Local media in Afghanistan has termed the release of Taliban militants from the Bagram detention center as "unjustifiable" and slammed the process initiated by the government.

"Apparently the Arg, or Presidential Palace, has decided to set free the Taliban detainees from Bagram detention center on the excuse that the detainees are innocent," newspaper Hasht-e-Subh said in its editorial on Saturday.

Criticizing the decision, the paper said, "The judiciary should decide whether they (the detainees) are guilty or innocent and not the Arg." It added the release of dangerous detainees would further undermine the already tense relations between Kabul and Washington which has been strained over inking Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA).

Another newspaper, the Daily Mandegar, has also flayed the release of inmates from Bagram prison.

"The arbitrary release of the Taliban militants from the prisons of the country would defiantly damage the country's security and national interests," it said.

"It is a matter of concern that the release of Taliban fighters amid the withdrawal of foreign forces from Afghanistan while the security accord with U.S. has not been inked yet could take the country towards unpredicted scenario," newspaper Mandegar worries in its editorial.

The Afghan government, which had released 650 detainees from Bagram prison couple of days ago, on Thursday described 45 out of the remaining 88 prisoners as "innocent."

"There are incriminating evidences against only 16 prisoners out of 88 inmates held in Bagram detention center, 45 detainees are innocent because no evidences have been found to prove their involvement in subversive activities, while 27 others facing minor charges," a statement released by Presidential Palace here said.

According to newspaper Daily Wahdat on Saturday, a Taliban commander named Mawlawi Munib who was released from Bagram prison a year ago was recently captured in Taliban former stronghold Kandahar while commanding 15 militants to target government interests. Endi

Go to Forum >>0 Comment(s)