Ex-Taliban commander pleads guilty in killings of U.S. soldiers and kidnapping of journalists
A former Taliban commander pleaded guilty Friday to providing weapons and other support for attacks that killed American soldiers and for key roles in the 2008 gunpoint kidnapping of a reporter for The New York Times and another journalist.
Speaking through an interpreter, Haji Najibullah, 49, entered the plea in Manhattan federal court to providing material support for acts of terrorism and conspiring to take hostages.
"Najibullah committed his crimes in Afghanistan over 15 years ago, and now faces justice in an American courtroom," said U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton in a news statement.
The bearded Najibullah, wearing a black skull cap over his shaved head, told Judge Katherine Polk Failla that he provided material support including weapons and himself to the Taliban from 2007 to 2009, knowing that his support "would be used to attack and kill United States soldiers occupying Afghanistan."
"As a result of material support I provided to the Taliban, U.S. soldiers were killed," Najibullah said.
He said his material support also included his role as a Taliban commander in Afghanistan's Wardak Province, "where the fighters under me were prepared to, and sometimes did, conduct attacks against U.S. soldiers and their allies using suicide bombers, automatic weapons, improvised explosive devices and rocket propelled grenades."
Najibullah said he also participated in the hostage taking of David Rohde "and his companions" so demands could be made for ransom and for the release of Taliban prisoners held by the U.S. government. They forced the hostages to hike across the border from Afghanistan to Pakistan, where they were detained for seven months.
"I created proof-of-life videos of David Rohde and his companions in which they were forced to convey the Taliban's demands," he said.
The former Times reporter and Afghan journalist Tahir Ludin were abducted when they were on their way to interview a Taliban leader.
Both men made a dramatic escape from a Taliban-controlled compound in Pakistan's tribal areas more than seven months after their Nov. 10, 2008, kidnapping. Their driver, Asadullah Mangal, was a third kidnapping victim. He escaped a few weeks after Ludin and Rohde.
Rohde, a Pulitzer Prize winner who now works as senior executive editor for national security at NBC News, attended the plea proceeding.
"I am pleased that he admitted his guilt today and grateful to all the U.S. officials who brought him to justice," he said in an email to The Associated Press after his sentencing. "Most of all, my heart goes out to the families of the three U.S. soldiers and the Afghan translator who were killed."
In June 2008, fighters under Najibullah's command ambushed and attacked a U.S. military convoy in the vicinity of Wardak Province, according to the Justice Department. Three U.S. Army soldiers: Sergeants First Class Matthew L. Hilton and Joseph A. McKay, and Sergeant Mark Palmateer, and their Afghan interpreter were killed in the attack. Several other servicemembers were also injured in the attack, the DOJ said.
After the plea, Najibullah was led from the courtroom in shackles and handcuffs by U.S. marshals to face an Oct. 23 sentencing. Federal sentencing guidelines, as acknowledged by a plea agreement signed by Najibullah and prosecutors, recommend a life prison sentence.
New York Times spokesperson Danielle Rhoades Ha expressed gratitude to U.S. authorities for pursuing Najibullah, and she noted the dangers journalists face worldwide.
"More than 120 journalists were killed in 2024, the most on record," she said. "Journalists go to dangerous places to uncover the facts that citizens need. Governments can and should protect journalists by investigating all attacks against reporters and publicly condemning threats."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
34 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Private Equity in 401(k)s Isn't as Smart as It Seems
Should regular Americans be allowed to put more of their retirement savings into private investments long reserved for the wealthy? The White House is seriously considering the proposal, at the behest of some of the country's largest financial firms. This has never been a good idea. The pitch sounds compelling. Accredited investors — professionals and relatively well-off individuals — have entrusted trillions of dollars to private capital funds, which purport to generate superior returns by locking up money for multiyear periods in assets ranging from infrastructure to business loans. American workers with more than $12 trillion in retirement accounts such as 401(k)s have long time horizons, too. Why not let them share in the riches instead of confining them to publicly traded securities?
Atlantic
38 minutes ago
- Atlantic
As America Steps Back, Others Step In
Recently, while in Geneva, I sat down with the ambassador of a closely allied country. In the shadow of the Palais des Nations—the European home of the United Nations—we discussed the state of multilateral diplomacy. At one point, he offered a blunt assessment of America's diminished presence on the world stage. 'It used to be,' he said, 'that before we committed to a position on any significant matter, we would wait to see where the United States stood. Now? We really don't care anymore.' The remark was particularly jarring because it was intended not as an insult, but as a sincere lament. It underscored that in capitals and conference rooms across the globe, decisions are now being made without American leadership. And while many Americans might think that shift doesn't matter, it does. In places like Geneva, decisions are made every week that affect our lives at home, relating to global aviation-safety protocols; pandemic-response standards; food and drug regulation; international trade and customs frameworks; cybersecurity norms; rules governing space, telecommunications standards, environmental safeguards. These aren't distant, abstract concerns. They influence the price of the goods on our shelves, the safety of our airways, the health of our communities, and the competitiveness of our businesses. When the United States pulls back or fails to engage, these decisions don't cease to be made. They're simply made by others—and, more and more, by those whose values don't align with ours. China, in particular, is adept at filling vacuums we leave behind, not just with economic leverage, but with bureaucratic muscle and long-term strategic intent. Where we disengage, the Chinese organize. Where we hesitate, they solidify influence. That same diplomat who noted America's increasing irrelevance pointed to China's stepped-up engagement in precisely these areas—and its eagerness to shape the rules that govern everything from trade to emerging technologies. David A Graham: The voluntary surrender of U.S. power The consequences are not temporary. International standards and agreements, once set, can take years—even decades—to be renegotiated. The absence of American leadership today could mean being bound tomorrow by rules we had no hand in setting. At its best, U.S. global leadership has been about more than projecting power. It has meant convening allies, reinforcing norms, and defending a rules-based international order that, while imperfect, has broadly served our interests and reflected our values. Walking away from that leadership not only imperils our credibility; it cedes ground to nations eager to reshape the system in ways that diminish liberty, transparency, and accountability. The good news is that this trajectory can be reversed. But it requires more than rhetoric. It requires showing up. That means filling diplomatic posts quickly and with professionals who are empowered to lead. It means prioritizing our institutions of statecraft, including the State Department, with the seriousness they deserve. And it means recommitting to the alliances and international bodies that magnify our influence rather than dilute it. I saw the value of diplomacy firsthand during my tenure as U.S. ambassador to Turkey, when Sweden sought NATO membership over Turkey's objections. At the time, the impulse of the U.S. and its NATO allies was to apply pressure or issue public rebukes. What was needed wasn't force, however, but diplomacy: persistent, behind-the-scenes engagement that respected Turkey's security concerns while reinforcing the cohesion of the alliance. Over 18 months, these negotiations facilitated constitutional changes in Sweden, addressed legitimate Turkish concerns, and helped unlock a long-stalled sale of F-16s to Turkey that enhanced NATO interoperability. In the end, Sweden joined the alliance, Turkey saw its security interests addressed, and the U.S. proved itself a trusted interlocutor. That kind of success—durable, strategic, and built on trust—doesn't happen without diplomats in the room. Today, Republicans in Congress need to step forward in defense of U.S. leadership. We can't expect the Trump administration to reverse course—global disengagement seems to be part of its design. But Congress has tools at its disposal to mitigate the long-term damage: through setting funding priorities, exercising oversight, and engaging in public advocacy for diplomacy and alliance building. With margins so close in both houses, legislators who value U.S. global leadership have significant leverage. Having run several congressional campaigns, I understand that valuing diplomacy and prioritizing international institutions don't make for popular political slogans. But with an administration unmoored in its approach to foreign policy, it's more important than ever for Congress to provide crucial ballast. The recent visit to Ukraine by Senators Lindsey Graham and Richard Blumenthal is a perfect example of members of Congress providing that ballast—reassuring our allies that they are still our allies. American leadership isn't inevitable. It's a choice—one we must make again and again, not just for the sake of our standing in the world, but for the practical, everyday interests of American citizens.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Iranians react to new Trump travel ban as tensions are high between nations
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iranians again face a U.S. travel ban imposed by President Donald Trump, with the decision drawing anger, frustration and some shrugs given the decades of tensions between the countries. Trump imposed a similar ban during his first term before withdrawing America unilaterally from Tehran's 2015 nuclear deal with world powers, under which Iran drastically limited its program in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions. When he returned to the White House and began seeking a new deal with Iran, it saw the country's rial currency improve and stocks rise. But worries have grown as its government appears poised to reject an initial American proposal. The travel ban has further darkened that mood and led Iranians to fear Trump will lump the nation's 80 million people with its theocratic government even after he repeatedly praised them while seeking a deal. 'Now I understand that Trump is against all Iranians, and his attitude is not limited to the government,' said Asghar Nejati, a 31-year-old man working in a Tehran pharmacy. Even in the years after the 1979 Islamic Revolution and subsequent U.S. Embassy hostage crisis, Iranian students traveled to the U.S. to attend universities. Between 2018 and 2024, an average of around 10,000 Iranian students went to the U.S. annually. Estimates suggest some 1 million Iranian-origin people live in the U.S. today. Mehrnoush Alipour, a 37-year-old graphic designer, said the nations could have better relations if they could spoke to each other in softer tones. 'This is another foolish decision. Trump cannot reach his goals by imposing pressures on ordinary Iranians," she said. "The two nations can have better relations through openings, not restrictions.' Bank teller Mahdieh Naderi said Trump was lashing out over his frustrated efforts to reach ceasefires in the Israel-Hamas war and the Russia-Ukraine war. 'Trump just expressed his anger about his failed plans,' Naderi said. 'He is complaining about the Chinese and others who are living in the U.S., too Some said interest in the U.S. was already waning before the latest ban. 'Over the past years, two of my grandchildren went to Canada to continue their education there," said Mohammad Ali Niaraki, 75. "Iranians are not limited in immigration and they are not as interested to go to the U.S. as they were decades ago. Iranians prefer Canada, as well as neighboring countries with flourishing economies like the (United Arab) Emirates.' Others pointed out that high-ranking government officials have children living or working in the U.S., despite the tensions, and suggested that it would be fair to remove those as well. Tehran resident Mehri Soltani offered rare support for Trump's decision. 'Those who have family members in the U.S, it's their right to go, but a bunch of bad people and terrorists and murderers want to go there as well,' he said. 'So his policy is correct. He's doing the right thing.' ___ Gambrell reported from Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
