[Joe Dees] These people have been rightly classified as neither POW (for they were fighting on behalf of no recognized government - the Taliban itself was not UN recognized as the government of Afghanistan, and only three countries DID recognize them - the Saudis, the Pakis and the UAE, and they all withdrew their recognition) nor entitled to the rights conferred by US citizenship (since that was not the country of their origin, except in a couple of cases where court trials are to be held, barring plea agreements), but as non-state terrorists, which they most indubitably are. Plus, a scad of court cases would result in both intel communications between these thugs and their as-yet-unapprehended compatriots as to perceived weaknesses to be exploited in anything they can view, and offer those same unapprehended terrorists a plethora of ready-made propaganda terror targets. They wanted to be terrorists - well, fine; they are thus not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention (although most of them
have been supplied), and are subject not to civilian court, but to military tribunal.
[Hermit] Getting the basics wrong again, as usual Joe.
Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm)
Article 2In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
[Hermit 2] Notice the last clause. The US is bound to honeor the Geneva Conventions even if it did not recopgnize the Afghan government.
[Hermit 2] Now look at who is covered:
Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm)
Article 4A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied
[Hermit 2] al Qu'aeda members are covered - indeed, even "unlawful combattants" are covered.
Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm)
Article 5Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
[Hermit 2] Further the US while claiming to the World that these are not combatants - as you attempt here, while simultaneously http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50845-2002Aug6.html]claiming "Under the fundamental separation of powers principles recognized by the 4th Circuit . . . in justifying the detention of captured enemy combatants in wartime, the military should not need to supply a court with the raw notes from interviews with a captured enemy combatant" in American Courts.
[Hermit 2] In otherwords, the entire argument is a wash.
[Hermit 2] Finally Aschcroft has acknowledged that except for the two American prisoners, the US has no charges which can be preferred against any of those held at Guantanamo's Camp X-Ray.
[Hermit 2] Meanwhile, while the above is a hot potatoe, the following, if accurate, is gelignite.
Why is the US media blacking out documentary on war crimes in Afghanistan?
Source: World Socialist Web Site (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jun2002/maz-j21.shtml)
Authors: Kate Randall
Dated: 2002-06-12
Massacre in Mazar, a documentary by Irish director Jamie Doran, was screened last week before select audiences in Europe. The film documents events following the November 21, 2001 fall of Konduz, the Taliban’s last stronghold in northern Afghanistan. [See: “[url=http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jun2002/afgh-j17.shtmlAfghan war documentary charges US with mass killings][/url]”]
The film presents powerful testimony from Afghan witnesses that US troops collaborated in the torture and killings of thousands of Taliban prisoners near Mazar-i-Sharif. The film, which has prompted demands for an international commission of inquiry on war crimes in Afghanistan, received widespread coverage in the European press, with major stories in the Guardian, Le Monde, Suddeutsche Zeitung, Die Welt and other papers.
This major story, however, has received virtually no coverage in US newspapers or on network or cable television. Aside from stories on some alternative Internet publications, and a June 16 article on Salon.com, the story has been essentially blacked out in the US.
A search for news about the documentary in the major dailies—including the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Boston Globe and the Miami Herald —turned up empty. Web sites for ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox News and CNN have likewise carried nothing on the film.
Repeated telephone calls by the WSWS to these news sources, inquiring why they have failed to cover the story, went unanswered. How is possible that not a single major US media outlet chose to cover such an important news event? There is no innocent or journalistic explanation.
This wholesale political censorship cannot be justified on the basis that Massacre in Mazar —or the events it depicts—are not “newsworthy.” The two screenings of the documentary in Germany prompted calls by a number of European parliamentary deputies and human rights advocates for an independent investigation into the atrocities exposed by the film. Calling for an inquiry, prominent human rights lawyer Andrew McEntee commented it was “clear there is prima facie evidence of serious war crimes committed not just under international law, but also under the laws of the United States itself.”
The film includes scenes of the aftermath of the massacre of hundreds of Taliban fighters who were taken prisoner outside Mazar-i-Sharif, at the Qala-i-Jangi prison, showing captured troops who were apparently shot with their hands tied. The filmmaker also interviewed eyewitnesses, who describe the torture and slaughter of 3,000 prisoners, who were allegedly driven to a desert area and massacred. These witnesses—who were not paid—have offered to provide testimony before any independent investigation into the events.
The film footage is so damning that both the Pentagon and the US State Department were compelled within days to issue statements denying the allegations of US complicity in the torture and murder of POWs, which are powerfully pointed to by the film. If the US government is so concerned over the implications of what the documentary exposes, why has the US media chosen not to report on it?
Since September 11, this same print and broadcast media has consistently toed the Bush administration’s propaganda line; and there has been no shortage of coverage on the Afghan war. The government’s flouting of international law and the Geneva Conventions in the treatment of Afghan war prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay naval base in Cuba and proposals for secret military tribunals have gone virtually unchallenged. Assaults on the democratic rights of both immigrants and citizens—including secret detentions and suppression of protests—have been reported as legitimate aspects of the government’s “war on terrorism.”
One topic that has received short shrift in the American press is the civilian death toll in the US air raids in Afghanistan, which human rights advocates estimate at more than 3,500, not including the thousands facing death from starvation and displacement.
The well-known motto of the New York Times, “All the news that’s fit to print,” increasingly masks a practice by that newspaper and all the media of choosing to print only that which fits the war propaganda needs of the Pentagon and the White House.
The refusal of the press to report on the charges of US complicity in the torture and mass killings in Afghanistan shown in Massacre in Mazar —or even to acknowledge the existence of the film—serves one purpose: to keep the American people in the dark about the Bush administration’s military actions and human rights violations.
The media’s silence makes it complicit in what are horrific war crimes. It also provides an even more sinister service to the Bush administration. Filmmaker Jamie Doran decided to release a rough cut of his documentary before final editing because he feared Afghan forces were preparing to destroy evidence of the mass killings, scattering the remains of the victims. Self-censorship by the US media only facilitates such a grisly cover-up.
---- This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2002 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;threadid=26019>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:18 MDT