It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


U.S. hands over top Taliban leader to Pakistan, says embassy

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 10:58 AM
Xinhua Source.

This is a strange one that hasn't made many rounds in Western Media...
There is a few articles but I haven't noticed much in the way of News Stations sharing this.

ISLAMABAD, Dec. 7 (Xinhua) -- The United States has handed over three Pakistani detainees to Pakistan, including Latifullah Mehsud, a senior Pakistani Taliban leader, according to U.S. and Pakistani authorities.

"We can confirm that the United States repatriated three Pakistanis held in U.S. custody in Afghanistan following consultations between the United Sates and Pakistan and after receiving appropriate assurances regarding humane treatment," a spokesperson with the U.S. embassy in Islamabad said in a statement.

We don't negotiate with terrorists...

All the time*.

The Afghanistan Government were not involved in the transfer...

Leading to the question...
Who the hell was involved?

It is said this is to simmer down the anger between Afghanistan & Pakistan...
But Afghanistan had no say in this prisoner transfer.

Section of the Afghan media quoted Afghanistan's presidential spokesman, Nazeefullah Salarzai, as saying that Latifullah was not in the custody of the Afghan government. He said the Afghan authorities had no knowledge of the handover.

In context it would seem that they've been transferred from one custody(U.S) to another(Pakistan)...
However there is no confirmation of this...

In fact it says in the BBC article that a Taliban Chief has been "released"...

While the US did not confirm Latif Mehsud was among those transferred, Pakistani officials said Latif Mehsud had been "released".

In that context it sounds nothing like a custody exchange, but instead the release of a War Criminal...

More questions than answers imo.

The Guardian Source.
BBC Source.
Fox Source.

posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 11:12 AM
Funny, Homeland just had an episode that's eerily similar.

posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 11:28 AM
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

We don't negotiate with terrorists... All the time*.

It would be interesting to know all of the dealings that governments have had with terrorists since say, 1970.
I am sure it would be a bigger list than most people suspect.
S and F!

edit on b000000312014-12-08T11:28:50-06:0011America/ChicagoMon, 08 Dec 2014 11:28:50 -06001100000014 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 12:21 PM
Well....why wouldn't this happen? They have to keep the terrorist gangs going so they can keep making money. It's all a give and take business. It's not war anymore, is all business.

posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 03:37 PM
Obama likes releasing all our enemies. His expert negotiating skills didn't even get an awol traitor in return this time around.

posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 01:26 AM
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

This seems a smart move move to me .Pakistan does not have its hands tied when it comes to interrogation and have been seen recently to be cracking down on the Taliban and Taliban affiliates / feeders .

posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 01:52 AM
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Not very surprising that the same man and only president in history to disregard the USA stance against negotiating with terrorists did it again....this fake president people fell for is playing the same sheep over and over. The people he played are waking up though, so it will only be a matter of time before they see how they've been betrayed and blinded by this sorry excuse for a president.

top topics


log in