Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar: Captured
So, apparently a top Taliban commander has been captured in a joint secret operation by Pakistan and the U.S. He is apparently a big, big fish and reportedly is being interrogated by officials from both countries:
The commander, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, is an Afghan described by American officials as the most significant Taliban figure to be detained since the American-led war in Afghanistan started more than eight years ago. He ranks second in influence only to Mullah Muhammad Omar, the Taliban’s founder and a close associate of Osama bin Laden before the Sept. 11 attacks.
Mullah Baradar has been in Pakistani custody for several days, with American and Pakistani intelligence officials both taking part in interrogations, according to the officials.
It was unclear whether he was talking, but the officials said his capture had provided a window into the Taliban and could lead to other senior officials. Most immediately, they hope he will provide the whereabouts of Mullah Omar, the one-eyed cleric who is the group’s spiritual leader.
Disclosure of Mullah Baradar’s capture came as American and Afghan forces were in the midst of a major offensive in southern Afghanistan.
His capture could cripple the Taliban’s military operations, at least in the short term, said Bruce O. Riedel, a former C.I.A. officer who last spring led the Obama administration’s Afghanistan and Pakistan policy review.
Details of the raid remain murky, but officials said that it had been carried out by Pakistan’s military spy agency, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, and that C.I.A. operatives had accompanied the Pakistanis.
…The officials said that Pakistan was leading the interrogation of Mullah Baradar, but that Americans were also involved. The conditions of the questioning are unclear. In its first week in office, the Obama administration banned harsh interrogations like waterboarding by Americans, but the Pakistanis have long been known to subject prisoners to brutal questioning.
Two quick questions:
What would Eric Holder say?
And if capturing this jihadi in a violent raid is worth trumpeting and celebrating, why doesn’t the Obama administration free the Navy SEALS who are accused of far less in their battle against terrorism in Iraq?
Wait, one more question. Check this out:
The New York Times learned of the operation on Thursday, but delayed reporting it at the request of White House officials, who contended that making it public would end a hugely successful intelligence-gathering effort. The officials said that the group’s leaders had been unaware of Mullah Baradar’s capture and that if it became public they might cover their tracks and become more careful about communicating with each other.
The Times is publishing the news now because White House officials acknowledged that the capture of Mullah Baradar was becoming widely known in the region.
Fancy that. The terror-tipping NYT blabbermouths who repeatedly undermined national security during the Bush years by disclosing sensitive/classified information about many key counterrorism programs are now sensitive to ongoing counterterrorism operations. The paper that went to court to force the government to release classified information about jihadis and has shown reckless disregard for the consequences of disclosure is now delaying reports at the request of White House officials.
How generous and patriotic of the Fishwrap of Record to see the light, isn’t it?
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
The Gitmo circus
May 7, 2012 09:28 AM by Michelle Malkin
186 CommentsKatie Pavlich exposes “Fast and Furious: Barack Obama’s Bloodiest Scandal and the Shameless Cover-Up”
April 16, 2012 10:09 AM by Michelle Malkin
133 Comments
Eric Holder’s office: O’Keefe group’s video not evidence vote fraud is possible because it’s ‘manufactured’
April 9, 2012 03:21 PM by Doug Powers
80 Comments
KSM and company go on military trial, face death penalty
April 4, 2012 01:30 PM by Michelle Malkin
65 Comments
Fast and Furious follow-up: Issa, Grassley press Holder on ICE officer Jaime Zapata’s murder
February 27, 2012 04:09 PM by Michelle Malkin
56 Comments
Pastor Nadarkhani update: Execution order reportedly issued
February 22, 2012 01:13 PM by Michelle Malkin
58 Comments
Video of the day
February 21, 2012 12:31 PM by Michelle Malkin
70 CommentsFast and Furious showdown: Holder/Obama defend bloody culture of contempt; Update: Fortress Holder, Stonewall City; vid clips added, Dems advise, “Don’t answer”
February 2, 2012 09:16 AM by Michelle Malkin
158 CommentsThe trial of the last Haditha Marine: SSgt Wuterich takes plea deal
January 23, 2012 03:25 PM by Michelle Malkin
59 Comments
Categories: Eric Holder,Islam,New York Times,War
Pundit & Pundette
» Patterico's chilling account of harassmentNice Deb
» The Organized Left Now Stalking RomneyNRO
» Unleash Biden!NewsBusters.org
» Very Annoyed Matthews Rips ‘Horse’s Ass Right-Wingers’ Who Cite ‘Thrill Up My Leg,’ Calls C-SPAN Host a ‘Jackass’Gay Patriot
» Second term agenda? What second term agenda?
As with KSM, he was arrested by Pakistan at our insistence. His being a “Pakistani prisoner” is a convenient legal fiction.
I don’t see any crimes he’s been accused of by the Pakistani military or government either.
chap,
Check my verb tense. Those days are over. The NYT is now at war and making it obvious.
US interrogator: “Talk or we’ll have to use these on you.”
Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar: “No! Not the comfy pillows!”
Let’s hope the Pakistani’s got him first.
OK, agreed.
You have arrived late and missed much of the discussion.
My comments have been non-specidic to any one Administration.
So you were referring to some hypothetical request from a hypothetical Republican administration sometime in the near or distant future?
Your “clear” evidence that they would “disregard” a request from a conservative or Republican administration to sit on any story (presumably for any length of time) is what then, exactly?
Benefits
Excellent material for washing windows and wrapping garbage.
Flaws
Everything else
Now, on to the topic at hand:
Suggestion for the interrogators:
Give the terrorist crapweasel some of the Col. West treatment. Make sure he knows you’re not bluffing.
zyzzyg said:
Ths one was not.
Why Holder is allowing Baradar to be kept in Pakistan rather than being returned to the United States to face trial in, presumably, a criminal court with a lawyer at his side?
Prove they did it out of unadulterated altruism and respect for the Bush administration and not because the freshness of 9/11 and the anthrax scare meant there was little appetite then for “loose-lips” reporting.
making bacon bits out of the guys brain while on camera would do much to end the war on terror. oh, but that is immoral and the powers that be have decided that we prove our morality by sacrificing ourselves.
Huh?
I am not the one making any claims as to the intent of the NYT. All I am doing is arguing against corkie’s contention using the most recent relevant time period. He may have some super secret memo circulated among the editorial board sometime between November of 2007 and now that states those “days are over” and they are now “at war” (with whom, I am not exactly sure), but until that surfaces in public, I will choose to go on their past behavior.
And in any case, three years between 9/11 and when the Times apparently had both of these stories and sat on them is hardly “fresh”, especially in newstime.
Also, I would prefer that NO paper have “unadulterated altruism and respect” for ANY administration.
I’m thinking in Pakistan his Miranda rights would go something like:
You have the right to tell us everything we ask you. If you choose to give up this right anything you don’t say can and will be used to hang you upside down by your big toes. You have the right to have your appendages removed one at a time. You have the right to boiling oil in your…
I say congratulations to Mr. Obama and those who captured this animal.
I further say that if he get read Miranda rights, a few others, including Obama, should be read theirs as well.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
gets …
The preview button is your friend …
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
American Interrogator:
“Hi! How ya doin? Can we get ya a Coke; a pillow? You ready to talk now or do you want to have some lunch before we ask ya a just a few little questions? Oh, by the way, we have conferenced you through to a law firm in Manhattan, Eric Holder used to work there; they are going to monitor our questioning, make sure we do this the right way. Well before we get started let me read you these rights. Hey! Did one of our guys give you that bloody lip? We wont put up with that you know.” (Terrorist smirks)
Pakistani Interrogator:
“Get out the board…” (Terrorist trembles)
Just use your imagination for the rest…
Ahhh…the zigster found a friend! Someone to do the work for him
Back to the NY Slimes…
My dog won’t use that paper cuz she says something else beat her to it.
Good grief, you have got to be kidding.
There are those of you that complain that I go on a bit much, but it becomes necessary when you offer such a weak challenge, which compells me to further explain.
First off, my comment was to another poster, and now you are inserting yourself into that exchange.
Since my first post in this thread, #11 where I made two points, one about AG Holder and the other about the press. Since then I have made several additional posts, all concerning the media and how they treat all Administrations, Republican and Democrat.
OK, you got me. I should have said, ‘My comments have been non-specific to any one Administration (Republican or Democrat) with regard to how the media treats them. Sometimes the media acceeds to requests to not publish, and sometimes they do not.’
Had the other poster not chimed in late, and not directed their comment about my comments concerning only the Media, and how they treat all Administrations (Republican and Democrat) I would have offered the necessary qualifications.
Yep, you got me and you should celebrate.
And, yes I will make future posts that much longer, offering and repeating the simplest of qualifications to accommodate late arrivers to the discussion and people like you who insert themselves into exchanges between other posters.
I am surprised you have not taken me to task over my typos.
We don’t tease the handicapped here. It’s not polite, nor a virtue.
Because, Baradar is Pakistan’s prisoner and there are issues of sovereignty. AG Holder does not have the authority to allow anything. However, the US can seek to have him extradicted. And, you do realize that Baradar would have a lawyer at a Military Tribunal? And, that if he could not afford one, the taxpayers would provide one.
Returned? Returned to the US? I was unaware that Baradar was ever in the US. You apparently have more information than I am aware of, with regard to where he has been and not been.
You see, we can all play word games and pick apart most statements. Though I prefer to be less frivolous when taking someone to task. I will keep it to substance and hope you will do the same, too.
You missed the sarcasm. It was FUNNY.
Question zig…do people leave the party when you show up?
OK, I’ll play.
Just because there is no time for discussing substance and facts.
Are you calling me a retard? You know that you can only do that with satire. Though I am thinking the satire exception is being revised.
sarc off/
What issues of sovereignty were there when Pakistan captured KSM on our behalf? They turned him over to us promptly. Of course, it would be awkward if Pakistan turned Baradar over to us. The Dems could hardly put him in Gitmo.
I had not noticed.
Uh…I think the ‘r’-word has been banned. Ask Rahm.
You know, you constantly brag about how you’re all about “substance and facts”, but you rarely deliver on your promise.
All in due time. For now you can start by offering a non-laugh-inducing explanation for why we’re not taking possession of Baradar. And by offering some ideas for what we might do wth him if we did take possession of him. Give me some substance and facts on this.
Nothing about the question was funny. I took it as it was written. And, answered it.
Moreover, the question belongs to another poster and you have interjected yourself into an exchange that did not include you. You are welcome to assign motive to others and to speculate about their intent.
Your post #126 amounts to humor, feeble humor at that, and I responded accordingly. I am fully capable of recognizing all forms of humor even when they are as weak as yours.
No.
Question Jan . . . do you ever address the substance of the discussion, or do you always try to make jokes?
The FACT is the liberal media chooses to do stories in a better light when it makes liberal candidates/politicians/persons glow, where as conservative candidates/politicians/persons they make look evil. It can be the same story, same circumstances, same players, just a different spin…for a different purpose. But you don’t ‘get’ the point.
Didn’t know this was your private blog.
Or are you the moderator?
Flenser, you might start with an explanation of why we should. Did we take control of German POW’s captured by the British?
Other than “rank,” I see no difference between Baradar and a Taliban commander that we capture in a firefight.
KSM was a war criminal who we knew from solid evidence was involved in the killing of over 3,000 non-combatants on 09/11/2001. Baradar is in my opinion an enemy soldier; an officer. The only reason I could think for us to hold Baradar would be if we thought he could not be held with certainty in Pakistan. If we had captured Rommel, I would have not wanted him to get back into the fight.
I am glad I was able to get you motivated.
No. You don’t get the point.
MM raised the issue that the NYT withheld publishing a story at the request of the White House. The fact is that the NYT has done this before for past Administrations, as well. Other media outlets have done the same for different Administrations.
Withholding, or going forward with, a story happens, has happened and will happen with any Administration, Republican or Democrat, eventhough they may request otherwise.
No doubt there is bias in media, and we can agree on that. My hope is that we can also agree that what the NYT (Media) has done, has also been done before. This is nothing new.
It isn’t, but you already new that. Just more of your feeble joking, eh?
Like it or not, you did place yourself in an exchange that you were not part of. Just admit it.
Nope. But you already know that. Just more of your feeble joking, eh?
Yes, we did.
That’s a petty big difference. Commanders have vastly greater intel value.
Any enemy soldier in the Taliban is a war criminal. The Taliban were friends and allies of KSM and Al Qeada.
You know, it’s getting harder and harder to tell the difference between you and the lefty trolls.
I assume you consider me a part of your private exchange. Can I get a response?
Unlike Baradar, KSM was not wanted for crimes in Pakistan.
Maybe, in time, After Pakistan deals with Baradar and his crimes in Pakistan, the Pakistanis will release him to us.
The Administration will put him where he needs to be, when and if that should happen.
Old un-answered question -
Do you realize that even if there is a Military Tribunal for Baradar that he would get a taxpayer funded lawyer, if necessary?
I said there is no time for discussing substance because jangar started with the jokes. This is what makes interjecting into others conversations troublesome.
Moreover, jangar thinks your post #116 is sarcasm and funny. Is it? Were you being serious? Because, I thought you were. Do you like other people assigning motive and intent to what you write?
Ask me a question and I’ll deliver. I’ve asked you questions. Did you answer them all? Well, maybe that doesn’t matter because you never promised substance.
You originally posed this in #116, and I addressed it #127. Yep, you are sounding so serious now, in fact, not much different from the original. Though the question remains, is jangar correct that you were being sarcastic and funny? See post #128.
We will do with Baradar what the law allows. The law allows for civil and military trials, and he should be tried. We have laws for a reason and should use them.
I have no idea what is laugh inducing to you. My answers and opinions are my own and you will characterize them as you will.
What I prefer is to not have exchanges go this way and that by having different people interject compelling me to respond two and three times to the same question.
I prefer if one poster did not answer questions for other posters. It let’s them off the hook. If you say something you should be able to stand your ground and not have another fight your battles for you.
And, sometimes it gets confusing, as to who said what.
It gets confusing when my posts are excerpted without a time stamp or post number. And, when only one sentence from a paragraph is cut and pasted, is bothersome, too.
It is all about keeping track and responding. That is what I do.
I will always do my best to respond to direct questions and I would hope you would do the same. There are a few questions that I have asked you that you have yet responded to.
Can I get a response? A response to all those old questions?
zyzzyg,
You’ve failed to make your point.
The NYT will bend over backwards to accommodate Obama’s administration while, on the other hand, putting American lives at risk in order to deliver black eyes to conservative principles.
It’s silly for you to deny this.
I say read him his Miranda rights; fly him to Detroit where he can be judged by a jury of his peers; and then let him off on a technicality. Or, if convicted, exhaust the appeals process until the judicial system yells uncle.