The Bush Administration's Cover-Up of the Dasht-e-Leili Massacre

http://www.youtube.com/...AEjUVbI&v=EdZlIEVtzN8

http://www.nytimes.com/...d/asia/11afghan.html?_r=2

Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) has issued a call for a criminal probe in the wake of a major New York Times story by James Risen with new evidence that the Bush Administration impeded at least three federal investigations into alleged war crimes in Afghanistan in 2002. ("U.S. Inaction Seen After Taliban P.O.W.s Died" - NYTimes.com http://bit.ly/wHwpc)

PHR is calling for the Department of Justice to investigate why the Bush Administration impeded an FBI criminal probe of the alleged Dasht-e-Leili massacre.

According to US government documents obtained by PHR, as many as 2,000 surrendered Taliban fighters were reportedly suffocated in container trucks by Afghan forces operating jointly with the US in November 2001. The bodies were reportedly buried in mass graves in the Dasht-e-Leili desert near Sheberghan, Afghanistan. Notorious Afghan warlord General Abdul Rashid Dostum, who was reportedly on the CIA payroll, is allegedly responsible for the massacre.

For more information and to sign our petition calling for Attorney General Eric Holder to let the FBI do its job, visit http://AfghanMassGrave.org.

Yeesh.

Lol, your post pretty much eleminates US responsibility. Just because you are associated with someone doesn't make you responsible for their actions, especially not at a war crimes tribunal.

I bet you also think that we never landed on the moon, and that the bush administration created 9/11, and Roosevelt allowed Pearl Harbor to happen, right?

I guess you also believe we still have Constitutional Rights? It's not the first time we have propped up a dictator and it won't be the last. We put saddam in power only to take him out because of his atrocities. We also armed the taliban back in the 80's only to try taking them out with Bushes "war on terror". Only one problem with that, Congress is the ONLY entity that can Constitutionally declare war, NOT the President.

< ----- Misses the political forum. Spam spam spam.

So now you are changing your point? I'm not following you here, so you get a point, state something, and I will respond.

To your first post, an atrocity was committed, and you want someone to be punished for not pushing people to investigate it? That's a bit extreme isn't it? You want to ruin a relationship that was just forged for military purposes at the beginning of a campaign on theories of events and principals?

War isn't pretty, it is much cleaner than it has been in the past, but there will never be a bloodless and atrocity free conflict, and trying to hold a group of rebels responsible for an atrocity isn't exactly an easy thing to do, if t was we wouldn't of been in afganistan chasing the Taliban for the last decade. You really wanna open up another front there with the peoe that had similar interests as us just because they refuse to fight by our rules? You are idealistic, and unrealistic. It's kinda cute if it wasn't so dumb.

As for your seccond post, you might want to google the war powers act of 1973, that enforced the statment of only congress ability to declare war, but the president has authority of extended military action incase of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

9/11 can easily be defined as that in a political arena, and that's exactly the justification used. Excuse me if I am wrong, but you seem to be a headline debator. Uneducated on the depths of the issues, but extremely idealistic. That's fine and all, untill it comes to finding the truth and logic. But by all means, respond, I need to start posting some more.

so the afghan military killed a bunch of terrorists who would have slit our throat given any opportunity and we should care why?

The President can't declare war... but he can, send troops into combat for up to 30-60 days without their aproval... and it'd still be legal for him.

You changed it around by saying what you said and now you want to lay it off on me?
"I bet you also think that we never landed on the moon, and that the bush administration created 9/11, and Roosevelt allowed Pearl Harbor to happen, right?"

The US is supposed to be setting an example. That does not include coming down to their (terrorists) level. We're supposed to BE morally above that way of thinking. They killed 3,000 during 911 but to your way of thinking we were "justified" to slaughter 2,000 of theirs that were unarmed and presented no danger to our troops?

I am not naive. I know that there's nothing "pretty" about war. After doing some research on NARA I found that over 100 people that I personally knew growing up were killed in Vietnam. Some were family, some were close friends and others were classmates in school. "Afghan forces operating jointly with the US" Means exactly that, our troops were with them when this happened! Our guys knew better than that.

Exactly my point. I know what the presidents powers are. Congress did absolutely nothing to deter him.

well they can't until the time is up, but ya right after the time was up they shoulda brought the troops back.

Btw, Bush is still listed as being AWOL from the Alabama National Guard.

and obama STILL hasn't shown a legit full form certificate of live birth, nor deported his aunt, he also has not provided a legit budget. sure he has legally provided one, but the senate has not, by design, even voted on it, allowing the govt (who knows the house will not pass any budget he will provde) to run its budget on CRs. how is that not shady?

making this a partisan issue is stupid. you will not win because every president we have had has had some issues with his staff or broken the law while in office.

Thanks for making this statment, now I know that responding to you is pointless because you are tarded, lol

lol, really? 'tarded?'

"You fluffing tard!" that makes sense.

How does tarded not make sense? Retard = tard retarded = tarded

If you do your research Mr.Ford Pearl harbor was allowed to happen, and one of the naval commanders was eventually relieved from command because of it (if I remember correctly).

They had warnings about this happening days in advance and chose to ignore it "Because the japanese are not capable of such a thing" mindset that america had, and look what happened!

Just a history lesson for the day!

More than a month after the ARPC rejected Bush's transfer request, on September 5, 1972, Bush requested permission to "perform equivalent duty" at the 187th Tactical Recon Group in Alabama "for the months of September, October, and November." He quickly received approval to do so, and was told to report to Lt. Col. William Turnipseed, the base commander, for drills on October 7 and 8, and November 4 and 5 (the September drill dates of the unit had already passed). Turnipseed has said that he could not recall whether Bush reported on those occasions.

How is it that the base commander "can't recall" whether or not Bush reported? Any place you go in the service has records that follow you through your entire military career.

You're retarded for even making that statement.

Here's the story as generally agreed upon: In January 1968, with the Vietnam war in full swing, Bush was due to graduate from Yale. Knowing he'd soon be eligible for the draft, he took an air force officers' test hoping to secure a billet with the Texas Air National Guard, which would allow him to do his military service at home. Bush didn't do particularly well on the test — on the pilot aptitude section, he scored in the 25th percentile, the lowest possible passing grade. But Bush's father, George H.W., was then a U.S. congressman from Houston, and strings were pulled. The younger Bush vaulted to the head of a long waiting list — a year and a half long, by some estimates — and in May of '68 he was inducted into the guard.

By all accounts Bush was an excellent pilot, but after a while his enthusiasm seems to have cooled. In 1972, four years into his six-year guard commitment, he was asked to work for the campaign of Bush family friend Winton Blount, who was running for the U.S. Senate in Alabama. In May Bush requested a transfer to an Alabama Air National Guard unit with no planes and minimal duties. Bush's immediate superiors approved the transfer, but higher-ups said no. The matter was delayed for months.

In August Bush missed his annual flight physical and was grounded. (Some have speculated that he was worried about failing a drug test — the Pentagon had instituted random screening in April.) In September he was ordered to report to a different unit of the Alabama guard, the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group in Montgomery. Bush says he did so, but his nominal superiors say they never saw the guy, there's no documentation he ever showed up, and not one of the six or seven hundred soldiers then in the unit has stepped forward to corroborate Bush's story.

After the November election Bush returned to Texas, but apparently didn't notify his old Texas guard unit for quite a while, if ever. The Boston Globe initially reported that he started putting in some serious duty time in May, June, and July of 1973 to make up for what he'd missed. But according to a later piece in the New Republic, there's no evidence Bush did even that. Whatever the case, even though his superiors knew he'd blown off his duties, they never disciplined him. (No one's ever been shot at dawn for missing a weekend guard drill, but policy at the time was to put shirkers on active duty.) Indeed, when Bush decided to go to business school at Harvard in the fall of 1973, he requested and got an honorable discharge — eight months before his service was scheduled to end.

Dude, I wasn't saying what you said wasn't true, I was saying it's idiotic to even bring it up. Bush is gone bro, it's over. Your crazy bush bashing can stop now, because it will never accomplish anything.

Do you still run around yelling for the incarceration of Clinton for adultry?

or clintons draft dodging altogether...

I know all about the oversights of pearl harbor, however that was no where near m point. A few ignorant mistakes does not equal a massive conspiracy at the presidential level in order to get the US into WWII. I know you want to show off your knowlage, but I minored in military history bro, I know everything you just said.

Pearl Harbor being allowed to happen is a bit of a joke. Had the US gone offensive sure they may have avoided it, but then everyone would be saying they started the war in the pacific directly by provoking the Japs.

On the other hand as well about Pearl harbor, they had ALL their carriers out, battleships were obsolete at this point. The loss of life was relatively low as they weren't fully manned either.

So in truth, the Japs started the war, hit almost nothing of important, then got beat down by the surviving carriers. In the initial stages, had even a couple of the carriers been destroyed, it would have crippled the US naval operations, and the battle of midway would have been lost as well.

So to sum it up, the US had to start the war on the defensive (No provoking enemy with battleships in unknown locations cruising the pacific), otherwise all the tree huggers would be whining to this day. Also the US was not really even hurt by the opening offensive in terms of relevant military strength. Can hardly be said that the US wanted japan to attack them (which was not true at all, by any standard).

Actually, FDR started WWII in the Pacific. He imposed embargos on Japan and was supplying Mainland China with money and materiel if not outright military personnel directly in opposition to the Japanese. Who committed the first Act of War is certainly up to debate.

Should anyone choose to argue this, I recommend reading the history of the Flying Tigers.

Back to the discussion. I'm only going to say this once and I won't be defending the statement because frankly, no defense is needed.

You do what you have to do to win wars, and witch hunts based on politics and advertising space are at the very least seditious and more to the point acts of Treason, IMO.

+1

I guarrantee you, if Bush could be linked to this, it would be all over the media!

OFF SUBJECT_Trivia Fact: that opposes MILITARY HISTORY taught in extremely liberal college settings...

on the QuarterDeck of the USS HARRY E. YARNELL CG-17 (guided missile cruiser now in mothball) is a brass plank, stating How ADM. YARNELL laid the very attack plans out in WASHINGTON prior to PEARL HARBOR....

Sure the US instigated ourself (Roosevelt n crew)into WAR back then, as the american public and Government leaned towards isolationist veiws. not our war not our problem...when in truth it was...thats what it took to get congress and public to support going to war.

(I should know that brass plank exists, it was 1 of 3 differant ships I served on)

That was really hard to read and understand bro...

Ofcourse through the embargos, slaps against Japanese culture of honor, providing material and manpower to china, war was comming. The fact of the matter is, the belief that everyone knew for a fact that the japs were going to attack at 8 in the morning on December the 7th is incorrect.

War was inevitable, I'm not arguing that, I'm arguing against the conspiracy theory.

I agree with Fordy. It wasn't a conspiracy. It was a no-brainer based on calculated acts.

Where I think a lot of people make the mistake is that they try to apply today's attitudes and access to information to things that happened 70 years ago.

I'll be honest. I think FDR will eventually be shown as the bastard that destroyed America. But based on Fordy's (correct) statement that War was inevitable, despite the level to which I despise FDR, it wasn't a conspiracy.

The larger question is why we allowed China to be taken over by Communists after spending money and lives to fight and ultimately kick the Japanese off of the Asian Continent.

And for the sake of intellectual honesty, this is the same question I'd ask as to why in God's name we didn't kill Saddam Hussein or force a change of Government at the end of Desert Storm.

The United States has been VERY adept at getting what it politically wants out of people and then historically failing to deal with the consequences.

Reagan created Bin Laden. FDR created Mao Tse Tung. Truman created every violent idiot i the Middle East by crowning David Ben Gurion King of the Universe.

You'd think after fluffing enough dogs, we'd get it right now and then.

I'm not saying we knew the actual time of the attack.
I am Saying we did know how and where they would attack.

and I stand by my thoughts that it was going to take the american people's agreement to enter the war... to shock them out of isolationism, thats why the fleet was not put to sea.

from a old navy guys veiw -> the fleet was there to protect the Carriers, so why were the majority of the escorts inport while the carrier's weren't???? just wondering...

and Battleships were a main part of any fleet until after pearl harbor...

Conspiracy or Calculated Acceptance doesnt matter to me, it was the right choice either way IMO..

I'm pretty neutral on the conspiracy theory...however I do believe to a degree it was allowed to happen...

Suffocating in a truck. Not how I would want to go, but these guys didn't really have many options. At least with a full truck of people it would happen fast. I remember watching a 5 gal bucket full of rats get suffocated. Death came quick but they still couldn't help but defecate all over the place.

Rats, people.... is there really that much of a difference? These Taliban fighters were rats in the eyes of many Jesus loving Americans. Contradiction for sure. But since when has that stopped anyone?

As for me. Guess I am indifferent or apathetic. The rest of the world doesn't really give a damn either. How many humans die today from something preventative? Plenty i'm sure. God didn't stop it. God doesn't have a standing army. (I don't even think it exists) Governments sure didn't seem to care.

I'm not sure who, or what, or if there is anything ever that will change the path that humanity is going down. But for now, I'll simply consider myself lucky and be thankful that I wasn't in those trucks.

Maybe people would not think of the Taliban/Extremist as rats simply if they acted like human beings and acted in accordance with the Civil Codes that the majority of H.Sapiens is willing to follow.

It's not just their reaction to war made o them. It's their instilled attitude that everyone needs to be subservient to them and the violent child molester they kill on behalf of.

I have no room in my mind, heart, or life for such attitudes. We expended tens of millions of lives to kill Hitler any way we had to. How are THEY different?

they beat their head on rocks as children while trying to learn the koran and suffered brain damage during the attempt? i don't actually go out of my way to kill rats, maybe my complex just has a good exterminator. meh, i'm probably supposed to be running around without a head if all the humans stuck with the 7 laws of Noah.

O.O

I am pretty sure that Hitler and Taliban fighters have a few differences. I do not care to argue that point as it seems silly. I do know that Hitler ruined a perfectly good style of wearing a mustache among his many atrocities.

Good versus bad. Right versus wrong. Us versus them, etc. I think much of it is subjective and can be easily controlled or manipulated by people who are of little consequence to the actual outcome. In fact, those pulling strings typically benefit or gain something from their agenda. Rarely is it the social, political, economic, religious, or military elite who ever do the dying or suffer the consequences of their agenda. It is the followers who do the suffering. History shows us that.

Again, I am apathetic to this story and to much of the middle east, politics, religion, etc... Probably where I need to exit this conversation and let those who want to argue about it have at it.

Full disclosure. My father is a falconer and raised rats as food for his birds. I am not one of those people who enjoys hurting animals. Boy do rats breed quickly.