The bill would enshrine in law a double standard for war crimes committed in a "jihad" setting. If it passes in both houses of parliament, will Karzai sign it? "Jirga grants immunity for war crimes," from AFP:
KABUL: Afghanistan's warlord-filled parliament has approved a bill ruling out judicial proceedings against men accused of rights abuses in the past 25 years of conflict, a spokesman said yesterday.
The lower house, or Wolesi Jirga, approved the legislation on Wednesday saying it was in the interests of peace and reconciliation, parliament secretariat spokesman Haseeb Noori said. It has to be passed by the upper house before being sent to President Hamid Karzai for signing into law.
The move is controversial in Afghanistan where commanders of the Soviet resistance of the 1980s have been accused of war crimes and abuses including murder during the country's 1992-1996 civil war.
It was criticised by the country's top rights body and by outspoken legislator Malalai Joya, one of the few MPs that did not approve the bill, who said unity would not be brought about by "forgiving national traitors."
International watchdog Human Rights Watch (HRW) called last month for a truth and reconciliation court to deal with war crimes and human rights abuses, including by some who still "hold high office".
The National Reconciliation Bill says the "defenders" of the jihad "must be treated with respect and be defended against any kind of offence," Noori said.
"In a move to reconcile different communities, the law states that no political party or groups involved in the past two and a half decades of war will be pursued by the judiciary," he said.
A translation of the first article reads: "Jihad, resistance and our people's rightful wars for defending their country and religion are counted as vital national pride and must be honoured... and appreciated by suitable privileges."
The bill also calls on people who oppose Karzai's government, including the extremist Taliban movement waging a bloody insurgency, to join a process to bring peace to the war-battered country.
Joya, known for standing up to the jihadi commanders who occupy many of the seats in parliament, said the draft was unjust and went "against the will of the people."
"National unity cannot be achieved through forgiving national traitors," she said.
"They must be tried. In fact, they have already been tried in the minds and hearts of people and they should be tried officially," she said.
Only victims of abuse could choose to forgive the perpetrators, said Nader Nadery from the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission.
The commission "welcomes efforts for promoting reconciliation. At the same time we believe granting blanket amnesty will only permit impunity," the commissioner said.
The commission has been pushing for a national reconciliation process that delves into what happened and results in measures to remove human rights abusers from positions of power.
HRW said in December Afghan and international judges would hear cases relating to the 1979-1992 communist regime which included the Soviet occupation, the 1992-1996 civil war and the 1996-2001 Taliban regime.
"Several highly placed members of the current Afghan government and legislature were implicated in war crimes," it said.
The watchdog named former minister Mohamed Qasim Fahim, former president Burhanuddin Rabbani, energy minister Ismail Khan and vice president Karim Khalili as meriting human rights charges.
Talked to J. B. Kelly recently. He repeated what he had said before, that the Iraq war was lunacy, on the part of the Americans, and that the people in Iraq should be left alone to make or mar the country called "Iraq." His experience of Iraq, "that awful place," was a bit longer than that of Bush or Cheney or Rice. He had first gone there in 1956, and then again in the 1960s, and of course had had "elder statesman" Adnan Pachachi as a supposed colleague in Abu Dhabi in the 1970s. And from the other side of the Gulf he had watched it ever since.
I reminded him of the three-way Conference Call that Kelly, Bernard Lewis, and someone very high in the Pentagon had had about the Iraq venture early on. Kelly said at the time that it was unwise and would "all end in tears." Bernard Lewis, the enthusiast, hearing that, became slightly less of an enthusiast -- as he tends to do when confronted with someone who has been there, who knows the place, and who rightly regards himself as at least his equal in thesae matters --in other words, not a simpering sycophant or acolyte or worshipper of any kind, but someone who has known Lewis as an equal, the way that Kelly, Kedourie, Sylvia Haim, and P. J. Vatikiotis did). Lewis remained an enthusiast, of course, however careful he was on that call wtih Kelly, and has taken to blaming faulty execution of an otherwise-sensible strategy, i.e. to blame the Administration and not those who, like himself, were those who promoted at every step the policy of Iraq-the-Light-Unto-the-Muslim-Nations.
We then disucssed what Kelly called "the Afghan Campaign." No Europeans had ever held Afghanistan, he pointed out. Even the ruthless Red Army, after 100,000 casualties and expenses so huge that they had to get out -- the war was bankrupting the admittedly-not-very-rich Soviet state, and some of the Muslims in that army were deserting and posing other dangers -- could not hold Afghanistan. And why should the Americans try at such great expense? They have planes and missiles. They can project poweer. They can play pay off, and then play off, local tribes as necessary. They can be vigilant without invading or holding or redoing that impossible country. Leave that hopeless situation to remain hopeless -- for its Muslim native inhabitants -- and just keep the place unpleasant and dangerous for Arab and Pakistani terrorists, by playing on
Afghan resentments of both, using local agents, and so on.
No point in attempting, I thought to myself, Instant Makeover of Afghanistan, especially if it turns out not to be Instant and leads to a decade of commitment and danger that will do nothing for us, but help Afghanistan become permanently dependent on the West and enjoying that dependence. And the results of that Instant Makeover more likely to produce not a beauty but one of those examples of cosmetic surgery that goes horribly wrong, and no one knows what to say.
Amazing, even Afghanistan doesn't know who the enemy is, but they expect us to put it all in control ?
Another instance of moslem lunacy and evidence that their world view is unlike that of western civilization. Also, methinks that the people Joya knows, that are against the bill, are a minority in her own country.
(However, the US government has swung very far from justice in the other direction; witness the 2 border agents that are in jail for shooting a drug courier from mexico and the numerous cases brought against US servicemen and women recently and the weird convoluted rules of engagement imposed upon them.)
Yep, there they go again. Our loyal, heroic, anti-taliban, pro-U.S. muslim allies (Okay, sarcasm off now). If people out there learned nothing from the sad saga of Abdul Rahman, I hope that this gesture of "gratitude" has finally taught them a simple truth: THERE ARE NO GOOD MUSLIMS! THERE ARE NO MUSLIM "ALLIES" ANYWHERE!
In these Islamic countries we have the noble idea of instilling democracy and that the people will latch on to it and thank us for it.
In fact what we are doing is attempting to teach phrinnas in a pool to have better dinner manners.
Impossible.
Absolute Folly.
The tyranny is the same...only the faces have changed. The poison of Islam is too deep into the body politic to offer hope to the poor humanity who thirst for freedom. Our only salvation for them is to force the governmnet to allow the good souls to leave and seek asylum in the lands that are still free. Revert the swill who don't respect that freedomin those lands as trade back to their Islamic hell hole of origin.
Looks like a Muslim is, after all, a Muslim... whether s/he is a jihadi or a socalled "Ally of the West in the global fight against terror."
I've never been able to connect Human Rights with anything of Islam; it doesn't exist. Somebody's trying to turn apples into oranges; it ain't gonna happen.
Forget both Iraq and Afghanistan. Their civic culture is civic barbarism.
Personally I think the war In Afganistan is woefully reported in all Western MSM.
What I want to know is are the MSM correct when they represent those resisting Allied forces as “The Taliban”
Is it like when a newspaper gives you a healdline “Al-Qaeda attack foiled in London?” Assuming all Western-terrorism is caused by this shadowy organisation – would that were true.
Are the forces resisting allied occupation really “Taliban “ or are they Muslim extremists in general? It would help if politicians and media could get real on this issue – the alternative is perhaps a bottomless political and military quagmire.
There is no doubt there are splendid individuals in the Afgan Police and Military who can be counted on as real allies. It is just grossly oversimplified to believe there is single homogenous organisation called “The Taliban.”
Rather like the Civil War in Lebanon, there are probably factions and factions within factions.
Rather like the war in Vietnam there is probably a virtually limitless pool of potential new recruits.
I wish the MSM would properly report these issues.
Anyone know any good websites?
Is there any doubt that Iran is hip deep in Afganistan? We all hear about Pakistan, but they are an allie-of sorts. So it would be natural for the press to point out all their wrongs. Real or not. Despite our need to fly over them to even get to Afganistan.
You Just don't hear about Irans Involvement through the MSM. They havn't made much of it with reguards to Iraq. So one cannot expect to say much about it reguarding Iran. I mean, it may make people in the US feel Intollerant.
Better leave it to the President to make the claims to better discredit him. Easy to claim Bad Inteligence coupled with willfull lack of coverage knowing the proof of the Presidents claims would be in the reporting.