Afghanistan mass grave coverup: update on evidence.

Following up on last week's post about our government's attempts to block investigation into mass killings in Afghanistan by a US-backed warlord (see this NYT article by James Risen):

There is an update to the story today from Mark Benjamin at Salon, where you can also read through the archive of related FBI documents in PDF form.

And Ben Greenberg writes in from Physicians for Human Rights, the organization that discovered the mass grave where the victims were buried. They've been investigating the case and advocating for appropriate action since 2001. Ben says:

Thumbnail image for 24oct2007wide-annotated-web500px.jpg
We've produced a 10 minute documentary video about the massacre and the three federal investigations that were impeded by the Bush Administration. It's called War Crimes and the White House: The Bush Administration's Cover-Up of the Dasht-e-Leili Massacre.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science has also produced a report based on high resolution satellite imagery that shows evidence of when and how the mass grave site was subsequently dug up. A blog post on the satellite imagery report is here and the main images from the report are available here, along with a .kml file that can be used with Google Earth.

Since the New York Times story by James Risen, President Obama has stated on national television that he is asking the National Security Council to gather the facts concerning the massacre and the alleged cover up.

We are petitioning Attorney General Holder to resume the FBI investigation that was shut down bu the Bush Administration.

All of these items, as well as other photos and documents, are available at a website that we've set up for the case:



  1. Imagine the same story with the headline “Saddam-backed Warlord” and you’ve got a better rationale for invasion than any of the reasons they actually used.

  2. The comments on the 10 minute documentary are…interesting.

    I’m not exactly law/politically savvy, but it seems to me that they could have left off the first couple minutes of accusations and almost vitriol and just got right into the evidence. Not that I don’t personally agree with them, it just seems to distract from the facts that are presented later on in the video.

  3. Glindie, I agree. I would have edited the video differently. They’re sort of getting in the way of the most compelling material. I could have done without the first few minutes entirely. Whoever edited this doesn’t understand how people tend to view video online.

  4. I guess Ronald Reagan was right about the Northern Alliance after all… not that the folks Reagan backed (currently known as Al Qaeda) were much better.

Comments are closed.