Afghanistan

Transparency activist group WikiLeaks is offering a $50,000 reward for any footage of the United States bombing of a Doctors Without Borders facility in Kunduz or cockpit audio from the plane.

WikiLeaks offers $50,000 for Kunduz bombing footage or cockpit audio
https://wikileaks.org/pledge/#rd-9

US$50,000 for suspected war crime evidence. On Saturday 3 October 2015 the Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders) hospital in Kunduz Afghanistan was repeatedly bombed by a US AC-130 gunship. 22 MSF staff and patients were killed and the hospital destroyed. The hospital was not near other buildings and its GPS co-ordinates had been registered with US forces.

MSF believes that the killings amount to a war crime. The AC-130 records its attacks with high resolution gun cameras. According to military procedure, this footage should have been retained along with the cockpit audio. A post-massacre inquiry report referred to as an 'AR 15-6' should have also been commissioned.

We are raising a US$50,000 bounty to obtain the footage, the cockpit audio, the inquiry report and other relevant materials such as the Rules of Engagement active at the time. The Kunduz case is similar to a previous WikiLeaks case, "Collateral Murder".
 
I'm gaining a better understanding of what's behind DWB, their chief principles, mandates and why the organization came into being. In a real sense, it was "created" because there was a need for "balance" in trauma health care in the War Zones. U.S. Military MASH Units only took care of their own Solders. Everything else was looked upon as the enemy and “collateral damage,” and were abandoned and left in care of local emergency management and faculties, often ill equipped to handle the influx and severity of the wounds. (Vietnam comes to mind.) So, DWB does provide a needed critical service. Only, they go one step further - they treat "ALL" in need! That's probably another "strike" against them in a War Zone, where the U.S. Military's main function is to leave everything barren in their path.

DWB was created as an offshoot from ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross). The main difference is that DWB has in its guiding principles the task to witness the events the members of DWB see, especially when it can be substantiated with medical data. ICRC, according to their mandate, the geneva conventions, will mostly do silent diplomacy and rarely speaks out about what it witnesses. DWB was created after the Biaffra war in Nigeria in the late 60s. A few doctors working for ICRC in that warzone were so shocked by the fact that the population of Biaffra was starved to death for political reasons and military objectives, that they urged ICRC to speak out about it - but they were denied that urge to witness. As a consequence they sat up DWB, which does speak out about what it sees. It accuses when it deems necessary to do so. Examples are the genocide in Rwanda, the bombing of Kosovo, the systematic rape in Darfur and East Congo, the violence in Chechnya, the death squads in Nicaragua, the non action of everybody during the Ebola outbreak, the HIV aids pandemic in Africa or 'too much money for purpose full help' after the Tsunami in Aceh . As such the organization has a long tradition of 'making noise'.

Here is the charter of DWB

Médecins Sans Frontières is a private, international association. The association is made up mainly of doctors and health sector workers and is also open to all other professions which might help in achieving its aims. All of its members agree to honour the following principles:

Médecins Sans Frontières provides assistance to populations in distress, to victims of natural or man-made disasters and to victims of armed conflict. They do so irrespective of race, religion, creed or political convictions.

Médecins Sans Frontières observes neutrality and impartiality in the name of universal medical ethics and the right to humanitarian assistance and claims full and unhindered freedom in the exercise of its functions.

Members undertake to respect their professional code of ethics and maintain complete independence from all political, economic or religious powers.

As volunteers, members understand the risks and dangers of the missions they carry out and make no claim for themselves or their assigns for any form of compensation other than that which the association might be able to afford them.

Our principles

MSF’s actions are guided by medical ethics and the principles of independence and impartiality.

Medical ethics

MSF’s actions are first and foremost medical. We carry out our work with respect for the rules of medical ethics, in particular the duty to provide care without causing harm to individuals or groups. We respect patients’ autonomy, patient confidentiality and their right to informed consent. We treat our patients with dignity, and with respect for their cultural and religious beliefs. In accordance with these principles, MSF endeavours to provide high-quality medical care to all patients.

Independence

Our decision to offer assistance in any country or crisis is based on an independent assessment of people’s needs. We strive to ensure that we have the power to freely evaluate medical needs, to access populations without restriction and to directly control the aid we provide. Our independence is facilitated by our policy to allow only a marginal portion of our funds to come from governments and intergovernmental organisations.

Impartiality and neutrality

MSF offers assistance to people based on need and irrespective of race, religion, gender or political affiliation. We give priority to those in the most serious and immediate danger. Our decisions are not based on political, economic or religious interests. MSF does not take sides or intervene according to the demands of governments or warring parties.

Bearing witness

The principles of impartiality and neutrality are not synonymous with silence. When MSF witnesses extreme acts of violence against individuals or groups, the organisation may speak out publicly. We may seek to bring attention to extreme need and unacceptable suffering when access to lifesaving medical care is hindered, when medical facilities come under threat, when crises are neglected, or when the provision of aid is inadequate or abused.

Accountability

MSF is committed to regularly evaluating the effects of its activities. We assume the responsibility of accounting for our actions to our patients and donors.
 
US Rules Out Independent Investigation Into Afghan Hospital Attack - http://sputniknews.com/military/20151007/1028182316/US-Rejects-Independent-Kunduz-Investigation.html

US State Department spokesman John Kirby said that the United States rejects calls for independent international investigation into the bombing of the Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz.
 
33 Still Missing After US Airstrike on Kunduz Hospital
http://www.voanews.com/content/msf-says-33-still-missing-in-us-airstrike-on/2996819.html

Doctors Without Borders said Thursday that 33 people are still missing days after the U.S. airstrike on the international medical charity's hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan killed 22 others.

The medical group, known by its French acronym MSF, said nine of the unaccounted for are patients and 24 staff members. He said more bodies could be found inside the hospital, but MSF is waiting to regain access to the facility after ending its operations in Kunduz.

"We are still in shock," said Guilhem Molinie, the group's Afghanistan representative told reporters in Kabul. "We lost many colleagues and at the moment it's clear that we don't want to take the risk for any of our staff. We don't control the hospital."

MSF ended its Kunduz operations after the aerial bombardment last Saturday and has demanded an independent investigation into the attack under the Geneva Conventions. The group says probes under way by the U.S., Afghanistan and NATO are insufficient and has suggested that the attack amounted to a war crime. Those killed in the airstrike included 10 patients and 12 MSF staff members.

MSF ended its Kunduz operations after the aerial bombardment last Saturday and has demanded an independent investigation into the attack under the Geneva Conventions. The group says probes under way by the U.S., Afghanistan and NATO are insufficient and has suggested that the attack amounted to a war crime. Those killed in the airstrike included 10 patients and 12 MSF staff members.

MSF ended its Kunduz operations after the aerial bombardment last Saturday and has demanded an independent investigation into the attack under the Geneva Conventions. The group says probes under way by the U.S., Afghanistan and NATO are insufficient and has suggested that the attack amounted to a war crime. Those killed in the airstrike included 10 patients and 12 MSF staff members.
 
I read this bit today on World Affairs Brief. It has been suggested that the hit was in retaliation for MSF speaking out against TPP.


WHY THE US STORY ON AFGHAN HOSPITAL DOESN’T ADD UP
The US first claimed that they responded to an Afghan call for support but then changed the story to responding to a call by US forces on the ground (who supposedly weren’t in combat). General John Campbell, commander of the US and NATO war in Afghanistan, made a few contradictory statements as he testified to a Senate panel. According to the UK Guardian,

Shifting the US account of the Saturday morning airstrike for the fourth time in as many days, Campbell reiterated that Afghan forces had requested US air cover after being engaged in a “tenacious fight” to retake the northern city of Kunduz from the Taliban. But, modifying the account he gave at a press conference on Monday, Campbell said those Afghan forces had not directly communicated with the US pilots of an AC-130 gunship overhead.

But Jason Cone, the president of Doctors Without Borders – also known as Médecins sans Frontières (MSF) – said the US and Afghanistan had made an “admission of a war crime”.

“Even though the Afghans request that support, it still has to go through a rigorous US procedure to enable fires to go on the ground. We had a special operations unit that was in close vicinity that was talking to the aircraft that delivered those fires,” Campbell told the Senate armed services committee on Tuesday morning.

Cone said Campbell’s shifting story underscored the need for an independent inquiry. It is particularly disturbing that the airstrike went on for over an hour while calls were made to stop them.

“They are now back to talking about a ‘mistake’. A mistake that lasted for more than an hour, despite the fact that the location of the hospital was well known to them and that they were informed during the airstrike that it was a hospital being hit. All this confusion just underlines once again the crucial need for an independent investigation into how a major hospital, full of patients and MSF staff, could be repeatedly bombed.”

What would be the motive for a purposeful attack on MSF? One source suggested it is because MSF came out in opposition to the TPP which is about to be rammed down the world’s collective throat.
October 9, 2015
 
Condolence payments for Civilian Non-Combatants?

Pentagon to pay victims of U.S. airstrike on Afghan hospital
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/10/politics/pentagon-condolence-payments-kunduz/index.html

The United States will make "condolence payments" to the wounded victims and the families of 22 people killed in the airstrike against a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, last week,
Pentagon spokesman Peter Cook announced Saturday.

The amount of the payments has not been determined, Cook said.

"If necessary and appropriate, the administration will seek additional authority from the Congress," he said, adding that the payments will go to "civilian non-combatants injured and the families of civilian non-combatants killed as a result of U.S. military operations."

Earlier this week, U.S. President Barack Obama called and apologized to the head of Doctors Without Borders, whose staff and patients were killed and injured. The attack in the embattled city October 3 killed 12 medical staff members and at least 10 patients, three of them children.

Another 37 people were wounded, according to the global charity group, which works in conflict zones to help victims of war and other tragedies.

Gen. John Campbell, commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, has said the hospital was hit accidentally during an American airstrike. The Pentagon is carrying out an investigation, as are NATO and Afghanistan.

The charity group -- which is also known as Medecins Sans Frontieres, or MSF, and provides medical care in some of the world's most dangerous places -- is calling the strike an "attack on the Geneva Conventions."

Doctors Without Borders said it wants a full and transparent investigation by an independent agency.


IMMEDIATE RELEASE - Statement from Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook on Kunduz Condolence Payments
http://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/622713/statement-from-pentagon-press-secretary-peter-cook-on-kunduz-condolence-payments

Press Operations

Release No: NR-395-15
October 10, 2015

The Department of Defense believes it is important to address the consequences of the tragic incident at the Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan. One step the Department can take is to make condolence payments to civilian non-combatants injured and the families of civilian non-combatants killed as a result of U.S. military operations. Under the Commanders' Emergency Response Program (CERP), U.S. Forces-Afghanistan has the authority to make condolence payments and payments toward repair of the hospital. USFOR-A will work with those affected to determine appropriate payments. If necessary and appropriate, the administration will seek additional authority from the Congress.
 
Photographs shared by MSF international and national staff who worked in Kunduz.

12 October 2015

Photo Story: MSF under attack in Kunduz
http://www.msf.org/article/photo-story-msf-under-attack-kunduz
 
More info on the AC-130 gunship that attacked the Hospital and the type of ammo used. It's amazing, anyone made it out alive - after five 15-minute assaults?

Kunduz hospital attack was no mistake: US Dispatched a Murderous AC-130 Airborne Gunship to Attack a Hospital
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Kunduz-hospital-attack-was-by-Dave-Lindorff-Afghanistan-Massacre_Doctors-Without-Borders_War-Crimes_War-On-Afghanistan-151012-962.html

Evidence continues to mount that the US committed a monstrous war crime in attacking and destroying a fully operational hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan on the night of Oct. 3, killing at least 22 people including at least 12 members of the volunteer medical staff of Medicine Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders), the French based international aid organization that operated the hospital.

This even as the US desperately tries to bury the issue of its perfidy by offering "condolence payments" to victims of the attack, though without accepting blame beyond saying it was a "tragic mistake."

The "mistake" claim looks increasingly shameless as it becomes clear that this was not, as the US corporate media continue to incorrectly report, a "bombing" gone wrong, but rather was a prolonged hour-long attack by an AC-130 gunship, the deadliest killing machine in the US Air Force's weapons catalogue. The aircraft, equipped with the latest night-vision sighting equipment, reportedly made five 15-minute assaults on the hospital's main building housing the emergency operating room and recovery rooms, firing its array of howitzer cannons, 30 millimeter machine canons and other heavy weapons that included both high-explosive tips and anti-personnel rounds designed to scatter death in a wide pattern.

This is, in other words, not a precision targeting weapon, but a weapon's system designed to spread death over a wide swath.


It explains why the building itself was not leveled, as happens when, for example, a drone first Hellfire missiles at a building. Rather, the hospital was set on fire by incendiary weapons, and the people inside were killed by a spray of bullets and anti-personnel flechettes.

Bad enough to attack a hospital, but to attack it with a weapons system designed to slaughter as many people as possible is almost beyond comprehension.

The hospital in Kunduz was a well-known and long-established institution with a distinctive shape operating in a city that until recently was under full government control. That the US/NATO command did not clearly know the function of that structure is inconceivable, despite US government efforts to claim that a specific provision of the hospital's coordinates to US forces by Medicine Sans Frontieres days before the attack "must have" gotten waylaid somewhere along the way. (see aerial photo of the hospital in Kunduz).

Here's what a military website says about the plane sent to wreak this havoc says:"

Boasting a lethal number of mini-guns, cannons and howitzers, the AC-130 Gunship has earned a reputation as one of the deadliest combat weapons on the planet.

The website Strategypage.com offers the added information that the AC-130's 30 millimeter cannons fire "explosive anti-personnel rounds" as well as explosive ammunition.

If, as claimed by Pentagon officials and the top general in Afghanistan, Army Gen. John Campbell, there were Taliban fighters firing from some location in the hospital (a claim vigorously disputed by Medicine Sans Frontieres, which says there was no fighting going on near the hospital and that all people entering the hospital, Taliban victims included, had to surrender weapons at the door as a matter of policy) it still would not justify under any circumstances the use of a weapons system like the AC-130 with its array of industrial slaughter weaponry.

The US has a lot to answer for, which explains why the White House has refused Medicine Sans Frontieres' demand for an independent investigation into this atrocity.
 
US forces in Afghanistan knew Kunduz site was hospital - report - https://www.rt.com/usa/318786-us-analysts-kunduz-hospital/

New information suggests the US deliberately targeted the Kunduz hospital, killing 22 patients and staff, despite knowing it was a protected medical site.

US special operations analysts investigated the hospital for days prior to the deadly October 3 attack, describing the hospital as a base of operations for a Pakistani agent coordinating Taliban activities, AP has learned from a former intelligence official familiar with the documents.
 
Jeremy F Kreuz said:
US forces in Afghanistan knew Kunduz site was hospital - report - https://www.rt.com/usa/318786-us-analysts-kunduz-hospital/

New information suggests the US deliberately targeted the Kunduz hospital, killing 22 patients and staff, despite knowing it was a protected medical site.

US special operations analysts investigated the hospital for days prior to the deadly October 3 attack, describing the hospital as a base of operations for a Pakistani agent coordinating Taliban activities, AP has learned from a former intelligence official familiar with the documents.

This article has much of the same information but adds more "detail and spin" to the Pakistani agent (they just pulled out of the hat)?
Several conflicting statements can be denoted in the article. One sentence - says one thing - the next - the opposite.

APNewsBreak: US analysts knew Afghan site was hospital
http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-us-spec-ops-knew-afghan-hospital-173952129.html (photo gallery)

WASHINGTON (AP) — Days before the Oct. 3 U.S. air attack on a hospital in Afghanistan, American special operations analysts were gathering intelligence on the facility — which they knew was a protected medical site — because they believed it was being used by a Pakistani operative to coordinate Taliban activity, The Associated Press has learned.

It's unclear whether commanders who unleashed the AC-130 gunship on the hospital — killing at least 22 patients and hospital staff — were aware that the site was a hospital or knew about the allegations of possible enemy activity. The Pentagon initially said the attack was to protect U.S. troops engaged in a firefight and has since said it was a mistake.

The special operations analysts had assembled a dossier that included maps with the hospital circled, along with indications that intelligence agencies were tracking the location of the Pakistani operative and activity reports based on overhead surveillance, according to a former intelligence official familiar with the material. The intelligence suggested the hospital was being used as a Taliban command and control center and may have housed heavy weapons.

After the attack — which came amidst a battle to retake the northern Afghan city of Kunduz from the Taliban — some U.S. analysts assessed that the strike had been justified, the former officer says. They concluded that the Pakistani, believed to have been working for his country's Inter-Service Intelligence directorate, had been killed.

No evidence has surfaced publicly to support those conclusions about the Pakistani's connections or his demise. The former intelligence official was not authorized to comment publicly and spoke only on condition of anonymity.

The top U.S. officer in Afghanistan, Gen. John Campbell, has said the strike was a mistake, but he has not explained exactly how it happened or who granted final approval. He also told Congress he was ordering all personnel in Afghanistan to be retrained on the rules governing the circumstances under which strikes are acceptable.

The new details about the military's suspicions that the hospital was being misused complicate an already murky picture and add to the unanswered questions about one of the worst civilian casualty incidents of the Afghan war. They also raise the possibility of a breakdown in intelligence sharing and communication across the military chain of command.

Pentagon officials declined comment.

What the new details suggest "is that the hospital was intentionally targeted, killing at least 22 patients and MSF staff," said Meinie Nicolai, president of the operational directorate of Doctors without Borders, which is also known by its French initials MSF.
"This would amount to a premeditated massacre. ...

Initially, the military portrayed the incident as an accident stemming from the fog of war. American forces in the vicinity were under attack, a U.S. military spokesperson in Afghanistan said in a statement, and called in an air strike "against individuals threatening the force. The strike may have resulted in collateral damage to a nearby medical facility."

Two days later, Campbell told reporters that "Afghan forces advised that they were taking fire from enemy positions and asked for air support from U.S. forces."

He added, "An airstrike was then called to eliminate the Taliban threat and several civilians were accidentally struck."

The following day, however, Campbell told the Senate Armed Services Committee, "To be clear, the decision ... was a U.S. decision made within the U.S. chain of command. A hospital was mistakenly struck. We would never intentionally target a protected medical facility."

Asked about the location of any U.S. troops on the ground, Campbell said, "We had a special operations unit that was in close vicinity that was talking to the aircraft that delivered those fires."

His remark did not make clear whether any American on the ground had a direct view of the hospital. Military officials declined to answer questions, citing the investigation.

According to the former special operations officer, the commander on the ground has told superiors he was in the worst firefight of his career while taking fire from the building, which he said he did not know was a hospital. He requested the gunship strike. In that scenario, it's not readily apparent why his unit couldn't have retreated. The hospital is within a compound surrounded by a high wall that could have offered cover from fire emanating from one building.

The intelligence analysts who were gathering information about suspected Taliban activity at the hospital were located in various bases around Afghanistan, and were exchanging information over classified military intelligence systems. Typically, a decision to order a strike in a populated area would require many layers of approval and intelligence analysis of the potential impacts and civilian casualties.
 
actually this 'plot' has quiet some similarities of a recent Bollywood movie - MSF has opened a courtcase against the movie makers.

Medical charity MSF takes legal action against makers of Bollywood film "Phantom" - http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/08/28/india-bollywood-aid-idINKCN0QX0XF20150828

The action-thriller was released on Friday and features British-Indian actress Katrina Kaif playing a role she has described as an MSF aid worker who helps a disgraced Indian soldier, played by actor Saif Ali Khan, to assassinate Pakistani militants accused of being behind the 2008 Mumbai attacks.
 
Jeremy F Kreuz said:
actually this 'plot' has quiet some similarities of a recent Bollywood movie - MSF has opened a courtcase against the movie makers.

Medical charity MSF takes legal action against makers of Bollywood film "Phantom" - http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/08/28/india-bollywood-aid-idINKCN0QX0XF20150828

The action-thriller was released on Friday and features British-Indian actress Katrina Kaif playing a role she has described as an MSF aid worker who helps a disgraced Indian soldier, played by actor Saif Ali Khan, to assassinate Pakistani militants accused of being behind the 2008 Mumbai attacks.

That article and the release of the "Phantom" movie were at the end of August (Fri Aug 28, 2015) and the Kunduz Hospital airstrike was on early Saturday Morning October 3rd - basically with the month of September in between - close enough for horseshoes and a possible connection, I'd say? Especially, since they have just inserted a "Pakistani operative" into the story line?

Question is - What's behind the debasement and character assassination against MSF/DWB and where does a Pakistani operative/militant fit in?

Well, as far as Pakistan, this just came up on the wire:

US examining ways to limit Pakistan’s nuclear weapons stockpile
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/10/15/433564/Pakistan-US-Nuclear-Arsenal-Abdul-Qadeer-Khan

The administration of US President Barack Obama is examining ways to limit Pakistan’s nuclear weapons stockpile, considered as the world’s fastest-growing nuclear arsenal.

Washington is in talks with Islamabad to reach a nuclear arms control deal, ahead of Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s visit to the White House next week, The New York Times reported Thursday.

The negotiations are focused on US concerns that Pakistan might deploy a small tactical nuclear weapon that is far more difficult to secure than the country’s arsenal of larger weapons, the newspaper said.

The tactical nuclear weapons are explicitly modeled on weapons the United States deployed in Europe during the Cold War to deter an invasion from the former Soviet Union.

But outside experts familiar with the negotiations have expressed deep skepticism that Pakistan is ready to put any limitations on a program that it considers the pride of the nation.

The Washington Post first reported on the talks a week ago. Obama administration officials have declined to comment on the talks before Sharif’s visit.

So far, most efforts to manage the issue have been covert. Most proliferation experts consider the Pakistani nuclear problem to be the most dangerous on earth.

The discussions come a decade after Abdul Qadeer Khan, one of the founders of Pakistan's nuclear program, was caught selling nuclear technology to several countries.

The activities of Khan prompted more than ten years of American-led punishments against Pakistan’s nuclear facilities.

Khan ran the world’s most sophisticated black market in the equipment required to make nuclear fuel. North Korea and Libya were among his clients.


During the George W. Bush’s administration, the US spent as much as $100 million on a highly classified program to help secure Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, in the form of providing physical security as well as training the Pakistani security personnel.

President Obama has continued those efforts. Officials from the State Department, Energy Department and intelligence officials have held secret meetings with senior Pakistani officials from the Strategic Plans Division that controls the country’s arsenal.
 
The U.S. Military and NATO are now providing "a humanitarian service" by driving a Military Tank through the bombed Hospital!"

US Rejects Hospital Bombing Investigation, Instead Smashes into Hospital with Tank, Destroying Evidence
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/10/us-rejects-investigation-instead-smashes-into-hospital-in-tank-destroying-evidence.html

After changing its story many times, the US now admits that it intentionally threw bombs, for more than an hour, at the now famous Doctors Without Borders hospital, proving accurate the assessment of DWB staffer Meinie Nicolai, who said the US attack was “a premeditated massacre.”

Since initial US claims that the protected DWB hospital was a “Taliban stronghold” and so forth have been debunked as stupid, the US now claims it targeted the hospital because one man, a “Pakistan Inter-Services Intelligence spy”, was inside.

However, Glenn Greenwald points out that the US puppet government in Afghanistan has had it out for DWB for some time because they treat patients indiscriminately, whereas US allies like Israel, for example, discriminate between patients, treating Al Qaeda fighters while targeting members of the UN-recognized Syrian government: “Israel has opened its borders with Syria in order to provide medical treatment to Nusra Front and al-Qaida fighters wounded in the ongoing civil war, according to The Wall Street Journal.”

On October 14th, an “international panel” announced that it was “ready to investigate the deadly US [hospital] bombing”, but would need “assurances from Barack Obama and the Afghan president, Ashraf Ghani, that their governments [would] comply.”

The US rejected the initiative for the investigation, and instead, on October 15th, sent soldiers to smash up the bombed hospital with a tank, “destroy[ing] potential evidence” for the war crimes investigation.

To explain this, the US announced that the tank was carrying the US’s own “investigators”.


In the mean time, a whistle-blower has released classified documents on Obama’s global assassination ring that illustrate gross recklessness and confirm that almost one hundred percent of the people being killed are not actual targets – though targeting people and executing them is also criminal.


US tank enters ruined Afghan hospital putting 'war crime' evidence at risk
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/15/us-tank-enters-ruined-afghan-hospital-putting-war-evidence-at-risk#comment-61538219

MSF says ‘forced entry’ by military vehicle – later said to be carrying investigators into the US airstrike that killed 22 patients and staff – caused stress and fear.

A US tank has forced its way into the shell of the Afghanistan hospital destroyed in an airstrike 11 days ago, prompting warnings that the US military may have destroyed evidence in a potential war crimes investigation.

The 3 October attack on the Médécins sans Frontières (MSF) hospital in Kunduz killed 10 patients and 12 staff members of the group.

In a statement on Thursday, the medical charity, also known as Doctors Without Borders, said they were informed after Thursday’s “intrusion” that the tank was carrying investigators from a US-Nato-Afghan team which is investigating the attack.

“Their unannounced and forced entry damaged property, destroyed potential evidence and caused stress and fear,” MSF said.

The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the reported intrusion, which came as new evidence emerged that US forces operating in the area at the time of the attack knew that the facility was a hospital.
 
only the wise learn from their mistakes - Pentagon: US Tank Crashed Through Bombed Kunduz Hospital Gate by 'Mistake' http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20151020/1028794810/kunduz-hospital-gate-ramming.html

Pentagon spokesman, Captain Jeff Davis, said on Monday that the team aboard the tracked vehicle went to the hospital to assess the structural integrity of the building to see if it could be rebuilt.

They were unaware that there were Doctors Without Borders personnel at the hospital and had not contacted the organization about their visit in advance, Davis added.

So to assess the structural integrity of the building they were just going to ram it with a tank? I thought there were more sensitive and probably more accurate techniques. What if they razed the whole building to the ground - what would have been the conclusion? that the assessment concluded it was not structural integer?
 
Back
Top Bottom