Search This Blog


Tuesday, 13 December 2011

Afghan Massacre: My 10th anniversary interview on Russia Today, Thursday 1 December 2011

Ten years ago last week, the incident occurred in Afghanistan that led to Jamie Doran's 2002 film, 'Afghanistan Massacre: Convoy of Death'. The mass grave of up to 2,500 victims was never officially investigated by the Afghan or US authorities.

Recently, I gave a 10th anniversary interview for the 'Russia Today' TV channel about the massacre/lack of investigation - from home via Skype to RT's Washington office – at half-an-hour past midnight UK time, 7.30pm USA East Coast time.

I didn't have the camera angle/height quite right, so looks like I'm jutting out my jaw (whereas I was simply trying to meet the camera straight on).

The interview is at:

Tuesday, 12 October 2010

Kyrgyzstan: My election-day interview on 'Russia Today', Sunday 10 October 2010

Kyrgyzstan Parliamentary Elections, Sunday 10 October 2010


...and extract from the accompanying article on the 'Russia Today' web site...

" The elections in Kyrgyzstan are believed will bring about a long-awaited peace to the country, after it suffered heavy clashes between the Kyrgyz population and ethnic Uzbeks in the southern cities of Osh and Jalal-Abad following the ousting of former President Kurmanbek Bakiyev.

However, Andrew Mcentee, former OSCE observer in Kyrgyzstan, believes that a parliamentary-based government system may not lead to stability in the region.

“The curious situation is that, somehow in the political culture it is felt that while the power is being taken away from the presidency and given to the parliament, nevertheless, the prize is still the presidency. Besides, the immediate neighbors – Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan – would rather see the project of creating a parliamentary-based government system fail,” Mcentee told RT. "

Saturday, 12 June 2010

MY INTERVIEW on 'RUSSIA TODAY' TV CHANNEL: Violent clashes in Kyrgyzstan

Beautiful Kyrgyzstan! Surely one of my favourite countries - not only for the scenery (see the photos of my 2007 blog post, and my 2009 blog post), but for the character and spirit of many of the people I met there during my 2007 and 2009 visits. Following Kyrgyzstan's 7th April 2010 'revolt' that saw President Bakiev flee the country to Belarus, the Interim Government set itself a 6-month timetable to complete the transition to a new national settlement. This includes elections to be held in October for a new Parliament and President. First, though, a Referendum on June 20th, to establish the conditions for the October elections.

The OSCE recently set up a ROM (Referendum Observation Mission) that coincided with my 6-week visit to Georgia for the Local Government Elections (as OSCE election observer), so I couldn't go to Kyrgyzstan this time around. However, in mid-April, I was interviewed on the TV channel 'Russia Today' about the post-revolt situation. Today, I've been interviewed again, and this time I've got a link to the interview...


Here's the accompanying 'Russia Today' web site article:

Dozens killed and injured after violent clashes in turbulent Kyrgyzstan

Published 11 June, 2010, 19:30

Edited 11 June, 2010, 23:45

An outbreak of violence in the Southern Kyrgyz city of Osh has resulted in 46 dead and hundreds injured.

Out of more than 600 who have asked for medical assistance, approximately 50 are in a grave condition.

The country’s authorities have dispatched troops to the troubled area in an effort to bring the situation under control.

Violence broke out late Thursday evening when clashes erupted between Kyrgyz and Uzbek youths and quickly spread across the whole city.

Ravaging mobs have been looting and setting buildings on fire.

Read more

A curfew and a state of emergency were quickly imposed in Osh. Armored vehicles and security forces were sent in to patrol the streets.

The troops have been given permission to bear arms against the participants of the riots in case their actions endanger the lives of civilians.

However, Itar-Tass news agency reports that, according to witnesses, those measures have failed to stabilize the situation fully.

In addition, even though security forces have the center of the city under control, gunfire is still being heard in other parts of Osh.

In a statement on a local TV channel, the mayor of Osh urged residents to remain calm. The city’s gas supply had been cut off to prevent possible fires and explosions.

International human rights lawyer and former OSCE observer in Kyrgyzstan Andrew McEntee remembers that, back in 1990, several hundred died as a result of Kyrgyz-Uzbek tension.

“Today the situation clearly is different. For some people it's an opportunity for transition, while for others it's an opportunity for frustrating the transition. There is no doubt that political actors and security services actors at local and international level are pulling the strings behind the scene trying to steer this violence as a tool for their own opportunities,” McEntee told RT.

Thursday, 7 January 2010


The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by Senator John F. Kerry (Democrats) is to investigate the 'Convoy of Death' and subsequent mass graves site at Dasht-e-Leili, near Mazar-e-Sharif in northern Afghanistan.

Dasht-e-Leili (red pins), Sheberghan Prison, Sheberghan town
(Google Earth image, courtesy of Physicians for Human Rights)

The Senate inquiry comes in the wake of President Obama receiving a report about the convoy and the Dasht-e-Leili graves site, from his National Security team. In July 2009, President Obama was so concerned about war crimes allegations involving US military and local Afghan soldiers, that he instructed his national Security team to "collect the facts" and present them to him in a report. There was a positive response to this from human rights organisations, including a Physicians for Human Rights response on YouTube. However, it now seems that the hoped-for Presidential investigation into the convoy and mass graves may not take place, and the report itself will not be made public.

There is no reason to believe that the Senate inquiry is being welcomed by the White House. This means that the White House is unlikely to support the inquiry. If the Senate inquiry wishes to have sight of the White House report, it may ask for it, but may not receive it.

Physicians for Human Rights will support the Senate inquiry by submitting documentation relating to the PHR forensic team's part-excavation of the grave site in 2002. PHR personnel who took part in the site excavation will also make themselves available to Senate investigators. Jamie Doran, the producer-director of the 2002 television documentary, "Afghan Massacre: The Convoy of Death" (YouTube short version), will also make available his film (official site) and other archive materials, and personal knowledge of the incident. Ditto yours truly.

More on this as the Senate inquiry gets under way.

Monday, 4 January 2010


On 30th December, in a hearing related to the Dasht-e-Leili 'Convoy of Death', a US federal judge criticised the Department of Defense (DoD) for its weak response to a Freedom of Information request by Physicians for Human Rights (PHR). The judge ruled that DoD agencies should have searched for, and handed over, relevant documents existing between 1st November 2001 and now, rather than merely documents existing in November and December 2001.

The ruling gives a boost to the efforts of PHR and others, in our claim that US government agencies have been suppressing evidence relating to war crimes. The suppressed documents may corroborate claims that the bodies of up to a couple of thousand prisoners were buried in a mass grave site at Dasht-e-Leili in northern Afghanistan, at the end of 2001.

The DoD agencies, including Central Command and the Defence Intelligence Agency must comply with the ruling by no later than April.

Here's a report of the hearing from the Maryland Daily Record:

December 30, 2009

Federal judge orders DoD to supply Taliban papers

By Brendan Kearney <>

Daily Record Legal Affairs Writer

The U.S. Department of Defense did not adequately respond to a human rights group’s Freedom of Information Act request for documents related to the American investigation of a Taliban mass grave in northern Afghanistan, a federal judge in Baltimore ruled Wednesday, representing a “substantial” victory for government transparency advocates.

The U.S. Central Command, a DoD component agency known as CENTCOM, must now conduct a temporally broader search for internal documents related to the Dasht-e-Leili gravesite, and the Joint Staff and Defense Intelligence Agency must submit to U.S. District Judge Richard D. Bennett certain documents it had previously turned over to the Physicians for Human Rights only in redacted form.

Judge Bennett, who is handling the Washington, D.C., case because the district court there is overworked, otherwise ruled for the government defendants, determining that they had performed a reasonably thorough search and that they offered legitimate reasons for redacting portions of the relevant documents.

The decision, which comes during a presidential administration that has promised to be more forthcoming in response to FOIA inquiries, offers a series of important reminders, according to Eugene R. Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice.

“It’s a substantial victory, and it’s a reminder of the importance of FOIA,” said Fidell, who has submitted many FOIA requests to the Defense Department with “uneven” results and teaches at Yale Law School. “It is a reminder that we have someone looking over the government’s shoulder to enforce transparency. … It’s a reminder that the federal court helps the government turn square corners.”

Nathaniel Raymond, who has led the Physicians for Human Rights investigation into what happened at Dasht-e-Leili in late 2001, said the plaintiff organization is “heartened” by Bennett’s decision, “but the proof is in the pudding with what the Department of Defense produces.”

“We still don’t fully know what the U.S. knew, when they knew it, and how they knew it,” Raymond said. “But what we do know is this: Department of Defense personnel, namely the Special Forces teams on the ground … were operating with Northern Alliance forces at the time of the massacre.”

A Pentagon spokesman said only that the “DoD will review the ruling and take the appropriate action.”

The events underlying the lawsuit allegedly occurred in the months following the post-9/11 U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and the ouster of the ruling Taliban.

According to media reports, several thousand Taliban fighters surrendered to the Northern Alliance, an anti-Taliban coalition in Afghanistan, after a battle in Konduz. The defeated Taliban were then transported, in sealed cargo containers, 200 miles to a Northern Alliance prison in the city of Sheberghan, according to Bennett’s memorandum opinion.

During the journey, approximately 1,000 of the prisoners died of asphyxiation and were allegedly buried in a mass grave in nearby Dasht-e-Leili, according to the opinion. Raymond said he has seen State Department documents that have “a redacted three-letter intelligence agency” reporting an even higher body count.

Investigators from the Physicians for Human Rights, a Cambridge, Mass.-based nonprofit composed of health care professionals devoted to investigating alleged human rights violations, learned of the gravesite in January 2002 from Taliban prisoners at Sheberghan, according to a lengthy report in Newsweek magazine in August of that year.

Since then, the PHR has had only limited success in learning about the official American government investigation. It sued in February 2008 after the defendant agencies did not respond adequately to its June 2006 FOIA request. DOD, the State Department and the CIA have since provided approximately 60 documents to the PHR, some of which were heavily redacted.

In his 34-page opinion, Judge Bennett examined each defendant agency’s search procedures and explanations for what was not disclosed as laid out in their representatives’ affidavits. Most were “sufficiently detailed” or “not unreasonable under the circumstances,” he found, but with respect to the temporal scope of the search, the defendants interpreted PHR’s request “far too narrowly.”

“While the underlying events occurred in November and December of 2001, PHR have clearly requested all records ‘pertaining to’ or ‘relating to’ the underlying events, including any subsequent investigations,” Bennett wrote.

And in ordering the Defense Intelligence Agency to submit unredacted documents, Bennett found that division’s explanations for why their documents were exempt from disclosure “clearly deficient.”

CENTCOM must conduct its new search — from Nov. 1, 2001 to present, rather than just November and December of 2001 — then produce all responsive and non-protected information and renew its motion for summary judgment by April.

The Joint Staff must submit its September 2002 U.S. Space Command Situation Report and the DIA must, by February, submit two intelligence reports it claims contain code words and names of international organizations with which the DIA shared intelligence in one instance and geocoordinates and an evaluation of a classified source in the other.

Tuesday, 18 August 2009

Interview on DEMOCRACY NOW!

DEMOCRACY NOW! is "A daily TV/radio news program, hosted by Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, airing on nearly 800 stations, pioneering the largest community media collaboration in the U.S."
Following the posting of my blog comment on the renewed interest (Obama's) around the war crimes/mass grave that I investigated in Afghanistan in 2002, today I did a live interview on the issue for the New York-based TV/radio channel DemocracyNow!

After the first couple of shaky seconds, I got my act together (I thought I was there to talk about war crimes only, not Gen. Dostum's return from Turkey!). The whole Afghanistan segment lasts almost half-hour in total, and I'm roughly in the middle, after footage of the mass grave, Obama interview, etc.

Here's the video, after the DEMOCRACY NOW! intro:

Eight Years After Orchestrating Massacre at Dasht-e-Leili, Afghan Warlord Abdul Rashid Dostum Returns to Afghanistan to Campaign for Karzai

Dostum-web One of Afghanistan’s most feared warlords has returned to Afghanistan just days before its presidential election. General Abdul Rashid Dostum is one of several warlords who have allied with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who is seeking a new term. Karzai is hoping Dostum’s return will help attract ethnic Uzbek voters. Dostum’s return to prominence in Afghanistan comes despite his role overseeing a 2001 massacre at Dasht-e-Leili that left at least 2,000 Taliban POWs dead. He’s also had extensive ties with the US and was formerly on the CIA payroll. We speak with international human rights lawyer, Andrew McEntee.

[if you have problems viewing the video, other viewing options are available here ]

TRANSCRIPT of the VIDEO (optional!)

"SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: One of Afghanistan’s most feared warlords has returned to Afghanistan just days before its presidential election. General Abdul Rashid Dostum is one of several warlords who have allied with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who is seeking a new term. Karzai is hoping Dostum’s return will help attract ethnic Uzbek voters.

On Monday, Dostum addressed a rally in the northern Afghan city of Sheberghan. His message of support for Karzai also contained a warning to his opponents.

    GEN. ABDUL RASHID DOSTUM: [translated] We are hopeful. We are determined. Playing with General Dostum is playing with a million human beings. Playing with General Dostum is playing with a storm. Playing with General Dostum will be tough and will create anger. God willing, we will establish a party in Afghanistan which will be bigger and stronger within six years, and this party will be able to respond to your demands. And this is what you and your martyrs deserve.

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Dostum’s return to prominence in Afghanistan comes despite his role overseeing a 2001 massacre at Dasht-e-Leili that left at least 2,000 Taliban POWs dead. He’s also had extensive ties with the US and was formerly on the CIA payroll.

Last month, New York Times reporter James Risen revealed the Bush administration blocked at least three federal investigations into the alleged war crimes committed by Dostum. Risen spoke about his findings on Democracy Now!

    JAMES RISEN: The evidence was overwhelming that something had happened and that it was the responsibility of the Bush administration to look into this or at least to push for an international investigation, because Dostum had been on the CIA payroll, was part of a US-backed alliance that was taking over Afghanistan. And what I found was, time after time, in different agencies and as far—and in the White House, Bush administration officials repeatedly ignored evidence or just decided or discouraged efforts to open investigations into the massacre.

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: After the new findings came to light, CNN’s Anderson Cooper asked President Obama about opening a new investigation into the Bush administration’s alleged cover-up.

    ANDERSON COOPER: Some were suffocated in a steel container. Others were shot, possibly buried in mass graves. Would you support—would you call for an investigation into possible war crimes in Afghanistan?

    PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: You know, the indications that this had not been properly investigated just recently was brought to my attention, so what I’ve asked my national security team to do is to collect the facts for me that are known, and we’ll probably make a decision in terms of how to approach it once we have all the facts gathered up.

    ANDERSON COOPER: But you wouldn’t resist categorically an investigation?

    PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: I think that, you know, there are responsibilities that all nations have, even in war. And if it appears that our conduct in some way supported violations of the laws of war, then I think that we have to know about that.

AMY GOODMAN: On Monday, the State Department said the Obama administration continues to gather evidence on Dostum’s alleged role in the Dasht-e-Leili massacre. Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs P.J. Crowley said the US had expressed, quote, “serious concerns” to the Afghan government about Dostum’s return.

For more on this story, we’re going to London now, where we’re joined by Andrew McEntee. He is an international human rights lawyer who traveled to Afghanistan in the fall of 2002 to investigate the massacre. Andrew is also the former chair of Amnesty International UK.

Andy, welcome to Democracy Now! The significance of Dostum’s return on the eve of the Afghanistan elections to support President Karzai in his bid to be reelected?

ANDREW McENTEE: Well, I think that the significance is quite clear if you’ve ever been to northern Afghanistan, where General Dostum’s role, I think, this week is to deliver the Uzbek, ethnic Uzbek, votes for President Karzai. It’s as simple as that. And the best way of doing that is to have him back home in Afghanistan.

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: And you traveled to Afghanistan to investigate this massacre. Describe exactly what happened. These prisoners surrendered. They were transported. Go through the events that took place.

ANDREW McENTEE: Well, I’d like to say first that I was introduced to this issue by the filmmaker and journalist Jamie Doran, who had investigated with his film crew in northern Afghanistan in late 2001 into early 2002. And Jamie approached me in London and asked me to look at his film footage and other evidence he had to make a human rights assessment, some legal assessments, partly about culpability responsibilities, partly to help him fill the gaps in the storyline.

And very quickly after reviewing several hours’ worth of film footage of the grave site at Dasht-e-Leili, of interviews, translated transcripts of the interviews, as well, of people who had been there, people who had driven the transport, people who had actually claimed that they had killed some of the prisoners, very quickly the story held up.

What surprised me, though, was the strand which went through which is in some ways the most contentious strand, which is that there was some involvement or at least some responsibility for many of the deaths on the part of US Special Forces who were on the ground at the time, as well. And I think that when you look at the story, the story itself is big enough. More than 2,000 people in a mass grave under one incident that took place—well, it took place over a number of days, but it was one continuing incident—that is big enough in itself for any war, any series of war crimes in any country in any decade. The problem with this issue, though, has been precisely the fact that US Special Forces were on the ground and that they had command responsibility. They had command over many of the guys, the Afghan soldiers, who began the killing.

And the problem continues to be—and I full understand the problem that defense departments have and the White House has had over the years. The problem continues to be that over the days when the bodies were rolling out of these trucks in Sheberghan prison, US Special Forces could have stopped it. And the big question for me has always been, why did they not stop it? They had control over the actions of the Afghan soldiers. They were the top of the command structure, and yet they continued to let it happen. And in particular—

AMY GOODMAN: Were they there?

ANDREW McENTEE: Well, at first they denied they were there. And that was interesting, because I had seen photographs showing they were there, and there was other evidence they were there. So the storyline changed and said, well, yeah, they were there, but they weren’t there when the trucks rolled through the gates, and they weren’t there when the bodies spilled out of the backs of the trucks, and they certainly weren’t there when the bodies were being tipped into pits on the edge of the desert. And bit by bit, the evidence seems to show that in fact they were there, they did know, they must have known.

One of the keys to this is that the reason that the two, three thousand men who died were being taken from Kalai Zeini to Sheberghan prison before being sent home, because the war had finished, the fighting had finished, the reason they were being taken was that US Special Forces interrogators were still looking for al-Qaeda operatives, and they feared that some of the operatives were hiding amongst these guys. So their idea was to identify them, to take them to wherever, which ultimately would have been Guantanamo in some cases, because they were an intelligence asset. And the US special interrogators must have known in the first day, at the prison where they were stationed, that hundreds of bodies were spilling out of metal containers, dead through suffocation.

Why they didn’t then stop that in the subsequent days, when these container trucks were rolling back down to where they began to pick up another batch of prisoners and rolling back, and more were spilling out—why didn’t stop it? That, to me, is the big question. Negligence, for sure, but criminal negligence.

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: And finally, General Dostum himself, his role in this massacre—these were his forces—and also his connection to the United States?

ANDREW McENTEE: Yeah, well, this is where it gets a much more—a broader picture shows you the realities on the ground at the time. The whole area of Mazari Sharif and Sheberghan and so on were the vital strategic assets for the military forces on each side, so it was imperative for the allies, United States and their allies, to come in and control the area. And it was very clear from the recent history of Afghanistan that the only way you could do that is if you had General Dostum on your side.

Now, General Dostum is a character who—he flips from one side to the other. His allegiance goes depending on whether he will win if he flips his allegiance or whether he’s going to get paid more. So he was paid buckets full of dollars over a long period of time, and he was an ally. And he effectively won the war in the north and gained control of the north—Mazari Sharif, Sheberghan—for the US and their allies. And that was the importance of Dostum. And because of that military importance, everything else was overlooked.

The problem in the years since then, of course, has been that Dostum is a very contentious fellow. And I think it’s worth explaining to people that when you refer to people like Dostum as warlords, you’re not talking about a gang leader, you know, someone who lives out of a small hut and controls a village; you’re talking about someone who effectively controls a military operation, which controls a major part of the state territory. He has guns. He has armored vehicles. He has light aircraft. He has everything.

And he continues, even now, to be an important political, but also military, figure in the north of Afghanistan. And that was why it was quite important for him to be out of the country, because on the political side, he is ethnically an Uzbek. Uzbekistan borders to the north of Afghanistan. And his role for President Karzai clearly was to deliver Uzbek voters for Karzai. And the reason being that—I mean, although personally I think Karzai is going to come out in the first round of the election with the highest number of votes, what President Karzai clearly needs for his credibility is to win the presidency in the first round, which requires 50 percent of the votes cast plus one. Otherwise, it goes to a second round. And that’s why I think Dostum is back. Dostum’s job is to deliver as many votes of—from the Uzbek ethnic community in Afghanistan as possible to help Karzai reached the 50 percent plus one target.

AMY GOODMAN: Andrew McEntee, we want to thank you very much for being with us, formerly head of Amnesty International in the UK.

As we turn now to an excerpt of the documentary you referred to, Afghan Massacre: Convoy of Death by the award-winning Irish filmmaker Jamie Doran, who traveled to the site of the massacres and the mass graves in 2002 in Afghanistan. The witnesses who testified in the film are unidentified and have their faces obscured. Two of them have since died. This excerpt begins with a description of how the prisoners were transported in containers.

    JAMIE DORAN: Originally loaded onto trucks at Kunduz, many of these men were crammed two to three hundred at a time into the backs of sealed containers. After around twenty minutes, the prisoners began crying out for air.

    EYEWITNESS: [translated] The weather was very hot. They put too many people inside the containers. Many died because there was no air.

    INTERVIEWER: [translated] How many containers were at Kalai Zeini when you left?

    EYEWITNESS: [translated] There were about twenty-five containers. The condition of them was very bad, because the prisoners couldn’t breathe, so they shot into the containers, and some of them were killed.

    TRUCK DRIVER: [translated] They told us to stop the trucks, and we came down. After that, they shot into the containers. Blood came pouring out of the containers. They were screaming inside.

    JAMIE DORAN: One Afghan soldier admits that he personally murdered prisoners.

    AFGHAN SOLDIER: [translated] I hit the containers with bullets to make holes for ventilation, and some of them were killed.

    JAMIE DORAN: You specifically shot holes into the containers. Who gave you those orders?

    AFGHAN SOLDIER: [translated] My commanders ordered me to hit the containers to make holes for ventilation, and because of that, some prisoners died.

    JAMIE DORAN: But this was no humanitarian gesture. Rather than shooting into the roofs of the containers, the soldiers fired at random, killing those nearest the walls. A local taxi driver had called in at a petrol station on the road to Sheberghan.

    TAXI DRIVER: [translated] I smelled something strange and asked the attendant where the smell was coming from. He said, “Look behind you.” There were three trucks with containers fixed on them. Blood was running from the containers.

AMY GOODMAN: An excerpt of Afghan Massacre: Convoy of Death by the award-winning Irish filmmaker Jamie Doran, who traveled to the massacre sites. The notorious warlord Dostum has been invited back to Afghanistan on this eve of the election by the incumbent President Hamid Karzai to win—to help him win reelection. "

You'll find more information and links at the DEMOCRACY NOW! 18 August 2009 web page, including:

A worthy link for some readers is the one that allows you to make a donation to DEMOCRACY NOW! towards the cost of the transcript [ "This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution. Donate - $25, $50, $100, More..."]



Seven years ago, in 2002, I stood on the surface of a mass grave in northern Afghanistan that contained over 2000 bodies. There is evidence to support the claim that each and every death amounted to a murder, a war crime. I was standing close to the bodies of thousands of men who had died needlessly over a number of days, when they were in the process of being transported along a northern highway after the fighting had ended.

This was a journey involving several thousand passengers (roughly seven thousand, according to one local Afghan Commander interviewed for television). Their journey was from the holding centre at Kalai-Zeini, to their destination at Sheberghan Prison, from where they were to be sent home - unless the US special interrogators at Sheberghan Prison could identify any of them as Al-Qaeda operatives who had so far evaded capture. Maybe half of them got out of the journey alive; certainly half of them were buried in the mass grave under my feet.


I visited Dasht-e-Leili in 2002, for the making of the television documentary "Afghan Massacre: The Convoy of Death" (directed by the Irish journalist and film-maker Jamie Doran, and first broadcast in November 2002). In early 2002, Jamie Doran had approached me in London and asked for a human rights/war crimes assessment of his findings to date, including: footage from the surface of the Dasht-e-Leili site, footage of prisoners in Sheberghan prison, filmed interviews with participants in/ witnesses to events up to and including the killing and burial of prisoners at Dasht-e-Leili (including an Afghan soldier's confession of guilt to murder).

Subsequently, in September 2002, I accompanied Jamie and his film crew to Afghanistan for site visits at the Dasht-e-Leili grave, and interviews in northern Afghanistan and Kabul (for example, with officials of the UN and the Afghan government). Some of the detailed filming of the surface of Dasht-e-Leili (human remains protruding, visible clothing and other personal items, spent cartridges from semi-automatic weapons, etc) was included in the final version of the film.

I also participated in the June 2002 meetings of the German Parliament and European Parliament that viewed a 10-minute video-short of Jamie Doran's film (not completed until a few months later). These meetings called for UN protection of the sites (but it never happened), and investigation by the US authorities in light of accusations against US special forces in relation to the incident, including possible individual criminal responsibility.

Last year I wrote to the US Congress (Rep. Waxman, in fact) regarding the relevance of the Dasht-e-Leili incident to other investigations of the House Oversight Committee presided over by Rep. Waxman. I was confident that Obama would win the Presidency, and that Congress would be given a green light to further and deepen its investigations.

Last month (11 July 2009), James Risen's article in the New York Times put President Obama under pressure to give an official account of what had occurred at Sheberghan Prison and at the mass-grave site of Dasht-e-Leile. The President instructed his aides to prepare a report for him:
"So what I've asked my national security team to do is to collect the facts for me that are known, and we'll probably make a decision in terms of how to approach it once we have all of the facts gathered up". But Obama's words left room for doubt about his resolve to order an official investigation - similar to the advice given to me in 2002 by a US military spokesman, that "there has not been an 'investigation' with a capital 'I'...", implying that the US military authorities preferred to keep their questions informal, unofficial, and off the public radar. So I wonder - will Obama prefer to hit the brakes once he's carried out his own in-house 'investigation', rather than order an 'Investigation' into these war crimes?


This story is so big that it will never go away. That was my view in 2001, and my view still. In fact, my view expressed in 2001 was that it will never go away, unless and until there is a proper investigation that holds the perpetrators to account - be they Afghan warlords and their soldiers, or US special forces and their superior officers who have tried time and again to cover up the alleged criminal responsibility of US soldiers at the time (the cover-up amounts to a separate and additional offence under US law). The story of what occurred is now common knowledge in Afghanistan and internationally, including the part of the story involving the cover-up at US Central Command, the Pentagon and elsewhere in the Bush Administration. It's just a story that's lacking an official investigation - it seems that the film-footage of bodily remains sticking out of the ground in a northern Afghan desert, the photographs of US soldiers at nearby Sheberghan Prison, the interviews with local witnesses, etc, just came out at the wrong time, too soon after 9/11, for the US authorities to care too much about the victims, never mind care about the strict requirements of US law.


I am certain that the US military and other agencies have extensive files on the incident that support our case, but that are being suppressed. I have, of course, read the documents published by Physicians for Human Rights at the end of 2008, following PHR's successful Freedom Of Information requests - all of these continue to give a firmer foundation to our story, and calls for an official investigation by independent and impartial US authorities. PHR's excellent work in cataloguing the case since 2002, beginning with a part-excavation of the mass grave that corroborates much of Jamie Doran's filmed witnesses, is worth following via the special PHR blog that is updated regularly.

It's irrelevant to me whether responsibility for this mass murder lies with junior Afghan soldiers, or their superiors such as the 'Warlord' General Dostum - or, as alleged and evidenced, whether some criminal responsibility lies with some members of the US special forces who were on the ground at the time, and who had chain-of-command responsibility over many of Dostum's men. I saw a great deal of the evidence first-hand at Dasht-e-Leili, and was able to trace backwards through the chain of events that led me there. I know where the evidence points, and I can't change that. So I believe that the US President, as Commander-in-Chief, should also want to know where the evidence points.