US woman released by Taliban in Afghanistan
An American woman has been freed by the Taliban in Afghanistan after she, two Britons and their Afghan translator were detained earlier this year, Washington's former envoy to Kabul, Zalmay Khalilzad, said Saturday.
"American citizen Faye Hall, just released by the Taliban, is now in the care of our friends, the Qataris in Kabul, and will soon be on her way home," Khalilzad, who has been part of a US delegation working on Taliban hostage releases, wrote on X.
While at the Qatari embassy in Kabul, Hall "has been confirmed in good health after undergoing a series of medical checks," said a source with knowledge of the release.
She was released on Thursday following a court order and with logistical support from Qatar, the source added.
Hall, who has been identified by the Taliban's interior ministry as Chinese-American, was detained in February along with Peter and Barbie Reynolds, who are in their 70s, as they travelled to the British couple's home in central Bamiyan province.
Their Afghan translator was additionally arrested.
Taliban officials have refused to detail the reasons for their arrest, but one report said Hall had been detained on charges of using a drone without authorization.
In his announcement, Khalilzad posted a picture of Hall smiling with Qatar representatives ahead of her departure from Afghanistan.
- Hopes for 'new chapter' -
Khalilzad had been in the Afghan capital earlier this month on a rare visit by US officials to meet Taliban authorities, accompanying US hostage envoy Adam Boehler.
Following their visit, the Taliban government announced the release of US citizen George Glezmann after more than two years of detention, in a deal brokered by Qatar.
He and Hall are among several Americans to be released from Taliban custody this year.
In January, two Americans detained in Afghanistan -- Ryan Corbett and William McKenty -- were freed in exchange for an Afghan fighter, Khan Mohammed, who was convicted of narco-terrorism in the United States.
At least one other US citizen, Mahmood Habibi, is still held in Afghanistan.
The British couple detained with Hall remain in Taliban custody.
Their daughter has expressed grave fears for her father's health and appealed to the Taliban authorities to free them.
The Reynolds, who married in Kabul in 1970, have run school training programmes in the country for 18 years.
They remained in Afghanistan after the Taliban takeover in 2021 when the British embassy withdrew its staff.
The government in Kabul is not recognized by any country, but several, including Russia, China and Turkey, have kept their embassies open in the Afghan capital.
Qatar, too, has maintained diplomatic channels with the Taliban and has facilitated negotiations for the release of US hostages.
Since US President Donald Trump's reelection, the Kabul government has expressed hopes for a "new chapter" with Washington.
bur-bfm/sw/bbk/bfm
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
7 minutes ago
- The Hill
Newsom: Pentagon lying over LA to justify National Guard deployment
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) on Monday accused the Defense Department of 'lying to the American people' in justifying deploying National Guard troops to the state to quell Los Angeles protests against federal immigration raids, asserting that the situation intensified only when the Pentagon deployed troops. 'The situation became escalated when THEY deployed troops,' Newsom posted to X, referring to the Pentagon. 'Donald Trump has manufactured a crisis and is inflaming conditions. He clearly can't solve this, so California will.' Newsom was responding to a post from DOD Rapid Response on X, a Pentagon-run account, which claimed that 'Los Angeles is burning, and local leaders are refusing to respond.' President Trump on Saturday deployed 2,000 National Guard troops to the Los Angeles area amid the ICE protests, with White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt saying the decision was made due to 'violent mobs' attacking 'Federal Law Enforcement Agents carrying out basic deportation operations.' While protests have intensified in recent days, devolving at times into violence, the majority of gatherings have been largely peaceful. Still, California National Guard troops began arriving in Los Angeles on Sunday morning, with some 300 deployed on the ground later that day at three locations: Los Angeles proper, Paramount and Compton. White House officials have sought to highlight images of burning vehicles and clashes with law enforcement to make the case that the situation had gotten out of control. 'The people that are causing the problem are professional agitators. They're insurrectionists. They're bad people. They should be in jail,' Trump told reporters on Monday. In addition, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has threatened to deploy approximately 500 U.S. Marines to the city, with U.S. Northern Command on Sunday confirming the service members were 'prepared to deploy.' The use of American troops has rankled California officials, who have said the federal response 'inflammatory' and said the deployment of soldiers 'will erode public trust.' Newsom also has traded insults with Hegseth, calling him 'a joke,' and that the idea of deploying active duty Marines in California was 'deranged behavior.' 'Pete Hegseth's a joke. He's a joke. Everybody knows he's so in over his head. What an embarrassment. That guy's weakness masquerading as strength. . . . It's a serious moment,' Newsom said in an interview with podcaster Brian Tyler Cohen. The tit-for-tat continued when chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell then took to X on Monday to attack Newsom. 'LA is on FIRE right now, but instead of tackling the issue, Gavin Newsom is spending his time attacking Secretary Hegseth,' Parnell wrote. 'Unlike Newsom, [Hegseth] isn't afraid to lead.' Newsom, who has formally demanded the Trump administration pull the National Guard troops off the streets, has declared the deployment 'unlawful' and said California will sue the Trump administration over its actions. 'There is currently no need for the National Guard to be deployed in Los Angeles, and to do so in this unlawful manner and for such a lengthy period is a serious breach of state sovereignty that seems intentionally designed to inflame the situation,' David Sapp, Newsom's legal affairs secretary, wrote in a letter to Hegseth on Sunday. 'Accordingly, we ask that you immediately rescind your order and return the National Guard to its rightful control by the State of California, to be deployed as appropriate when necessary.' In the past 60 years, a U.S. president has only on one occasion mobilized a state's National Guard troops without the consent of its governor to quell unrest or enforce the law. That was in 1965, when former President Lyndon Johnson sent Guard members to Selma, Ala., to protect civil rights protesters there.
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Mass. Sen. Warren: DOGE accessed ‘sensitive' student loan data at Education Dept., calls for probe
U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren says she wants to know how the quasi-governmental Department of Government Efficiency gained access to 'sensitive' student loan information at the U.S. Department of Education. On Monday, Warren and U.S. Sen. Ed Markey, both Democrats, called for the agency's acting inspector general to find out how that breach happened. They were joined by Democratic senators from eight states, including U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut. Warren said lawmakers learned of the potential breach of systems at Federal Student Aid after DOGE, which was helmed until recently by tech titan Elon Musk, infiltrated the agency. In response, Education Department officials revealed that DOGE workers 'supported' a review of the FSA's contracts. As a part of that review, one employee was granted 'read-only' access to two internal systems that held sensitive personal information about borrowers. The agency said it had since revoked that access. But, according to Warren, it did not explain why that access had been revoked, or whether the employee had continued access to other databases. 'Because of the [Education] department's refusal to provide full and complete information, the full extent of DOGE's role and influence at ED remains unknown,' the lawmakers wrote in a June 8 letter to René L. Rocque, the agency's acting inspector general. That 'lack of clarity is not only frustrating for borrowers but also dangerous for the future of an agency that handles an extensive student loan portfolio and a range of federal aid programs for higher education,' the lawmakers continued. Warren, Markey and their colleagues have called on Roque's office to determine whether the department adhered to the Federal Privacy Act, which dictates how the government can collect and use personal information. They also asked Roque to 'determine the impact of DOGE's new plans to consolidate Americans' personal information across government databases.' 'It won't end well for Trump' if he does this amid LA protests, ex-GOP rep says All Ivy League schools are supporting Harvard lawsuit — except these 2 Embassies directed to resume processing Harvard University student visas Over 12,000 Harvard alums lend weight to court battle with Trump in new filing Markey: Trump using National Guard in LA to distract from big cuts in 'Big Beautiful Bill' Read the original article on MassLive.
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's broad definition of ‘insurrection' looms over Los Angeles
In September 2020, President Donald Trump suggested he was hamstrung to crack down on at-times-violent racial justice demonstrations in cities like Portland, Oregon. 'Look, we have laws. We have to go by the laws,' Trump said at an ABC News town hall, adding: 'We can't call in the National Guard unless we're requested by a governor.' Trump noted there was one way he could do that – by invoking the Insurrection Act – but added that 'there's no reason to ever do that, even in a Portland case.' Something has clearly changed since then. Trump this weekend became the first president in about 60 years to call in the National Guard without a request from a governor – to help quell protests in Los Angeles against Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids. He did so without invoking the Insurrection Act – the 1807 law that allows the president to deploy American soldiers to police US streets in extreme circumstances. That means the guard has limited authorities that don't include law enforcement, as CNN legal analyst Steve Vladeck noted. Even that more limited decision, though, has been criticized as overzealous and heavy-handed by some experts, given fears it could inflame the situation. unknown content item - But Trump has clearly left open the possibility of ratcheting things up and possibly even doing what he said five years ago there was 'no reason to ever do': invoking the Insurrection Act to deal with demonstrators. Northern Command said Sunday that 500 US Marines were on 'prepared to deploy' status. Trump was asked Sunday whether the situation was an insurrection, and he said no. But just after 10 p.m. ET, he posted on Truth Social: 'Paid insurrectionists!' The president again used the term on Monday, telling reporters upon his return to the White House that the 'people that are causing the problem are professional agitators' before going on to call them 'insurrectionists.' Top White House adviser Stephen Miller has been calling the situation in Los Angeles an insurrection for days. And indeed, for Trump, Miller and their allies, the bar for 'insurrection' appears quite different than it was five years ago. After many labeled the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol an insurrection, Trump and MAGA have spent years applying that label extremely broadly to other things. The idea seems to have been to 'whatabout' the term and water it down by suggesting other events are the 'real' insurrections – like the protests after George Floyd's murder. But Trump's broad definition of that term looms large as the administration considers something he's long entertained: dispatching the military on US soil. It has almost seemed like Trump and Co. see themselves surrounded by insurrections. Among the situations Trump has previously attached the 'insurrection' label to: Antifa ('they're causing insurrection') His baseless claims of a 'stolen' 2020 election ('the real insurrection happened on November 3rd') Unspecified enemies within the United States ('insurrectionists roam free') A border influx ('when you talk about insurrection, what they're doing, that's the real deal') Then-President Joe Biden ('I'm not an Insurrectionist … Crooked Joe Biden is!!!') Miller – a key figure in the White House on such matters – has appended that label to many of these things and more. He's most often used it in relation to the border under Biden. But he's also repeatedly accused judges who ruled against Trump of a 'legal insurrection.' He's called pro-Palestinian demonstrators a 'pro-Hamas insurrection.' And he accused those who protested the Supreme Court in 2022 – including in some cases apparently illegally at justices' homes – of waging an 'open insurrection.' It's worth emphasizing that many of these things don't qualify as insurrections. While Trump and his allies balked at people labeling January 6 an insurrection, there's little doubt that it met the definition. That word is generally defined as a violent revolt or rebellion against the government. The attack on the US Capitol was a violent attempt to effectively change the makeup of that government by overturning the election result – and by attacking an actual seat of power. In other words, an insurrection isn't about the level of violence; it's about the target and purpose of it. Merely protesting or even engaging in violence while doing so doesn't automatically make something an insurrection. Nor do adverse court rulings and an influx of undocumented immigrants constitute a rebellion. Of course, Trump has shown he's more than happy to stretch the bounds of words and the law in his quest to expand his power and go after perceived enemies. The question from here is why Trump hasn't gone there on invoking the Insurrection Act. He and Miller have now invoked that specific word multiple times in reference to the situation in Los Angeles, and preparing the Marines to possibly come in suggests this is very much on the table. Perhaps the White House has some qualms about the politics of what could come from the more in-your-face federal presence Trump has spent years entertaining. Or perhaps, as Vladeck wagers, the initial deployment of the National Guard could be a precursor. 'In other words, it's possible that this step is meant to both be and look modest,' Vladeck wrote in his newsletter Saturday, 'so that, if and when it 'fails,' the government can invoke its failure as a basis for a more aggressive domestic deployment of troops.' Only time will tell. But we're clearly operating in a very different political world than we were five years ago. Trump seems to have developed a very broad sense of what constitutes an insurrection and plenty of reasons to potentially do what he said 'there's no reason to ever do.' Indeed, he's already gone further than he did before.
