Dotting the I's, Crossing the T's: Investigating War Crimes in Afghanistan

Because there are allegations that the Bush administration avoided investigating the deaths of 1000 Taliban prisonersTaliban prisoners that surrendered in Afganistan in 2001, President Obama has ordered his National Security team to investigate it.

Good play Obama. While American troops are not accused of the troops, the U.S. is accused of supporting the Afghan Warlord that may have ordered this.

There are rules for everything, even something that seems as destructive and unbridled as war. Now we can argue on the technicalities of using the word "war" verus using the word "conflict". We can make technical distinctions between "conventional warfare" and then "operations". But I will just say that there are rules of engagement during combat that are outlined in the Geneva Conventions on the Treatment of Prisoner's of War. Like it or not, it has become an internationally accepted norm, called in legalese , meaning that any country, whether a signatory to this convention or not (because it was drafted so long ago) are obligated to respect the provisions of this treaty. Killing prisoners of war - that would be something to stay away from.

The Bush administration did not investigate this. But if this is true, it does not surprise me. Bush and his aides had very little respect for multilateral cooperation and international obligation - think Kyoto, going into Iraq against UN wishes, Guantanamo - so violating the Geneva Conventions would not surprise me.

Namely because it would have been easy for them to "justify" the actions if it is true that a warlord supported by America did this and got away with it. The technicalities I mentioned earlier? Yep. That is where the splitting hair begins. Is Afganistan a conventional war? Well only U.S. Congress can declare war - have they? nope. There are not armies with readily identifiable uniforms or weapons- we have guerrilas, civilians operatives, special operations forces - that is definitely not conventional. There is no "high state" or enemy government war has been declared on- the enemy America fights is an idea, a movement that manifests itself through terrorism. Since the Geneva Conventions speak very specifically about who qualifies as a prisoner of war, that means it doesn't apply to Afganistan, right? That would make killing 1000 prisoners legit, right?

I do not think this is logic too far off from that used by the Bush Administration in fighting its War on Terrorism. The Bush Administration definitely construed the Geneva Conventions and every other international provision narrowly - narrowly enough to fit their interests.

Whatever the result of the ordered investigation, I applaud Obama for his consistency. Repairing the American image in the international community, but more importantly showing responsibility when/if American actions may have had unintended effects.