they're now in Qatar. ABC's Brian Ross with the ABC's Brian Ross is on their trail on how they're living now. Reporter: It's been a week since the five senior Taliban leaders arrived here. In the... See More
they're now in Qatar. ABC's Brian Ross with the ABC's Brian Ross is on their trail on how they're living now. Reporter: It's been a week since the five senior Taliban leaders arrived here. In the midst of luxury in this tiny, prosperous country. Goftd officials say the former detainees are free to travel wherever they like in Qatar. The country with the highest per capita income in the world and the five-star hotels and other trappings of wealth and prosperity to prove it. Since their arrival to a hero's welcome seven days ago, the five former detainees have been kept hidden from view by the Qatar government. And told not to talk to any reporters. The Taliban operate here out of a villa in an upscale residential community. They'll be free to talk and meet with whomever they like. The Qatar government says they'll closely monitor all of their communications and movement. In a statement over the weekend, their first, the five men say they'll comply with the agreement to return to Afghanistan or the battlefield, over the next year. George? Okay, Brian, thanks. Lots of questions for the chairman of the house intelligence committee, Mike Rogers, he joins us now. Congressman, thank you for joining us this morning. Let's begin with the five men, you have seen the intelligence on these five men, what is your sense of what they'll do after this year is up? Well, and we're not even sure they'll wait a year, their real value in the next 51 weeks is propaganda by the Taliban. We have already seen that start. They can meet with Taliban political leaders in Qatar, they can have family members travel to Qatar, and back through Pakistan and Afghanistan. And we believe that's certainly an opportunity for a courier network to get them prepared for what's next. I don't think you'll see any operational activity by them now. They're smart enough to know better. It allows them to prepare for what's next and that's going to be to join the fight. You're convinced of that? I'm absolutely convinced of that. We have seen both in their rhetoric and actions and certainly the information we see coming out of the Taliban, including the network in Pakistan, that suggests. It's absolutely going to happen. Maybe not all five. I believe three for sure, likely four, and that fifth one is on the fence, but will probably say -- play rosome role in active operations. Anything we can do to prevent that? Well, unfortunately, the deal is done. That's the problem here. One thing about this, George, the focus has been, is one soldier worth it, not worth it? I think that completely misses the problem here. This is a huge regional and geopolitical problem for the United States now. Hostages are now currency in the war on terror. But secondly, think about what happened in the last week, America said we're leaving in 2016 completely, we negotiated with the terrorists, and by the way, this happened before the election even occurred. This weekend, this weekend, the Taliban tried to assassinate one of the political leaders, Abdullah Abdullah, who's running for office in Afghanistan. This was the wrong message at the wrong time. And we're going to pay for this decision for years. This shouldn't be about congress being invited to the party. This is all about this honest discussion about what the ramifications of this is. You're very clear, you said you wouldn't have made the trade. What about the bedrock principle of soldier's creed, I will never looech a -- leave a comrade. Those of who have followed this for years, this wasn't the only option that was available. The administration said it was. No, this administration has this theory you're either with them -- that's wrong. So, the reason they avoided congress, this isn't about what we didn't get invited to the party and we should have our feelings hurt, it's because we can empower all of the people, diplomats who disagreed with this decision. Military folks. That voice never got heard in the final discussions leading up to this deal. That's why you engage with congress. We can empower those voices. We can get those questions asked. So you don't make a mistake that actually might jeopardize, diplomats, aide workers and soldiers as we move forward. That's what F's what my fear is as we move forward. Had Bowe bergdahl been captured during a battle, would you still be opposed to this deal? Yes. Remember, he was in Pakistan, not all that far we believe from an isi and their intelligence service and military outpost, so now there's two others, an American in Pakistan, bergdahl was in Pakistan, certainly Osama bin laden, Pakistan, there's a reoccurring theme here. The FBI, George, we would call that a clue. This is a problem and a place to start. We never went at Pakistan with any level of pressure. There were other options on the table. Many still classified that never even rose to the level of discussion. I think that's the problem. Remember, it's not just getting the soldier out, and we're glad and happy for the family -- that's great. But it's a bigger ramification of what this trade means to Afghans that we have asked to risk their lives trying to free that country of the Taliban. What should happen with bergdahl now? If he's found to have deserted, should he be punished? Or, has he already paid the price? Well, I think the department of defense needs to do a very thorough investigation. Obviously, those soldiers are very concerned by it and very upset about it. You jeopardized other soldiers when you walk away from your post, period, end of story and that's a serious, serious matter. But it needs to be thoroughly investigated by the department of defense. The administration trying to change the narrative through the leaks to the papers what was or wasn't. They should stop all of that. We need to have a full discussion right now about the policy implications, broader implications that just occurred. Final questions, the question about impeachment, should impeachment be on the table? Well, again, you know, that's a long way down this road and the most disturbing part about this, George, is that in 2011, their answers to the questions about for a bipartisan opposition to this trade, by the way, was a whole series of things that had to happen, and one struck me, by the secretary of state at that time, if none of the conditions were met. None of them will be met. Like, renouncing violence, adhering to the Afghan constitution and making sure that women are treated fairly in Afghanistan, we got none of that. I think that's where we ought to focus right now. We have made a serious, serious, geopolitical mistake. We empowered the Taliban, the one thing they wanted more than anything, George, is they wanted recognition from the U.S. Government so they can use that to propagandize. That's where we need to focus. We need to unwind this thing before we fix it. This is as serious as I have seen it. We need to work through these issues. I encourage the administration to come back to congress, as the law requires, to have these discussions. To get the answers before you move forward. Congressman, thanks very much for your time this morning.
This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.