Monitoring Biden and other Contemporary Events

Donald Trump Freeing 5,000 Taliban Members Compared to Biden Griner Deal

Critics of the deal that saw basketball star Brittney Griner released from a Russian prison camp in exchange for a notorious arms dealer are being reminded how the Donald Trump administration negotiated the release of 5,000 Taliban prisoners.

Griner, who was jailed after being found in possession of a vape containing cannabis oil cartridges at Moscow Airport in February, was freed on Thursday as part of a prisoner swap with Viktor Bout.

Bout, 55, known as the "merchant of death," was serving 25 years in U.S. custody after being convicted in 2011 of numerous charges, including conspiring to kill American citizens.

Bout was jailed for selling weapons to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), and is said to have provided arms to other terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda, rebel forces in Rwanda, and to military conflicts in Liberia and Sierra Leone.

A number of Republican figures, including Trump himself, have criticized the Biden administration over the prisoner swap deal.

In a Truth Social Post, the former president asked why a swap wasn't considered for Paul Whelan, an ex-marine who is serving a 16-year jail sentence after being arrested in Moscow on suspicion of spying in 2018.

"What kind of a deal is it to swap Brittney Griner, a basketball player who openly hates our Country, for the man known as 'the Merchant of Death,' who is one of the biggest arms dealers anywhere in the World, and responsible for tens of thousands of deaths and horrific injuries," Trump said.

"Why wasn't former Marine Paul Whelan included in this totally one-sided transaction? He would have been let out for the asking. What a 'stupid' and unpatriotic embarrassment for the USA!!!"

A number of social media users pointed out how in 2020, the Trump administration negotiated a deal which saw 5,000 Taliban fighters freed in exchange for up to 1,000 Afghan government captives as part of a peace deal between the U.S. and Islamist militants.

After originally rejecting the proposal, then Afghan President Ashraf Ghani eventually went on to free the thousands of Taliban members by August 2020.

In a statement at the time, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the decision to release the prisoners was "unpopular," but would ultimately pave the way for the war in Afghanistan to end.

Writing on Twitter, Omar Rivero, founder of Occupy Democrats, said: "The same Trumpers who are losing their minds right now because Biden freed a single Russian arms dealer in exchange for the release of WNBA star Brittney Griner didn't say a peep when Trump freed over 5,000 Taliban prisoners. You really can't make this sh*t up..."

Human rights lawyer Qasim Rashid said: "Republicans completely ignored it when Trump released 5,000 Taliban terrorists into Afghanistan—but are now outraged that Biden helped return Brittney Griner to the United States. I can't quite figure out why.

"If you're upset that Biden exchanged an arms dealer for Brittany Griner—but approved Trump releasing 5,000 Taliban terrorists who then took over Afghanistan—stop pretending it's national security you care about," Rashid added.

Lawyer Tristan Snell tweeted: "In late 2018, Trump released Abdul Ghani Baradar, one of the top leaders of the Taliban, along with 5000 other Taliban fighters, in exchange for... *checks notes*... nobody."

One year after the Taliban members were freed, U.S. troops left Afghanistan ahead of the takeover of the country by the Jihadist group.

During the evacuation, a suicide bombing at Kabul airport on August 26, 2021, killed more than 180 people, including 13 U.S. service members.

ISIS-K, a Central Asia affiliate of the Islamic State group (ISIS), claimed responsibility for the attack.

In a briefing on Thursday, Biden said Griner was on her way back to the U.S. following "painstaking and intense negotiations," while promising the administration has "not forgotten about" Whelan.

"Sadly, for totally illegitimate reasons, Russia is treating Paul's case differently than Brittney's," Biden said. "And while we have not yet succeeded in securing Paul's release, we are not giving up. We will never give up."

Trump has been contacted for comment.

In the self-congratulatory video that Senator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona made to announce that she was leaving the Democratic Party and becoming an independent, she didn’t mention any disagreements with her former caucus about issues. Instead, she framed the move as a step toward self-actualization. “Registering as an independent, and showing up to work with the title of independent, is a reflection of who I’ve always been,” she said.

It’s true: This is who she’s always been. The content of Sinema’s politics has changed over time, from Green Party progressivism to pro-corporate centrism. Her approach to elected office as a vehicle for the refinement of the self has not.

In Sinema’s 2009 book “Unite and Conquer: How to Build Coalitions That Win — and Last,” she described giving up shrill partisanship, which was making her unhappy, for a vaguely New Age ethos that prized inner tranquillity. One chapter was called “Letting Go of the Bear and Picking Up the Buddha,” with the bear representing fear and anger. “Picking up the Buddha (becoming a super centered political actor) makes you a stronger, more effective you,” she wrote. “To be your most fabulous political self, you’ll need to learn to recognize the bear and learn to let go of it in your work.”

Transcending fear and anger is an excellent spiritual goal. But becoming a more centered and fabulous person is a political project only when it’s directed toward aims beyond oneself. With Sinema, it’s not remotely clear what those aims might be, or if they exist. (Another chapter in her book is “Letting Go of Outcomes.”) Announcing her new independent status, Sinema wrote an essay in The Arizona Republic and gave interviews to outlets including Politico and CNN. Nowhere have I seen her articulate substantive differences with the Democrats, aside from her opposition to tax increases. Instead, she spoke about not fitting into a box, being true to herself, and wanting to work, as she told Politico, without the “pressures or the poles of a party structure.”

Until recently, Sinema has seemed to delight in the power an evenly split Senate gave her, which she used to benefit the financial and pharmaceutical industries. Negotiating the Inflation Reduction Act, she single-handedly stopped Democrats from closing the carried interest loophole, a provision that significantly cuts the tax bills of Wall Street investors. And Sinema insisted on narrowing the part of the law meant to bring down prescription drug prices, earning criticism even from Joe Manchin, the centrist West Virginia Democrat with whom she is frequently aligned.

“One of her deep flaws is that she doesn’t realize our actions have impacts every day on people who need our help,” said Ruben Gallego, a Democratic Arizona congressman who’d been considering a primary campaign against Sinema.

For much of this year, Sinema appeared to be preparing for a future in a Senate run by the Republican Mitch McConnell. In September, at a cozy appearance with McConnell in Kentucky, she said, “As you all know, control changes between the House and the Senate every couple of years. It’s likely to change again in just a few weeks.” She described McConnell as a friend, and he praised her as the “most effective first-term senator” he’d seen in his career.

Had Republicans won the Senate, Sinema could have become an independent who caucused with Republicans, preserving her place in the majority. A red wave might have seemed to vindicate her aggressive centrism, especially if Senator Mark Kelly, an Arizona Democrat far more loyal to his party, had lost. But Kelly won and Democrats picked up a Senate seat. That meant Sinema could no longer hold the rest of the Democratic caucus hostage, or argue that only Democrats who defy their base are electable in her state. She was about to become a lot less relevant. Now she’s center stage again.

For the immediate future, Sinema’s move is unlikely to have major national political consequences. She has refused to directly say whether she will caucus with the Democrats. Speaking to CNN’s Jake Tapper, she shrugged off a question about the balance of power in the Senate, saying, “That’s kind of a D.C. thing to worry about.” Her answer was an insult to all the Arizonans who care very much which party controls the Senate, but it was also a deflection. Sinema ruled out caucusing with Republicans and said she intends to keep her committee assignments, which she can do only by aligning with Democrats. However much she values her own uniqueness, there are no parties of one in the Senate.

The real significance of her defection will come in 2024, when she is up for re-election. Had she remained a Democrat, Gallego could have been a strong primary challenger. Many of those who supported Sinema four years ago have been enraged by the way she’s obstructed popular liberal priorities, and a recent AARP poll found that only 37 percent of likely Democratic voters in Arizona had a positive opinion of her.

It will be harder for Democrats to challenge her in a general election, where a three-way race would risk a Republican victory. But Gallego, who said he will decide on running next year, insisted that the threat of Sinema acting as a spoiler won’t shape his decision. “No matter what, I’m not going to base my decision off this false threat that she’s trying to put on,” he said, arguing that she doesn’t have enough support “to put together a coalition that will affect the Democratic nominee.”

That might be too optimistic — Sinema wouldn’t need to get that many swing voters to thwart a Democrat. But he’s right that she doesn’t have a winning coalition herself. In the AARP poll, a decisive majority of voters in every demographic group, including independents, viewed her unfavorably. It’s one thing to be independent on behalf of your voters. It’s another to be independent from them.

Zoë Schiffer
@ZoeSchiffer
NEW: Elon Musk is threatening to sue Twitter employees who leak confidential information to the press. He's asking staffers to sign a pledge indicating they've understood. Here's the email:

Quote:

As evidenced by the many detailed leaks of confidential Twitter information, a few people at our company continue to act in a manner contrary to the company's interests and in violation of their NDA.

This will be said only once: If you clearly and deliberately violate the NDA that you signed when you joined, you accept liability to the full extent of the law & Twitter will immediately seek damages

Murdoch is already grappling with the costly legacy of phone hacking by British newspapers the News of the World and the Sun. His UK company has paid more than £1bn ($1.2bn) over the past decade to keep the gruesome details from being heard in open court with no end in sight after a high court judge earlier this year refused to prevent the filing of new claims.

A Libyan man accused of being involved in making the bomb that destroyed Pan Am flight 103 over the town of Lockerbie in December 1988 is now in US custody, authorities in the United States and Scotland said Sunday.

The US charged Abu Agila Mohammad Mas’ud Kheir Al-Marimi for his alleged involvement in the bombing two years ago, a spokesman for the UK Crown Office and Prosecutor Fiscal Service told CNN.

The attack killed 270 people as the bomb detonated over the Scottish town as it flew from London to New York.

The US Justice Department issued a statement Sunday morning confirming that the US had “taken custody of alleged Pan Am flight 103 bombmaker” Abu Agila Mohammad Mas’ud Kheir Al-Marimi, saying he is expected to make his “initial appearance in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia,” according to a spokesperson.

The statement did not identify a specific date for his court appearance, but said more details would be forthcoming.

Al-Marimi had been in custody in Libya for unrelated crimes when charged by the US Justice Department two years ago.