UPDATE: OBAMA ADMIN. REFUSES PROBE OF CIA-BACKED, MASS AFGHAN SLAUGHTER

[babsbunny]

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/07/10/bush-probe-mass-afghan-slayings/

By Stephen C. Webster

Published: July 10, 2009

Update: Obama administration sees no legal basis for investigation

In spite of Friday’s revelation that the Bush administration suppressed an investigation into what is potentially the worst war crime of the Afghanistan occupation, the Obama administration will not seek an inquiry.

“Asked about the report, Marine Corps Col. David Lapan, a Pentagon spokesman, said that since U.S. military forces were not involved in the killings, there is nothing the Defense Department could investigate,” reported the Associated Press late Friday night.

An unnamed Justice Department source also reportedly told the AP that the FBI would not be able to investigate because the crimes were not committed within its jurisdiction.

Susannah Sirkin, deputy director of Physicians for Human Rights, called the administration’s position “absurd,” according to the report.

[Mari333]

1. KNR and WTF!

Boy, Im getting dizzy from all this hope and change and transparency.
looks like Bush and Cheney will be smiling as they ease into retirement on our tax dollars and they will never be held accountable for anything.
of course, seems to be that Obama is covering his OWN ass in this, because he's got many of the same assholes running his 'war' for profit.

[alarimer]

31. Funny how this is all good now that "our" guy is in charge.

At least according to some here. It was wrong then, it does not become right just because a Democrat is calling the shots. In fact sometimes it's even worse when Democrats do it because they have to prove they are not "soft" on terror (or whatever the crisis of the day is).

It is all so easy when you sit back and order someone to push a button. All so sanitized for our protection. And so disgusting and dehumanizing.

[ThirdWorldJohn]

33. The viudeo - Convoy of Death

It is in 6 parts

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=4B3782F4FA561452&search_query=Afghan+Massacre%3A+The+Convoy+of+Death

[katandmoon]

2. K&R

[City Lights]

3. ARGH!

:mad: :grr: :argh: :wtf:

Recommended.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[chatnoir]

5. WTF

This more of the same is getting so old, so fast.

[Mari333]

6. k

[Solly Mack]

7. K&R

[spanone]

8. was there a deal with bu$h*/cheney?

[JohnBT]

19. for what reason?

He won the election, didn't he? or he had to strike a deal to win the election in the first place. That actually would be more likely.

[redqueen]

9. Ugh... the hyperbole.

If there's nothing for the Defense Department to investigate, and nothing for the DoJ to investigate... then that automatically means that "OBAMA ADMIN REFUSES PROBE"?

I'd like to know why Ms. Sirkin thinks the position is absurd. Just throwing her comment out there provides very little in the way of actual information.

I'd also be curious as to whether anyone in Congress has discussed doing anything about it.



Raw Story usually does a better job of reporting.

[jgraz]

15. These updates are usually done pretty quickly. Expect more details to come.

I suspect the absurd bit has to do with them saying they know for certain that no Americans were involved *before* they do an investigation.

[redqueen]

34. Nobody said no Americans were involved. (nt)

[Individualist]

10. Despicable but not surprising

:puke:

[frazzled]

11. Not what the NY Times is reporting

While the Bush administration never held an inquiry, it is not yet determined what the Obama administration will do:

It is not clear how — or if — the Obama administration will address the issue. But in recent weeks, State Department officials have quietly tried to thwart General Dostum’s reappointment as military chief of staff to the president, according to several senior officials, and suggested that the administration might not be hostile to an inquiry.

...The question of culpability for the prisoner deaths — which may have been the most significant mass killing in Afghanistan after the 2001 American-led invasion — has taken on new urgency since the general, an important ally of Mr. Karzai, was reinstated to his government post last month. He had been suspended last year and living in exile in Turkey after he was accused of threatening a political rival at gunpoint.

...While President Obama has deepened the United States’ commitment to Afghanistan, sending 21,000 more American troops there to combat the growing Taliban insurgency, his administration has also tried to distance itself from Mr. Karzai, whose government is deeply unpopular and widely viewed as corrupt.

A senior State Department official said that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Richard C. Holbrooke, the special representative on Afghanistan and Pakistan, had told Mr. Karzai of their objections to reinstating General Dostum. The American officials have also pressed his sponsors in Turkey to delay his return to Afghanistan while talks continue with Mr. Karzai over the general’s role, said an official briefed on the matter. Asked about looking into the prisoner deaths, the official said, “We believe that anyone suspected of war crimes should be thoroughly investigated.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/11/world/asia/11afghan.html?_r=1&hp

FYI: General Dostum is the Afghan warlord widely believed to be responsible for the massacre. We are actively trying to suppress his return to participate in the government, and are distancing ourselves from Karzai.

[pinto]

25. on edit, misplaced post. Thanks for the NY Times link. n/t

[defendandprotect]

12. K&R . . . astonishing how eager Obama is to protect wrongdoing -- !!!

[frazzled]

13. If it were true

Do you get all your news from "Raw Story," that paragon of journalism?

[Individualist]

16. Raw Story is more trustworthy than the Rah Rah Bush, Shock and Awe Times

[defendandprotect]

17. So you're certifying that the CIA had nothing to do with this . . . ???

[Flaneur]

20. Excellent point. Of course the CIA was involved.

They were the ones that did all the scurrying around to line up our Northern Alliance buddies, including Dostum.

[RoccoR5955]

28. What? Is Fox Propaganda, Inc. any more reliable? n/t

[ControlledDemolition]

37. All my news comes from 'Anne-Coulter-Addams-Apple Analysis'!

Billions of dollars have recently been invested in this technology by the 'intelligence community'.

[jgraz]

14. Beat me to it. Thanks for the post.

[JohnBT]

18. Those who worked...

hard for his campaign, spent considerable amounts of money must feel pretty stupid by now.

[babylonsister]

22. And I take it you didn't, so what's your point? Read over this thread,

the story is very misleading despite all the knee-jerk reactions here.

[berni_mccoy]

21. The title of the OP is extremely misleading.

[scheming daemons]

23. Of course it is..... and the poster knows it

[Vidar]

24. K&R

[pinto]

26. “We believe that anyone suspected of war crimes should be thoroughly investigated.”

By JAMES RISEN (NY Times)

Published: July 10, 2009

While President Obama has deepened the United States’ commitment to Afghanistan, sending 21,000 more American troops there to combat the growing Taliban insurgency, his administration has also tried to distance itself from Mr. Karzai, whose government is deeply unpopular and widely viewed as corrupt.

A senior State Department official said that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Richard C. Holbrooke, the special representative on Afghanistan and Pakistan, had told Mr. Karzai of their objections to reinstating General Dostum. The American officials have also pressed his sponsors in Turkey to delay his return to Afghanistan while talks continue with Mr. Karzai over the general’s role, said an official briefed on the matter. Asked about looking into the prisoner deaths, the official said, “We believe that anyone suspected of war crimes should be thoroughly investigated.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/11/world/asia/11afghan.html?_r=1&hp

[RoccoR5955]

27. K & R for the promise of TRANSPARENCY.

What happened to transparency? Why shouldn't there be an investigation? Is this the excuse that they are going to give us when drones are used instead of humans?

[BuyingThyme]

32. I doubt he'd support an investigation even if airliners flew into the World Trade Center.

[ControlledDemolition]

38. So far... you are 100% correct! We could limit the investigation to Bldng #7 to start! n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

29. He who does not punish evil commands it to be done.

Leonardo Da Vinci said that.

[BuyingThyme]

30. What? Are we supposed to believe that Obama is now pro war crimes?

Only if you're not a dumbshit.

[bobo4u]

35. Obama has become a war criminal himself

You can't cover up as many war crimes as he has without becoming complicit in the original crimes.

He has a legal--not just moral--obligation to uphold the constitution as well as the geneva convention. It's his primary duty.

The perpetrators of the original crime were on the US payroll. Even if you hire a hit man to murder your enemies, you're still responsible for the murder. And when you cover it up by refusing to investigate --when it's your job to do so--makes you an accomplice.

Send Obama to the Hague and stick him in a cell with Bush and Cheney. He ain't no different.

[cali]

36. what a crock of shit. no, sorry, outside of a few raving loonies

from the wingnut right and left, no one considers Obama a war criminal. Chiefly because there's zero evidence to back that claim. And welcome to DU. I predict you'll have a short shelf-life here, darling.

[bobo4u]

40. That's OK

Don't mind if my shelf life is short. I'd rather advocate for the truth than win a popularity contest.

You might want to study some law regarding presidential obligations--especially with respect to upholding the constitution and prosecuting war crimes.

I'm actually neither right nor left. Considering US politics, I'd say I'm apolitical. My concern is for justice and a return to the rule of law. That which neither party seems very concerned about.

[armyowalgreens]

48. Just to warn you, this is a left leaning board.

With the purpose of discussing justice/ etc. from a left leaning perspective.

Outing yourself as "apolitical", which sounds like a crock of shit considering what you are talking about, is kind of a bad idea.

I also don't understand how you can be a moderate and also be apolitical. That doesn't make any sense. Being apolitical means you have no interest in political affairs...

[cali]

51. YOU mightt want to provide any legal evidence that Obama is a war criminal

I'm fully aware of presidential obligations, thank you. By your criteria, Carter is a war criminal. In fact by your criteria, so was virtually every president from FDR.

[ControlledDemolition]

39. Let's start coming clean about JFK's hit. There are still people who need to be brought to justice!

After all, Nazi camp guards are still being pursued.

[bobo4u]

41. As well they should be

I don't think there's a statute of limitation for war crimes.

[ControlledDemolition]

42. Or murder! n/t

[blogslut]

43. UPDATE UPDATE UPPPPDAAATTTTE!

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hxz62YqZV4oHvrr6tkXFT2caN3fA

Obama orders probe of killings in Afghanistan

WASHINGTON (AFP) — US President Barack Obama said in an interview to be aired Monday that he has ordered a probe into attempts to quash an investigation into the mass execution of Taliban prisoners in Afghanistan.

The New York Times reported Friday that top officials from the previous administration of president George W. Bush discouraged separate probes by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the State Department and the Pentagon.

They wanted to hush up the killing of up to 2,000 prisoners in 2001 because it was carried out by the forces of General Abdul Rashid Dostam, an Afghan warlord then on the Central Intelligence Agency's payroll, it said.

"The indications that this had not been properly investigated just recently was brought to my attention," Obama told CNN television during his visit to Ghana over the weekend...

:hi:

[bobo4u]

44. Not sure if this doesn't precede...

Obama's refusal to move forward with the investigation.

Seems to be some conflicting statements. My guess is...considering his other refusals to prosecute war criminals...that he'll stonewall the investigation once again. He hasn't been too consistent in following through on his promises.

But, hopefully Greenwall is right, and Obama will be forced to do the right thing...from Salon...

"Salon’s Glenn Greenwald laid out the case in his blog on Sunday, arguing that it’s no longer optional (the investigation). Given that the United States is a party to the United Nations Convention on Torture – a treaty signed by President Ronald Reagan –- and that the U.S. Constitution holds that international treaties are the highest law of the land, the United States really doesn’t have a choice: “U.S. law requires prosecutions for those who authorize torture,” writes Greenwald.

[blogslut]

45. The story was filed today

The "Monday" interview referred to is today.

[bobo4u]

46. Yep, here's what he said...

“If it appears that our conduct in some way supported violations of the laws of war, then I think that, you know, we have to know about that” Sounds kind of Bushy to me.

Anyway, it seems his administration is saying one thing and Obama's "implying" another. But ultimately, it appears that it's up to Obama's Attorney General, Eric Holder, to follow through with the investigation.

The organization that's applying most of the pressure on the Obama administration is the Physicians for Human Rights. Here's their site with a grizzly rundown of events...

http://afghanistan.phrblog.org/


Let's see what happens. I'll be the first to praise Obama if he follows through on any of this. But I ain't holding my breath.

[blogslut]

47. Sounds "kind of Bushy" eh?

Well, I guess we hear different things.

[bobo4u]

49. Maybe so...

Obama's statement reminded me of the one Bush made when he said he was going to go after the person that 'outed' Valerie Plame. We know how that turned out.

When the O says he going to "look into it" it just seems a little less than sincere. Especially considering his refusing to prosecute anyone for war crimes in the past. My bet is...If ever he does "look into it", it'll be because he has to.

[blogslut]

50. Okay

Whatever you say.