Dersom det var slik at Rumsfeld gav ordre til at alle i den omringede byen skulle drepes ville det vært sensjonelt, og en virkelig alvorlig krigsforbrytelse. Men det er ikke det han har gjort. Han har bare sagt at de amerikanske styrkene som består av observatører, rådgivere, flystyrker og kommandosoldater i små team ikke har mulighet til å ta krigsfanger. Det gjorde heller ikke britiske commandos i Norge under 2. verdenskrig. Heller ikke hjemmefrontens sabotører. I tillegg sier han
> It’s our hope that they will not engage in
> negotiations that would provide for the release of al-Qaeda forces.
> The idea of their getting out of the country and going off to make their
> mischief somewhere else is not a happy prospect. So my hope is that they
> will either be killed or taken prisoner (by the Northern Alliance).”
Rumsfelds ansvarsfraskrivelse er stor og faren for at de utenlandske taliban-soldatene vil bli drept er også stor. Men Nord-alliansen har et tilbud:
> If a country accepted them as
> refugees, we would have no problem, they can go free. We have been in
> contact with the UN over this.”
Etter genevekonvensjonene er det Nord-alliansens ansvar å ta krigsfanger og behandle de etter regelverket, inkludert utenlandske talibaner. Men det er faktisk ikke i strid med folkeretten å dømme disse til døden (etter individuelle rettssaker med ankemulighet). Nord-alliansen er Afghanistans legitime regjering (ifølge FN) og kan anse utlendingene som banditter siden de ikke er soldater for et annet land.
Siden hverken arabiske land, Pakistan eller Russland (Tsjetjenia) har ytret noe ønske om å få utlevert sine statsborgere i den omringede byen Konduz, ser det mørkt ut for dem. Ikke tror jeg noe vestelig land vil åpne sine asylmottak og/eller fengsler for dem heller.
Ottar Birkeland
-----Original Message-----
From: "Per I. Mathisen"
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 12:06:49 +0100 (MET)
To:
Subject: The Times: American will take no prisoners
> Nå er altså Genev-konvensjonen også avskaffet.
>
> Mvh,
> Per
>
>
> TUESDAY NOVEMBER 20 2001
> America will take no prisoners
>
> FROM IAN COBAIN IN KONDUZ PROVINCE AND DAMIAN WHITWORTH IN WASHINGTON
> http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2001530003-2001533140,00.html
>
> US scorns deal to free al-Qaeda's trapped mercenaries
> No way out alive for trapped Mullah Omar
>
> AMERICAN forces attacking Taleban fighters in Afghanistan are under orders
> to take no prisoners, the US Defence Secretary said last night.
> Donald Rumsfeld also ruled out suggestions that thousands of al-Qaeda
> mercenaries trapped !
in the northern city of Konduz might be allowed to
> negotiate safe passage to a third country, and said that America would do
> all in its power to stop Mullah Muhammad Omar, the Taleban leader, fleeing
> Afghanistan.
>
> “The United States is not inclined to negotiate surrenders, nor are we in
> a position, with relatively small numbers of forces on the ground, to
> accept prisoners,” he said.
>
> Mr Rumsfeld was responding to attempts by opposition forces to negotiate a
> peaceful end to the siege of Konduz. General Mohammad Dawood Khan,
> commanding the Northern Alliance forces that face the Taleban on three
> sides of the city, told The Times: “If a country accepted them as
> refugees, we would have no problem, they can go free. We have been in
> contact with the UN over this.”
>
> The deal is being discussed to avoid massive bloodshed during any attempt
&!
gt; to take the city by force. Up to 30,000 troops, including up to 10,000
> foreign fighters, are encircled in Konduz, the last outpost of Taleban
> resistance in the north of Afghanistan.
>
> The prospect of giving safe passage to large numbers of fundamentalists
> alarms Washington because they would be expected to regroup and possibly
> wage guerrilla war against whatever government may be established in
> Kabul, or to plot further terrorists attacks.
>
> Mr Rumsfeld said: “Any idea that those people in that town who have been
> fighting so viciously and who refuse to surrender should end up in some
> sort of a negotiation which would allow them to leave the country and go
> off and destabilise other countries and engage in terrorist attacks on the
> United States is something that I would certainly do everything I could to
> prevent. They’re people who have done terrible th!
ings.”
>
> The US was not prepared to negotiate with the Taleban or al-Qaeda’s
> foreign forces, he added. “It’s our hope that they will not engage in
> negotiations that would provide for the release of al-Qaeda forces.
>
> “The idea of their getting out of the country and going off to make their
> mischief somewhere else is not a happy prospect. So my hope is that they
> will either be killed or taken prisoner (by the Northern Alliance).” Mr
> Rumsfeld would not say if US forces would pursue al-Qaeda over borders,
> but said “We might have an early, intensive consultation with the
> neighbours.”
>
> He also ruled out the possibility of Mullah Omar being allowed to find a
> safe exit from Kandahar. “Would I knowingly let him get out of Kandahar?
> No I would not,” he said.
>
> Under the terms being negotiated by the Alliance, thousands of foreigners
>!
; loyal to bin Laden — including Pakistanis, Chechens and Arabs — would be
> allowed to scramble to freedom as refugees to another country, possibly
> Pakistan.
>
> The alternative appears to be a battle in which fanatical foreign
> fundamentalists might take a heavy toll on the city’s 200,000-plus
> inhabitants as well as on the Alliance forces.
>
> Mr Rumsfeld’s words will strain fragile relations between the US and the
> Northern Alliance, the coalition’s nominal allies in Afghanistan, at a
> time when growing divisions are emerging between Washington and London
> over the role of British troops.
>
> Defence sources in London said the deployment of thousands of British
> forces to Afghanistan was being delayed because Washington was more
> concerned with hunting bin Laden than with establishing a peace-support
> force.
>
> Although the Northern All!
iance had objected to the deployment of a large
> “foreign” force, the sources said that the impasse “had more to do with
> Washington than Kabul”.
>
> While denying suggestions of a rift between President Bush and Mr Blair,
> officials hinted that the deployment was not happening as quickly as
> Britain would like. Downing Street insisted, however, that more British
> forces would be on their way before long.
>
> On the fate of Taleban fighters in Konduz, government sources declined to
> comment publicly, but ministers voiced strong misgivings about the
> suggestion that al-Qaeda members should be allowed to escape. One said:
> “We don’t want to see a slaughter, but equally we do not want these people
> allowed to go free. it is quite possible that there are future bin Ladens
> trapped in Konduz. This is not the time to let them go.”
>
> Pakistan said it would not!
allow a safe passage into the country to any
> fighters from Afghanistan and it has put border troops on the highest
> alert.
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com1 cent a minute calls anywhere in the U.S.!
http://www.getpennytalk.com/cgi-bin/adforward.cgi?p_key=RG9853KJ&url=http://www.getpennytalk.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 11-07-02 MET DST