:52 AM on 05/08/2012

Barry must be looking for the terrorist vote

Birds of a feather

[mikaelam]

05:20 AM on 05/08/2012

The Taliban kills our soldiers then get captured and then Obama lets them go. Did anyone expect anything different? Gee, you think there's a connection there?

[celtcalgal]

06:54 AM on 05/08/2012

Gee............No.

[thomasogden1951]

04:09 AM on 05/08/2012

And this example is just one of the many reasons that the U.S. has NOT won a war since WWII.
Our government, for many years has totally betrayed it's fine Armed Forces. From Korea to the present, Washington DC has turned it's back on all of our soldiers.
I firmly believe that one requirement to hold public office is that they have had to of served in one branch of the U.S. military for at least 2 years. At least then they will have some idea of what it takes to defend this Great Nation, and hopefully will vote accordingly.

[PeterGator]

08:49 PM on 05/08/2012

Abraham Lincoln was a pretty good President and he only served a couple of months during the Black Hawk indian war. I don't think Adams or Jefferson ever served 2 years in uniform and they are considered pretty good presidents.
I would prefer that politicians be veterans but I'm biased, I'm a vet, my dad was and so were both of my grandfathers. But I don't know if it should be a requirement.

[vascopyjama]

03:55 AM on 05/08/2012

I can't wait for "Afghanistan The Musical" to hit Broadway.

[joyz41]

03:18 AM on 05/08/2012

Officials would not say whether those who have been released have later returned to attack U.S. and Afghan troops, the Post said.

This is similar to the Fast and Furious campaign that ended up providing assault weapons to drug cartels that ended up being used to kill our own agents.

It is always difficult to assess what makes sense in international situations because we are not privy to many details. The generals who do speak to the public do instill a sense of nonpartisanship and a desire to do what is best to protect the US. Their approval of this would be a little reassuring.

[bobwitmer]

02:49 AM on 05/08/2012

We're releasing Taliban and asking them to promise not to fight again. How naive and stupid can a Command Structure get?

Do we really think for a moment that they won't go back to their buddies and tell them everything they have learned in captivity?

This whole war has been a waste of American lives and the current Adminstration has been an embarrassment to the Nation.

Please, let's bring everyone home and end this madness.

[BeatlesPrudence]

08:55 AM on 05/08/2012

Yeah, maybe we should pin pictures to their turbans as they are released, on them on leashes in prison. That will keep them from returning to violent acts.

[wwilamlp]

02:12 AM on 05/08/2012

told you! dont say i did not tell you. america has a taliban farm; they are raising up people to be taliban. its a business: get more taliban and the people give more money

[florencebrady]

02:02 AM on 05/08/2012

And government making secret deals is new? I don't think so.

[grankov]

02:58 AM on 05/08/2012

The question is - what the scale and price of secret deals?

[florencebrady]

03:27 AM on 05/08/2012

Its like sometimes we just accept there are things we are not going to know. This is one of them.