There doesn’t appear to have been any actual movement toward releasing 65 Bagram detainees who were cleared by the Afghan government for release quite some time ago, but the US felt the need to issue a new round of condemnations of the planned eventual release.
The US military command in occupied Afghanistan claimed the releases would violate “agreements” made between the two nations, and said they believe the Afghans “never seriously considered” the evidence against the detainees because of how quickly they were ordered released.
Afghan officials have repeatedly addressed the issue, saying what the US gave them was mostly non-specific allegations of theoretical “danger” and not actual evidence of real crimes committed, and that the detainees to be released had nothing provided that warranted holding them under Afghan law.
That’s not sat well at all with US officials, for whom the idea of releasing detainees in the absence of evidence is a quaint, out-dated concept. The Pentagon has repeatedly insisted that the Afghan Review Board, the first group to order the release, was never meant to have the authority to release anybody, and was supposed to choose between either prosecuting people, if they thought they could get a conviction, or open-ended detention if they didn’t have enough evidence for a prosecution. Afghan judges and much of the government have since weighed in, similarly saying the detainees must be let go.
So! Let me understand this U.S. position on Afghanistan. Here we have a super power that is ticked-off at a country they have illegally invaded and occupied. As the U.S. position or justification for war is predicated upon 9/11, a horrific attack in which the Afghans had absolutely no role, then we must in all fairness, consider other or alternative motivations for the U.S. attack. A growing number of scribes and others are in consideration of the importance of Afghanistan in a multi-billion dollar project dubbed the Trans-Afghan-Pipeline or TAP. A U.S. firm, (UNOCAL) while seen as losing ground in the deliberations with the Taliban for the contract, necessitated "regime change." . The Argentine company, (Bridas) was viewed as all but sure of the contract having outbid U.S. negotiators. Washington's strategy was to replace the Taliban Administration with their hand-picked man, Hamid Karzai who would use the high office to complete the transaction in favor of the U.S. He was, after all, their (bribed) man. With the country ravaged by so much war, a contract seems a long way off into the future for all concerned. To add to the contract standoff, Karzai has frustrated the U.S. on all fronts of late. Perhaps the U.S. should raise his allowance to insure his cooperation (bribes).