US May Swap Gitmo Inmates for Taliban Peace Deal
Negotiations near breakthrough, US officials say
By Rob Quinn, Newser Staff
Posted Dec 19, 2011 4:08 AM CST
Updated Dec 19, 2011 6:20 AM CST
Taliban militants arrested by the Afghan Border Police stand over their guns while they are presented to the media at the Afghan Border Police headquarters in Jalalabad.   (AP Photo/Rahmat Gul, File)

(Newser) – After many months of secretive negotiations, peace talks between the US and the Taliban are at a turning point, reports Reuters, which cites senior US officials speaking under condition of anonymity. The US is considering transferring Taliban prisoners from Guantanamo Bay to Afghan custody in return for concessions from the Taliban, possibly including a denunciation of terrorism and a willingness to enter talks with Hamid Karzai's government, the officials say.

It's not clear how many of the 20 or so Afghans at Guantanamo would be transferred, or what assurances the US would seek to ensure they remained in custody in Afghanistan. The peace talks have faced many setbacks—including a Taliban envoy who turned out to be an imposter—but some US officials still believe a negotiated settlement is the best way to end the war. "The challenges are enormous," one official says. "But if you're where we are, you can't not try. You have to find out what's out there."

More From Newser
My Take on This Story
To report an error on this story,
notify our editors.
US May Swap Gitmo Inmates for Taliban Peace Deal is...
Show results without voting
You Might Like
Showing 3 of 11 comments
Dec 20, 2011 10:58 AM CST
Just give the Taliban Guantanamo then Raul Castro's can deal with them. Believe that would solve a lot of problems.
Dec 20, 2011 5:50 AM CST
I think the Taliban has probably realized that it is not a good idea to hijack airplanes and fly them into U.S. buildings, or to allow themselves to be co-opted by people who do. Pretty much any deal we get that ensure that is OK by me.
Dec 19, 2011 6:25 AM CST
Everything is a matter of perspective. Who's got the most weapons of mass destruction by far? We do. Who kills not thousands of innocents over here, but hundreds of thousands of innocents over there in a country next door to the two countries that harbored the small group of criminals that attacked us? So kill all terrorists? Wouldn't we need to start with Cheney and Bush? Not that I'm saying that at all. They're out of power, no need to kill them. We just kill the ones we have to kill. We had to kill the head of the snake - Bin Laden. We did that. And while we're spilling blood, what about the crazies in militia groups over here? Killing all the terrorists, hmmm... not well thought out. Put that back in the oven and let it bake a little longer.