Pakistan: We won’t hand over the captured Taliban leaders to the U.S.

posted at 3:34 pm on February 20, 2010 by Allahpundit

It’s so hard to tell what’s kabuki and what’s not in these Pakistan/Taliban stories that I’m half-inclined to stop blogging them altogether. For instance, is this proof that the skeptics are right, that Pakistan’s holding the Taliban’s number two as a bargaining chip vis-a-vis Karzai? Or is it just propaganda aimed at the anti-American Pakistani population, with Islamabad fully intending to hand over Baradar et al. to the U.S. in the guise of “deporting them to Afghanistan”? Or could it be that Pakistan’s technically telling the truth about not handing them over while secretly allowing U.S. interrogators full access to the prisoners, a la some European CIA “black site”? (The Times story that broke the news about Baradar claimed that American agents are part of the team that’s questioning him.)

What’s it all about, Alfie?

Interior Minister Rahman Malik said Pakistani authorities were still questioning Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the most senior Taliban figure arrested since the start of the Afghan war in 2001, and two other senior militants arrested with U.S. assistance in separate operations this month.

If it is determined that the militants have not committed any crimes in Pakistan, they will not remain in the country, he said.

“First we will see whether they have violated any law,” Malik told reporters in Islamabad. “If they have done it, then the law will take its own course against them.

“But at the most if they have not done anything, then they will go back to the country of origin, not to USA,” Malik said.

That sounds like good news — if they’re in Afghan custody, they’re effectively in U.S. custody — but don’t forget the lesson of the Qais Khazali clusterfark in Iraq. It’s amazing how forgiving governments can be of terrorists when there’s political advantage to be had.

Meanwhile, a bit more dirt from WaPo on how the great Taliban clampdown came to be:

Pakistan’s decision to go after the Afghan Taliban leadership reflects a quiet shift underway since last fall, said officials from both countries, who cited a November letter from President Obama to Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari as a turning point.

The letter, which was hand-delivered by U.S. national security adviser James L. Jones, offered additional military and economic assistance and help easing tensions with India, a bitter enemy of Pakistan. With U.S. facilitation, the Indian and Pakistani foreign ministers have agreed to meet next week, the first high-level talks between the two countries since terrorist attacks in Mumbai in late 2008.

The letter also included an unusually blunt warning that Pakistan’s use of insurgent groups to pursue its policy goals would no longer be tolerated. The letter’s delivery followed the completion of a White House strategy review in which the administration concluded that stepped-up efforts in Afghanistan would not succeed without improved cooperation from Pakistan…

Observers in Pakistan say the shift will facilitate the nation’s desire to drive any political negotiations between the Taliban and the Afghan government, which it views as an opportunity that could end the war and place a friendly regime next door. Baradar and the shadow governors could be valuable bargaining chips, or they could have been surrendered by the Taliban to give Pakistan entry into the talks, according to competing theories in Pakistan.

I want to know more about that “unusually blunt warning.” The fact that The One was holding out relations with India as a carrot makes me wonder if India was also part of the stick, explicitly or otherwise. As for Baradar either surrendering himself or being handed over by his own men in order to make negotiations with Karzai easier, would he really have done that without some sort of guarantee from Pakistani that he wouldn’t be questioned by American interrogators? Or could it be that the detail in the Times about American interrogators was itself a lie planted by U.S. officials to spook Taliban commanders in the field? See what I mean about how maddening the kabuki possibilities are? We’re at a point where the U.S., Pakistan, and Baradar could all secretly be working together to try to broker a deal with Kabul, or the U.S. and Pakistan could be earnestly cracking down on the Taliban, or Pakistan and the Taliban could be coordinating to maximize their leverage over the U.S. Or, I suppose, all three. All theories welcome!

For extra credit, answer the following: Just two days ago, in North Waziristan, a U.S. drone liquidated another top Al Qaeda military commander as well as several other “important militants.” Related to this or not?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Smart Power?

Enoxo on February 20, 2010 at 3:36 PM

I think I am going to watch more Olympic curling. This stuff is too freak-deaky what with all the possibilities.

rbj on February 20, 2010 at 3:42 PM

For extra credit, answer the following: Just two days ago, in North Waziristan, a U.S. drone liquidated another top Al Qaeda military commander as well as several other “important militants.” Related to this or not?

It does seem that they’re “finding” these guys a bit quicker these days…

JetBoy on February 20, 2010 at 3:42 PM

Maybe they want to use some “enhanced interrogation techniques,” and aren’t too keen on them being tried in a civilian court?

notropis on February 20, 2010 at 3:43 PM

Related to this or not?

Goal ?

KABUL (Reuters) – Afghan President Hamid Karzai renewed his call on Saturday for the Taliban to accept his peace proposal, after a NATO offensive and the capture of a top Taliban leader raised hopes the group could be more flexible.

William Amos on February 20, 2010 at 3:43 PM

I say it’s all good if they are in the custody of someone who is still allowed to rough them up.

Mark1971 on February 20, 2010 at 3:44 PM

Or is it because they don’t want them read their Mrianda warning?

trapeze on February 20, 2010 at 3:44 PM

Just two days ago, in North Waziristan, a U.S. drone liquidated another top Al Qaeda military commander as well as several other “important militants.” Related to this or not?

Possibly. Similar things happened in the wake of Al-Zarqawi’s demise in Iraq. A perishable intel cornucopia is exploited like a wave hitting the beach. It’s here today, gone tomorrow–

ted c on February 20, 2010 at 3:44 PM

If they’re not handing the captured Taliban over it’s probably because they like the Paki comfy chairs more than the US comfy chairs.

Choices.

ted c on February 20, 2010 at 3:45 PM

BTW I didnt find it in that story but the goal again is to make the Taliban abandon Al Qaeda. THe war would go on but sans the Taliban.

The answer still is…

Taliban insurgents have repeatedly turned down his offer, saying foreign troops should leave Afghanistan first.

William Amos on February 20, 2010 at 3:46 PM

Maybe they’re worried Captain Wonderful will read their Miranda rights and give them taxpayer funded lawyers.

Darth Executor on February 20, 2010 at 3:46 PM

They do not have the right to remain silent (or for squat).

Philly on February 20, 2010 at 3:47 PM

Bad people are in custody and neither America nor Europe has responsibility for their care, nor will have to deal with the hand-wringing liberal protests. Good. Is there a problem that I’m not seeing?

YiZhangZhe on February 20, 2010 at 3:48 PM

I would like to know just how the New York Times was able to get the the information they claim to have. One would have to think a hand delivered letter of that magnitude wouldn’t be open to public scrutiny. More fertilizer from the times? What is their story?!! Poor terrorists. Just think of the maltreatment at the hands of their Pakistani hosts. Where’s Eric Holder? Oh, wait! They’re in Pakistan.

LarryG on February 20, 2010 at 3:48 PM

Maybe they’re worried Captain Wonderful will read their Miranda rights and give them taxpayer funded lawyers.

Darth Executor on February 20, 2010 at 3:46 PM

+10 Bingo!!!

genso on February 20, 2010 at 3:49 PM

“But at the most if they have not done anything, then they will go back to the country of origin, not to USA,” Malik said.

Hmm. Is there really any circumstance where they’d come to the USA? Maybe I’m being overly analytical or looking for doublespeak (or maybe I’m just misinformed), but wouldn’t they go to Cuba, if they were handed over?

Tanya on February 20, 2010 at 3:49 PM

Take no prisoners!

tbear44 on February 20, 2010 at 3:52 PM

The picture is becoming pretty clear that Pakistan is working for Pakistan. I mean, anyone who thinks that Pakistan would be cowed by any threats from The Precedent has to be pretty gullible. Look for the US to come out on the truly short side of this stick.

neurosculptor on February 20, 2010 at 3:56 PM

There’s so much going on with this it’s hard to know where to begin. I seriously doubt this is being implemented on any plan Obama or his Chicago chums came up with. I give him full credit for not mucking it up by trying though. Apparently Obama has the good sense to let some professional “war mongers” game this.

The next month or so could get really interesting if they ramp this up a notch. We might score the biggest catch yet as I have no doubt Osama and company have been in Pakistan the whole time. And Pakistan knows where. But Osama is their biggest fattest ace to be played and it’s going to take some merciless playing to force that hand.

Guardian on February 20, 2010 at 3:58 PM

1) We are at “war” with AQ.
2) Very high ranking AQ leaders are sitting right in front of us in Pock-E-Stahn.
3) They will not be taken into U.S. custody.
4) They will be released to their country of origin.
5) What in HELL is wrong with this picture?

GoldenEagle4444 on February 20, 2010 at 3:59 PM

Guardian on February 20, 2010 at 3:58 PM

I maintain that if Obama *gulp* nabs/kills UBL and Zawahiri, he gets reelected. Any Dem politicain would be having McChrystal turn over every rock and goat pen around that area just to get a bead on that pair–then watch them like a fricking hawk and drop the hammer when he really needed it. A lesson learned from Clinton’s failure. The USMIL is the only competent arm that Obama has working for him right now.

Politics.

ted c on February 20, 2010 at 4:03 PM

“liquidated”

I love that word…

It reminds me of a James Bond film.

Seven Percent Solution on February 20, 2010 at 4:06 PM

I maintain that if Obama *gulp* nabs/kills UBL and Zawahiri, he gets reelected.

ted c on February 20, 2010 at 4:03 PM

The way things are I’m not sure even that’s enough to save his Presidency. A lot may depend on how we get him. If it’s just announced Osama’s dead that’s one thing. If they get him alive and parade him around on TV while Obama takes all the credit…who knows? It would make a hell of a photo op and we know how well Obama uses those to his advantage. Obama’s supporters eat that stuff up.

Guardian on February 20, 2010 at 4:12 PM

The Pakis are looking out for their own interests.

There has been a lot of chaos brought in by the foreign war, between Al Q, and the US, in their country.

They will “expel” these foreigners back to their country of origin, in hopes that the US will stop the drone strikes… and that Al Q will go fight in Africa (if they make it too inconvenient in Pakistan).

Romeo13 on February 20, 2010 at 4:14 PM

I have thought for some time that something about these capture stories stinks. The smell is getting overpowering.

conservnut on February 20, 2010 at 4:14 PM

When we invaded Afghanistan, it was with the expressed determination to take the war on terror to those who planned or aided 9/11. Pakistan was warned that they had a choice — aid us or you will be considered part of the problem. I doubt that they have many worries any more about that threat. So it must be an internal power dynamic playing out.

GnuBreed on February 20, 2010 at 4:14 PM

Cut the cord,of money flow, return our troops, let India have them as niehbors!

swimcoachmike on February 20, 2010 at 4:15 PM

They just don’t want Obambi and holder screwing it up.

Queen0fCups on February 20, 2010 at 4:15 PM

The way things are I’m not sure even that’s enough to save his Presidency. A lot may depend on how we get him. If it’s just announced Osama’s dead that’s one thing. If they get him alive and parade him around on TV while Obama takes all the credit…who knows? It would make a hell of a photo op and we know how well Obama uses those to his advantage. Obama’s supporters eat that stuff up.

Guardian on February 20, 2010 at 4:12 PM

right…It all depends on the context. But, it would really give him a boost if it happened. It would be a good thing, politics aside. It certainly wouldn’t be the end, but we’d certainly turn a corner with the thwacking of those two dirtbags.

ted c on February 20, 2010 at 4:21 PM

Taliban never attacked us on 9/11.

Spathi on February 20, 2010 at 4:32 PM

Taliban never attacked us on 9/11.

Spathi on February 20, 2010 at 4:32 PM

We coulda just fought the Japanese during WWII as well.

ted c on February 20, 2010 at 4:33 PM

I don’t know what to make of all this, but it sure is fishy. I’m afraid we will end up giving billions of dollars in aid, Pakistan says they can’t keep them because they’ve committed no crime, and sets them free in Afghanistan. Brilliant.

scalleywag on February 20, 2010 at 4:38 PM

scalleywag on February 20, 2010 at 4:38 PM

Actually the opposite is true. Our aid money keeps Pakistan quiet at worst and cooperative at best. The AfPak governments and elites have many connections and tie ins to the resistance and drug trade factions in their specific regions. They let them run wild until a PR move needs made. A few big fish go down and the media shuts up. The beat goes on…

The Calibur on February 20, 2010 at 4:47 PM

scalleywag on February 20, 2010 at 4:38 PM

Yeah. That line, “If it is determined that the militants have not committed any crimes in Pakistan, they will not remain in the country,” seem to be the key. It would seem that calling them “militants” would have included the idea that they have committed crimes.

I’d lay money on the idea that Pakistan is just negotiating/coordinating with these Taliban folks, not detaining them. But if the US is going to pay money to hear the word “detain”, then why the heck not? This is sort of like the AQ Khan “arrest”.

neurosculptor on February 20, 2010 at 4:51 PM

This is more Obama kabuki theater. These guys come off the street for a vacation for a while, Obama gets credit for pushing the battle, these guys stay alive to fight another day (when we are gone per Obama’s time certain when we leave) the ISI and Paki gov gets US taxpayer money because it looks like they are cooperating…

If we do not have them and if we are not using high stress interrogation then they might as well be back in the mountains. This is surrender, Obama style

georgealbert on February 20, 2010 at 4:55 PM

Or are the Pakistanis protecting them from CIA Predators?

The Pakistanis put these Taliban under “house arrest”, but in reality they are in some location where they have communications to the outside world.

This way the Taliban leaderships is safe from the Predators and the US can say they are captured…

albill on February 20, 2010 at 4:57 PM

Taliban never attacked us on 9/11.

Spathi on February 20, 2010 at 4:32 PM

They are Muslim, they supported all the attacks and all would love to have been on those planes on 9/11. Thank Bush for keeping that revelation from you and letting you think they are unrelated. Perhaps you think the Saudis are your friends too? Not even the House of Bush is anything but trash (useful trash) to the house Of Saud.

BL@KBIRD on February 20, 2010 at 5:01 PM

ted c on February 20, 2010 at 4:03 PM

If that is correct, the best thing the US military could do for America is to make sure that Osama is handed over in little pieces.

OldEnglish on February 20, 2010 at 5:02 PM

Taliban never attacked us on 9/11.

Spathi on February 20, 2010 at 4:32 PM

A Federal Judge appointed by Bill Clinton ruled in 2003 that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Sure you want to play this game?

Del Dolemonte on February 20, 2010 at 5:03 PM

I’d like to know how many Predator Crew Chiefs have named their drone Miranda.

Maquis on February 20, 2010 at 5:09 PM

The Calibur on February 20, 2010 at 4:47 PM

Yea that makes sense I guess.

I’d like to know how many Predator Crew Chiefs have named their drone Miranda.

Maquis on February 20, 2010 at 5:09 PM

hahaha, quite a few I’d imagine!

So we’re dropping hellfires on certain Taliban and letting Pakistan deal with others?

scalleywag on February 20, 2010 at 5:24 PM

Taliban never attacked us on 9/11.

Spathi on February 20, 2010 at 4:32 PM

Neither did Amadinejad, Saddam, Usama, Chavez, Red Skelton, or Redd Fox!

Cybergeezer on February 20, 2010 at 5:34 PM

Knowing the indictments and criminal charges coming to any American military or intelligence agency undertaking attacks such as these, the drones must have been turned over to the Pakistan military to operate as they wish.
This could explain why their getting more effective in their strikes, since Barraky boy took over.

Cybergeezer on February 20, 2010 at 5:41 PM

If they’re not handing the captured Taliban over it’s probably because they like the Paki comfy chairs more than the US comfy chairs.

Choices.

ted c on February 20, 2010 at 3:45 PM

Under this administration our comfy chairs are actual lazy boys with all the lawyers and protections the constitution provides. So sad.

tommer74 on February 20, 2010 at 5:43 PM

Taliban never attacked us on 9/11.

Spathi on February 20, 2010 at 4:32 PM

When its a war on TERRORISM

every TERRORIST is fair game

macncheez on February 20, 2010 at 5:49 PM

When its a war on TERRORISM Man Made Disasters

Wade on February 20, 2010 at 6:00 PM

The only theater going on is the performance the Obama Administration is giving for their leftward base.

The Paks give The One plausible deniability on “torture” via stealth rendition.

Obama gives the Paks cover for cleaning their own house (such as they might want).

Bruno Strozek on February 20, 2010 at 6:06 PM

Taliban never attacked us on 9/11.

Spathi on February 20, 2010 at 4:32 PM

They provided safe haven for bin-Laden, and refused to hand him over. It’s called aiding and abetting.

JetBoy on February 20, 2010 at 6:22 PM

I’d lay money on the idea that Pakistan is just negotiating/coordinating with these Taliban folks, not detaining them. But if the US is going to pay money to hear the word “detain”, then why the heck not? This is sort of like the AQ Khan “arrest”.

neurosculptor on February 20, 2010 at 4:51 PM

/Embraces his inner Machiavelli…

Hmmmm… We caught that guy in Africa, who had info…

The Pak KNOW we are killing these guys with Drone strikes…

We tell the Paks we KNOW where these guys are…

So the Paks grab them before we can KILL them?

Romeo13 on February 20, 2010 at 6:24 PM

A dose of optimism: The Pakistanis don’t want to keep these people but can’t be seen to punish someone who hasn’t severely broken Pakistan law. Having noticed that Mr Obama is quite fond of the use of predator strikes they have realised that all they need to do is follow their own law concerning due process, deport any who are not convicted back to a remote part of Afghanistan the target zone and then — in accordance with normal diplomatic courtesies — send the Afghan government a list of names and descriptions along with the exact co-ordinates of the drop-off point.

YiZhangZhe on February 20, 2010 at 6:27 PM

It’s so hard to tell what’s kabuki and what’s not in these Pakistan/Taliban stories that I’m half-inclined to stop blogging them altogether.

I don’t understand why you would stop blogging about this topic isn’t it a current event?

Dr Evil on February 20, 2010 at 6:45 PM

For extra credit, answer the following: Just two days ago, in North Waziristan, a U.S. drone liquidated another top Al Qaeda military commander as well as several other “important militants.” Related to this or not?

The Predator Drone Program or Whack A Mole

Capturing Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the most senior Taliban figure arrested since the start of the Afghan war in 2001, and two other senior militants arrested with U.S. assistance in separate operations this month or Jenga.

It looks like the C.I.A. is rolling up Pakistan “Thanks For Playing Please Drive Through”

Maybe they are trying flush the game out into the open?

Who knows but the timing is interesting. After The C.I.A. Khost attack – There appears to be this Fortunate Uncoordinated – Coincidence? The Pakistanis start snagging Taliban leadership in Pakistan. I don’t really believe in coincidences.

Dr Evil on February 20, 2010 at 6:58 PM

Pakistan is a nuclear Islamic state hellhole.

There is absolutely nothing reassuring about anything any Islamic land does, unless they were to overthrow and hang their homicidal mullahs, then renounce this Koranic Death Cult ~based on “holy” Terror~ forever.

Until then, it is ALL a great Fool the Infidel Suckers shell game.

That we play along with it, as Western nations, proves only the suicidal vacuity and historical vapidity of our supposed “leaders”.

profitsbeard on February 20, 2010 at 7:35 PM

Of course they won’t hand them over because then they can’t look like they are taking them out without really taking them out.

crosspatch on February 20, 2010 at 7:47 PM

yup profitsbeard. we are the infidel suckers. and how many of our boys & girls are over there right now?

pray for them because they are pawns in game that we can even contemplate.

kelley in virginia on February 20, 2010 at 7:48 PM

I would rather that they just prosecute the war on terror and forget about who gets the credit. Just get it done, like the old days. Need to know and you and I don’t!

Vince on February 20, 2010 at 7:49 PM

They won’t hand them over? Thank God. We’ve proven to be inept.

archer52 on February 20, 2010 at 7:53 PM

The Paks won’t hand them over most likely because in the long term, they will release them! The USA is being had again!

GFW on February 20, 2010 at 8:01 PM

I’m all for capturing these murdering morons, but I find it a little to arrogant that Obama seems to be ok with renditions, or whatever has befallen these men, after all his sanctimonious crap, and above it all attitude toward Bush, and company.

capejasmine on February 20, 2010 at 8:24 PM

We won’t hand over the captured Taliban leaders to the U.S.

Jeez! Hard to baame them, you know . . . I mean, we might try them!

Trochilus on February 20, 2010 at 9:56 PM

The fact that The One was holding out relations with India as a carrot makes me wonder if India was also part of the stick, explicitly or otherwise

Allah, do you guys need an Indian correspondent ?…seriously, i just moved back home and i dont mind earning some easy money.. especially after i have seen the ISI milk your Government for what its worth.

Let me disabuse you or anyone else of the notion that India is a part of any “stick” to beat up Pakistan with. Just four weeks back Bob Gates came to India with a message from Obama and arm twisted our feckless Government to make a peace offering and offer “talks” to the Paki rat bastards.

After the 11/26 attacks on Bombay, the Indian Govt stopped what was an ongoing composite dialogue with these jihadists. And now the Indian Govt has done a sudden U turn and has offered to “talk”.

The arrests of the umpteenth “Taliban 2nd in Command” was basically a quid pro quo – Pakistan would not do it UNLESS India offered to come back to the table and make some concessions… there are issues beyond just Kashmir for starters.. The US let itself be used as the middle man for this deal.

It could also be true that the Pakis found Baradar disposable after they found him negotiating with the US behind their back… Their refusal to hand him over to the US is actually understandable. They do not have an extradition treaty with the US and WILL NEVER SIGN ONE.

So if India refuses to play ball at the talks then Pakistan may keep him under… ahem.. house arrest the way they did with AQ KHan. Or delay his handover to Afghanistan unless they can milk the US Govt for more money..

nagee76 on February 21, 2010 at 9:21 AM

What does all of this matter really? It is not like we are getting rid of the terrorists or even making the ground any hotter for them. To get rid of the terrorists we must first get rid of islam and our leaders are to weak and decadent (those of them not outright allied with islam) to do that. The world must be declared an islam-free zone or we will never see any peace since islam per definition thrives on conflict and there will always be some grievances, real or imaginary, that the muslims can use in order to justify their hostility towards us. If every other justification fails they still have the fact that we are “infidels” to them.

JC Silverberg on February 21, 2010 at 11:01 AM

Coming at this from the wrong analytical perspective will lead us astray. It’s an outdated assumption that if Obama sent a “blunt message,” the character of it was hortatory. In other words, that Obama was trying to encourage (or intimidate) Pakistan to do X, and Pakistan has decided to concur and do X.

Under what other conditions has Obama done that in dealing with a foreign issue, and produced acquiescence? There’s no pattern of it. The actual pattern is of Obama not being taken seriously — by Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, or even by our European allies.

There is no reason to believe this dynamic finally worked with Pakistan. It’s much more likely that Obama’s “blunt message” about Pakistan doing X has provoked the Pakistanis to do Y, and let us interpret it as X if we want to.

Given the administration’s long-term interest in Taliban “reintegration” (Obama started talking about it almost a year ago), and the high profile the concept has had in all White House discussions of the way ahead in Afghanistan, a “message from Obama” that galvanized the Pakistanis was very probably about just that: negotiation with the Taliban.

But it was probably more than that. I don’t think Americans have realized yet the extent to which getting out of Afghanistan is tied in many administration minds to a negotiated settlement with the Taliban. There’s a big difference between telling the Pakistanis we want their help subduing the Taliban, and telling the Pakistanis they can help or not, but we’re going to wangle a settlement with the Taliban however we have to so we can pull out of there. The latter message is much more likely to have been delivered — bluntly — in November 2009, than the former.

The day of US preeminence encouraging teamwork from others on thorny issues is in the rearview mirror, at least for now. Obama’s M.O. is to issue ultimatums and ukases, and be unpredictable as to where he’ll follow through. We can expect this to produce scramble from here on out.

J.E. Dyer on February 21, 2010 at 1:35 PM

nagee76 on February 21, 2010 at 9:21 AM

Just read this one and find much to agree with (if not necessarily the pejorative characterization of Pakis).

The idea that the US can turn India on and off like a spigot is absurd. We can’t guarantee India’s behavior one way or the other, and both parties (India and Pakistan) know that. If US officials tried that gambit through hints, it would only make them look arrogant and stupid to the Pakistanis.

I don’t think Clinton, State, or Richard Holbrooke would have bought into trying to play an “India card.”

J.E. Dyer on February 21, 2010 at 1:55 PM

What would Obama do with these Taliban ?? .. send them to Gitmo ??

J_Crater on February 21, 2010 at 8:51 PM

For extra credit, answer the following: Just two days ago, in North Waziristan, a U.S. drone liquidated another top Al Qaeda military commander as well as several other “important militants.” Related to this or not?

Don’t know, but wouldn’t have been ironic had “civil rights lawyers” for little Omar Khadr prevailed Feb 10 2010, little Omar Khadr would have been “atomized” along with his brother.

“Severe sleep deprivation” is torture! Blowing them into a gazillion little particles, not so much.

He (Omar Khadr, 15 years old when captured) is accused of murder as a war crime for allegedly throwing a grenade that killed a U.S. army medic. His military trial is scheduled for July.

Do I get the extra credit?

DSchoen on February 22, 2010 at 12:56 AM

@J.E.Dyer
I used to love your analysis over at Commentary blogs.. but as we all know the trolls made life hard for every one and Commentary stopped accepting reader opinions.. Good to see you at HA.

As for the pejorative against the Pakis, trust me there are far worse ones that are used against them – i was just trying to be mild =)

nagee76 on February 22, 2010 at 1:30 AM