Documenting the Massacre in Mazar
Genevieve Roja, AlterNet
July 8, 2002
A documentary film by Scottish filmmaker Jamie Doran titled "Massacre at
Mazar" offers eyewitness testimony and film footage of human remains and
mass graves of what may be damning evidence of mass killings at Sherberghan
and Mazar-I-Sharif in Northern Afghanistan.
The massacre allegedly took place in November 2001, when Gen. Abdul Rashid
Dostum of the Northern Alliance took control of Kunduz, and accepted the
surrender of about 8,000 Taliban fighters that included al-Qaeda, Chechens,
Uzbeks and Pakistanis. Almost 500 suspected al- Qaeda members were taken to
the Qala Jangi prison fortress (where a revolt would eventually leave one
CIA agent dead and make John Walker Lindh a household name), while the
remainder of the prisoners -- about 7,500 -- were loaded in containers and
transported to the Qala- I-Zeini fortress, almost halfway between
Mazar-i-Sharif and Sherberghan Prison. Human rights advocates say that close
to 5,000 of the original 8,000 are missing.
Eyewitnesses in Doran's film claim that many of the prisoners may have
suffocated in the nearly airless shipping containers en route to their
destinations. Others were shot when Northern Alliance soldiers fired into
the containers to create air holes. And their bodies may have been buried in
mass graves.
Doran -- who has not released his film to the public in order to protect the
identities of eyewitnesses -- recently showed 20 minutes of his film to
members of the German parliament June 12 and to the members of the European
parliament and press on June 13. The screening drew a prompt response from
human rights activists, including Andrew McEntee, former Amnesty
International UK chair, who demanded an independent investigation. French
Euro MP Francis Wurtz said he would address the massacre at a parliament
meeting this month, while his other colleagues said they would enlist the
help of the International Committee of the Red Cross to conduct an
investigation.
Doran, a veteran BBC filmmaker, says "Massacre at Mazar" includes key
testimony from various eyewitnesses who offer compelling evidence of a human
rights tragedy, including:
-- an Afghan general who explains how he helped unload and load "around 200,
maybe up to 300 [prisoners] in each" container.
-- an anonymous Afghan soldier who says he "hit the containers with bullets
to make holes for ventilation. Some of them were killed inside the
containers and then we sent them on to Sherberghan." When asked who gave the
order, he said "the commanders ordered me to hit the containers to make
holes for ventilation and because of that some of the prisoners were killed."
-- a local taxi driver who says he "smelled something strange" when he
stopped for gas. "I asked the petrol attendant where the smell was coming
from. He said 'Look behind you,' and there were trucks with containers fixed
on them ... Blood was leaking from the containers -- they were full of dead
bodies."
-- two civilian drivers who say they drove trucks of men to Dasht Leili,
"where [the prisoners] were shot." A driver tells Doran that there were
American soldiers present at Dasht Leili. "How many Americans were with
you?" Doran asks. The driver replies, "30 or 40."
-- an Afghan soldier who claims to have been present "when an American
soldier broke one prisoner's neck and poured acid on others. The Americans
did whatever they wanted. We had no power to stop them."
Doran's film -- and the allegations of mass killings -- has received
extensive media coverage in Europe, but is getting little attention in the
U.S. The lack of reaction, says Doran, puts the safety of the graves in
jeopardy with each passing day.
The U.S. military is denying any knowledge of or involvement in a massacre.
A Pentagon official was quoted by the Guardian (U.K.) as saying that "the
U.S. Central Command looked into it a few months ago, when allegations first
surfaced when there were graves discovered in the area of Sherberghan
prison. They looked into it and did not substantiate any knowledge, presence
or participation of U.S. service members." Pentagon spokesman Marin Corps
Lt. Col. Dave Lapan told reporters that he considered the allegations of
torture to be "highly suspect."
"Our service members don't participate in torture of any type," said Lapan.
Doran is skeptical about the Pentagon's position.
"Military is about chain of command," he says, "and the question is who was
running the show? Was it the Afghans or the Americans? If you've ever seen
Western forces alongside foreign forces, there's never a question about
who's in charge." Doran says even if there is no conclusive evidence of
direct American participation, the U.S. troops are still responsible for
tragedies that occur under their watch. "[I]f they're going to be involved,
they need to answer for this. By law," he says.
While the extent of U.S. participation is still debatable, the evidence
pointing to mass-scale executions is piling up.
Boston-based Physicians for Human Rights sent an investigative team in
January and a forensics team to Afghanistan the following month. "We spoke
to an NGO staff person who was an eyewitness to three large container trucks
being backed into Sherberghan, which was being bulldozed," PHR consultant
John Heffernan says. "There he saw a number of Northern Alliance soldiers,
holding their arms up to their noses, indicating a bad smell."
"There was certainly evidence of skeletal remains and clothing and bulldozer
tracks," he says. PHR's forensics experts were later "able to conduct a
thorough assessment -- without exhuming the bodies -- that these were fresh
remains." The organization compiled a report on their findings from two
alleged mass graves and submitted it to the U.S. State Department, the
Department of Defense and British government officials. They also sent a
letter to President Karzai. "Our main focus was the protection of the sites
so that the evidence yielded was not destroyed," says Heffernan. "We didn't
get any response from the people in the States or in England."
In May, the U.N. exhumed 15 bodies and performed autopsies on three from a
test trench. They concluded that the three had died from suffocation and
that the victims were ethnically Pashtun, indicating that they were more
than likely Taliban. But the U.N. has not released any statement or
announced a course of action.
However, the human rights groups who are committed to taking action may be
getting in the way of justice, as well.
"I've noticed in the last week, a rivalry kicking in," says Doran, who has
been contacted by several government officials, human rights groups and
NGOs. They're each claiming,"'We want to do the grave,' 'No, we want to do
the grave.' Yet none of them are ensuring the safety (of the graves)," says
an angry and frustrated Doran.
Heffernan agrees there is an urgent need for immediate action, be it
exhuming the graves or ensuring their protection.
"PHR thinks it's essential that an accountability mechanism be a truth
commission or a tribunal," he says. "Whatever will facilitate reconciliation
and recovery so that this stuff doesn't happen again."
Genevieve Roja is an associate editor at AlterNet.
*****
http://www.mediawhoresonline.com
BUSH ON WALL STREET:
A MAN WITHOUT A PLAN
Bush Talks Big, Tries To Derail Reform
Dubya's Big Solution: Give More Money, Power to Harvey Pitt Silence On
Sarbanes Plan, Harken, Halliburton Zippo On Stock Options
George W. Bush's much anticipated speech on corporate responsibility has
proved a string of transparent evasions and empty rhetoric.
Even normally pro-Bush Wall Street observers such as Lou Dobbs have been
left scratching their heads over Bush's weak-kneed proposals -- proposals
that do not amount to a plan as much as they amount to an effort to dilute
the strong Democratic plans proposed by Senators Paul Sarbanes and Tom Daschle.
Bush's chief proposals? Appoint a Corporate Crimes Task Force to oversee
what the government is already supposed to be doing.
Appropriate more money and power to Harvey Pitt's Securities and Exchange
Commission. Pass the empty G.O.P. House bill on accounting and financial
revelations. Get CEOs to publish their salaries in company reports. Jail
those convicted of mail fraud and wire fraud for ten years instead of just
five. No loans to company officials.
One or two other things.
Which, as Dobbs and others have pointed out, amounts to a hill of beans.
Bush pointedly said nothing about public disclosure of CEO stock options
deals -- a REAL inequity driving corporate corruption.
Bush pointedly said nothing about Paul Sarbanes's proposed reform
legislation, in an effort to undermine reform as it comes hurtling at him.
Bush spoke about corporate ethics without once even alluding to his own past
at Harken, or his ties (and those of Dick Cheney, Thomas "Enron" White, and
others in his administration, and in the GOP) to Enron, Halliburton,
WorldCom, and other companies now under investigation.
Preparatory to the speech, the White House released an official statement on
what Bush's remarks would stress:
The President also calls for all members of a company's audit committee,
nominating committee, and compensation committee to be truly independent.
Prevent CEOs or other officers from profiting from erroneous financial
statements.
Empower the SEC to freeze improper payments to corporate executives while a
company is under investigation.
CEOs should personally vouch for the veracity, timeliness, and fairness of
their companies' public disclosures, including their financial statements.
Firms' accounting systems should be compared with best practices, not simply
against minimum standards.
But Bush said nothing about whether his own actions at Harken, or Cheney's
at Halliburton, are in keeping with these injunctions.
Do Bush and Cheney qualify as evildoers even under Bush's weak proposals?
Silence on that one from Dubya.
Bush pointedly said nothing about pursuing and punishing the evildoers Kenny
Boy Lay, Bernard Eggers, and others. Not even by allusion.
Nor about why his administration has yet to bring a single indictment
against any Enron executive, his single biggest campaign contributor over
the course of his entire political career.
Not one.
Bush's Justice Department doesn't need new proposals to bring indictments
against Enron officials. What's the hold up? Could it be that there are
some political officials in and around the Bush Administration who fear
disclosure of the names of those who were granted Enron's secret offshore
partnerships?
We're waiting.
Instead, Bush implied that it was "the 1990's" -- read the Clinton
Administration -- that was responsible for the current round of corporate
scandals.
This is an obvious lie -- the latest in White House hooey.
As has been proven ad nauseam, Clinton, while extremely good for business,
tried to reign in and ban the kinds of corporate fraud that have now been
exposed. But Bush does have a point: Someone was responsible for corporate
wrongdoing in the 1990's and for blocking Clinton Administration reforms.
The GOP Congress, led by Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey and Tom DeLay, along with
and lawyers like uber- lobbyist Harvey Pitt fought the Clinton
Administration at every turn, and defeated its best efforts. And big GOP
contributors like Enron took advantage of every loophole they could find.
Now they get caught and want to dodge responsibility. Want an authentic
new responsibility era? Bush forgot this proposal: Vote out the Republican
Congress.)
The speech was full of high-flown rhetoric about ethics and responsibility,
but through all of Dubya's smirking, there was also a great deal of shirking
-- shirking responsibility for anything, either in his own business past and
the pasts of his top colleagues, or for the "kinder, gentler" deregulatory
policies pursued aggressively by the Bush Administration from the moment it
took office.
Bush came to Wall Street as, supposedly, a man with a plan.
But by the time he finished speaking, he had announced that there is no real
plan, just as there is no plan for the Middle East or the environment, or
homeland security, or anything else in this rudderless, leaderless White House.
There are only some minor proposals that evade the real problems at stake --
plus a lot of hot air.
*****
Halliburton Calls Suit Unfounded
Wed Jul 10, 1:19 PM ET
DALLAS (Reuters) - Oil field services provider Halliburton Co. on Wednesday
said claims made in a lawsuit filed by a public interest group against the
company and Vice President Dick Cheney, its former chief executive, were
without merit.
"The claims in this lawsuit are untrue, unsupported and unfounded,"
Halliburton Chief Financial Officer Doug Foshee said in a statement.
Earlier on Wednesday, the legal watchdog group Judicial Watch filed suit in
federal court in Dallas against Cheney, who was Halliburton's CEO from 1995
until 2000, and against the company, its directors and its accounting firm,
Andersen, alleging they defrauded shareholders by overstating revenue.
In May the company said the SEC was investigating how it accounted for cost
overruns on construction jobs.
"We are working diligently with the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission)
to resolve its questions regarding the company's accounting procedures,"
Foshee said. "Halliburton has always followed and will continue to follow
guidelines established by the SEC and GAAP, General Accepted Accounting
Principles."
*****
http://news.bbc.co.uk
Monday, 9 July, 2002
Q&A: African Union
After 38 years, Africa is replacing the Organisation of African Unity with
the African Union. The idea is to unify the continent and improve living
standards.
What's the difference between the OAU and the African Union?
The African Union will eventually have a common parliament, central bank and
court of justice.
In theory, these will give ordinary Africans a greater say in their
continental leadership, create and run an Africa-wide economy and make
abusers of human rights accountable for their actions.
OAU Secretary General Dr Salim Ahmed Salim says it will take "at least a
year" to set these up.
Cynics aren't holding their breath.
Why bother with the change?
During the Cold War individual African countries were important global
diplomatic players, courted by both east and west eager to expand their
spheres of influence.
Since 1989, their international influence has been greatly reduced and they
have decided that Africa must be united if it is to make its voice heard in
the global economy.
As Africa emerged from colonialism in the 1960s, some leaders such as
Ghana's Dr Kwame Nkrumah argued that Africa could only survive as a single
entity.
Others such as Felix Houphouet-Boigny of the Ivory Coast believed that the
newly independent countries must first build strong nation states.
The OAU was created as a compromise between these points of view.
When Libya's Colonel Muammar Gaddafi first suggested creating a "United
States of Africa" two years ago, leaders of the continent's powerhouses
South Africa, Nigeria and Egypt reacted with scepticism.
Now it seems that African leaders have decided that unity is an idea whose
time has come.
One reason is that most region's of the world are forging bigger economic
blocs and Africa does not want to be left behind.
Is economic union possible?
The biggest obstacle is that many African countries still conduct more trade
with their former colonial masters than with each other.
The African Union is an attempt to end this situation by making trade within
Africa easier, reducing bureaucratic obstacles.
The idea is to first build regional blocs in west, central, east, north and
southern Africa and then ultimately merge these into one big economy - on
the basis that bringing four or five groups together is easier than
negotiating with 53 countries at the same time.
In the long run, a common African currency is envisaged - most francophone
countries already have one, the CFA franc, guaranteed by the French treasury.
It will be difficult expanding this to the rest of the continent - and the
French link would have to go.
Another problem is the wide divergence in living standards - South Africa's
economic output per person is more than 10 times that of Nigeria.
Can the African Union stop wars?
This is a key consideration.
United Nations Secretary General Koffi Annan says that unless conflicts end,
"no amount of aid or trade will make the difference".
A political union - also a long term objective - would ideally prevent one
country from destabilising its neighbours.
At present, Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone all accuse each other of
backing rebel movements which have turned their common border into what has
been described as the world's most dangerous place.
The European Union was established after World War II and has achieved its
primary goal of preventing another continent-wide war.
Now Africa's leader hope to follow the EU's path to peace, unity and
prosperity.
*****
FBI Probes Calif. Teen's Beating, Mayor Outraged Tue Jul 9, 5:21 PM ET
By Dan Whitcomb
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The FBI ( news - web sites) on Tuesday began
investigating the videotaped beating of a black teenager by a policeman in
the Los Angeles suburb of Inglewood, but the city's mayor called for the
officer to face assault, battery and child abuse charges without further
delay.
Kweisi Mfume, president of the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People ( news - web sites), said the tape showed that officers "took
the law into their own hands" and used excessive force against 16-year-old
Donovan Jackson during the incident.
The videotape, made by 27-year-old Mitchell Crooks from a motel room across
the street, shows Officer Jeremy Morse slamming Jackson, who was handcuffed,
head-first into a squad car and slugging him in the face as other officers
converge.
The incident sparked cries of racism and comparisons to the incendiary 1991
beating of Rodney King and triggered swift investigations by three local law
enforcement agencies.
"We've asked the FBI to open an investigation to look into possible civil
rights violations and my understanding is that the case has been opened,"
said Thom Mrozek, spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles.
King's beating by Los Angeles police officers after a high-speed chase was
caught on videotape and its broadcast shocked the city and much of the
nation. When four officers were acquitted in criminal court the city erupted
into some of the worst riots in modern U.S.
history, leaving 54 people dead and over $1 billion in property damage from
looting and arson.
When officers were tried again in federal court two of them were convicted
and sentenced to prison terms.
MAYOR: OFFICER COMMITTED FOUR CRIMES
Mrozek said the FBI had not drawn any conclusions but would try to determine
if officers had committed federal offenses because they were acting under
"color of authority."
Inglewood police officials have called the Crooks videotape "disturbing,"
but cautioned that the tape caught only part of an altercation that
allegedly started with the teen lunging at officers as they questioned his
father about a suspended driver's license and expired vehicle plates. Morse
can be seen on the tape with a bloody gash above his ear.
Meanwhile a second man has come forward to say that he filed a complaint
against Morse and other officers two weeks ago after they beat him so badly
that he lapsed into a coma.
A representative for the Inglewood Police Association could not be reached
for comment on the allegations.
Inglewood Mayor Roosevelt Dorn, a former prosecutor and judge, called on
prosecutors to charge Morse with at least four felonies and said he had no
patience for investigations and did not care what happened before the tape
started rolling.
"I'm not concerned at this point what happened before the video was turned
on," Dorn said. "In my mind, I can't think of anything that this teenager
could have done that would justify the conduct that I observed on the video."
"When this officer picked this young man up and slammed him face-down into
the hood of that car, in my opinion, (that was) number one, felony assault,"
Dorn said. "Number two, assault with a deadly weapon ... Number three,
battery. Four, child abuse. And I'm sure if I looked there are other crimes."
The mayor said he was not criticizing the Inglewood Police Department, but
instead condemning one officer, Morse.
"This is an indictment of one officer," Dorn said "I hope that ...
the country will see that Inglewood is a city that will not tolerate any
individual's civil rights being violated. This man's civil rights without a
question were violated."
MFUME WANTS TO HEAR FROM COPS
Mfume, who was attending the NAACP convention in Houston, said he was
willing to wait for an investigation.
"It appears that officers took the law into their own hands when they
thought no one was watching and we think exhibited excessive force," Mfume
said. "We need action here. We need a clear investigation."
He added: "If the police officers have a position we want to hear what it
is. If they can refute what so many people are now seeing in this tape and
tell us why that level of brute, excessive force was needed to subdue that
situation I think all of us in America are waiting to hear those answers."
Legal experts, meanwhile, cautioned that Mayor Dorn and community activists
were treading a dangerous line when they pronounced Morse and other officers
guilty before any charges were even filed.
"The reality is you don't want the mayor or anybody else coming out and
saying someone is guilty," said Stan Goldman, a professor of legal ethics
and criminal law at Loyola Marymount Law School in Los Angeles. "I think
what you end up doing is causing the courts a lot of trouble."
Goldman said Morse, like any other citizen, had due process rights under the
U.S. Constitution and could have grounds for an appeal if he were ever
convicted of a crime.
"I think any good, ethical prosecutor says 'oops' when he hears comments
like (Dorn's) because he just created a potential issue on appeal," Goldman
said. "You may have a great case against this cop and if you've got a great
case why jeopardize it? You're better off keeping your mouth shut."
|