【蜂報】cyberbees.blog
![[301戰役]](http://www.cyberbees.org/blog/images/301.gif "301戰役")
![[921黑洞]](http://www.cyberbees.org/blog/images/921.jpg "921黑洞")
![[台灣日本綜合研究]](http://www.cyberbees.org/blog/images/tjr.jpg "台灣日本綜合研究")
![[部落烽火]](http://www.cyberbees.org/blog/images/abo.jpg "部落烽火")
![[反戰]](http://www.cyberbees.org/blog/images/anti-war.jpg "反戰")
![[大學不滿足]](http://www.cyberbees.org/blog/images/collage.jpg "大學不滿足")
![[智慧共和國]](http://www.cyberbees.org/blog/images/copyleft.jpg "智慧共和國")
![[人民衛生署]](http://www.cyberbees.org/blog/images/doctor.jpg "人民衛生署")
![[百年大不計]](http://www.cyberbees.org/blog/images/edu.jpg "百年大不計")
![[重唱農村曲]](http://www.cyberbees.org/blog/images/farmer.jpg "重唱農村曲")
![[工殤即國殤]](http://www.cyberbees.org/blog/images/flower.jpg "工殤即國殤")
![[GREENEWS]](http://www.cyberbees.org/blog/images/greenews.jpg "GREENEWS")
![[大鳴大放]](http://www.cyberbees.org/blog/images/joinbee.jpg "大鳴大放")
![[貧富兩國]](http://www.cyberbees.org/blog/images/vs.jpg "貧富兩國")
![[新新聞]](http://WWW.cyberbees.org/blog/news.jpg "新新聞")
![[星期人物觀點]](http://www.cyberbees.org/blog/images/people.gif "星期人物觀點")
![[菲律賓現場目擊]](http://www.cyberbees.org/blog/images/philipin.jpg "菲律賓現場目擊")
![[另類銀髮族]](http://www.cyberbees.org/blog/images/white.jpg "另類銀髮族")
![[職場民主牆]](http://www.cyberbees.org/blog/images/worker.jpg "職場民主牆")
2003-06-02 19:39:51美國姑娘調查伊拉克傷亡的真相!對於剛剛結束的美國侵略伊拉克戰爭,關於美軍傷亡人數,美國聯邦政府<國防部>五角大廈有十分精確的統計資料,但對於戰爭中伊拉克老百姓傷亡的情況,卻一直視若不見｡根據美國《芝加哥論壇報》日前報導,目前,一位26歲的普通美國女性正與一批志同道和者,奔走於伊拉克各地,挨家逐戶地調查統計平民百姓的傷亡數字｡
在調查研究過程中,魯茲卡等人深切體會到這場戰爭的殘酷,更對美英聯軍在戰爭中濫殺無辜的真相感到震驚! 5月24日,魯茲卡走訪位於<底格裏斯河>河畔的<拉西迪亞鎮>,該鎮於4月5日遭受美軍戰機的狂轟濫炸,約有一百人死亡,死者中無一名伊拉克軍人,全是平民百姓｡在一棟民宅中,魯茲卡發現,近一歲半的男童哈馬迪是家裏唯一未受傷者,父母､三個姐姐和兩個哥哥皆被炸死!在另一戶人家,42名人口慘遭滅門!其中,許多是從首都<巴格達>帶著小孩逃難至此,未料,仍躲不過美軍的殺戮! 從魯茲卡等人的調查研究結果顯示,伊拉克平民百姓實際死亡比人數遠高於現在所有的估計,魯茲卡推算,平民百姓死亡總數在五千到一萬之間! 調查,是爲了爭取賠償;調查工作非常艱難,這不僅因爲伊拉克治安惡化,而且也缺乏伊拉克官方對士兵和平民傷亡的統計資料｡醫院雖有死者的書面記錄,但由於戰爭致使傷患､屍體等人潮湧入,再加上暴徒襲劫醫院,有些記錄已經遺失,難以尋找! 魯茲卡表示,每個統計數字都代表著一個悲劇,意味著一位父親､一位母親或一個孩子失去了生命!我們要靠精確的統計數字來爲死者爭取賠償,爲受傷者提供醫療,幫伊拉克平民百姓重建家園｡ 魯茲卡最初的工作是從約旦首都<安曼>開始,3月20日,美國對伊拉克展開軍事侵略當天,一名約旦計程車司機,在<巴格達>以西約150公里的<拉馬迪鎮>電話局和家裏通電話,美軍炸彈將電話局炸成廢墟,據說,這名約旦計程車司機是死於戰爭的第一位平民!幾天後,屍體運回<安曼>,魯茲卡到死者家裏弔唁,此後,魯茲卡便一個接一個地與死者家屬接觸,而交談經常被嚎啕悲泣所打斷! 來伊拉克之前,魯茲卡等人先從事了因911事件而導致美國侵略阿富汗戰爭的傷亡調查工作,雖然,調查結果是阿富汗平民百姓死亡人數824人,但是,魯茲卡認爲,真實的數字至少要多一倍! 依據從阿富汗調查所得的第一手資料,魯茲卡說服了美國國會參議員裏希,爭取一筆375萬美元的撥款,用於撫恤阿富汗死難平民的家屬｡裏希參議員對魯茲卡留下深刻印象,稱道:美國的外交政策需要這樣揭露事實真相的人! 魯茲卡在伊拉克的調查工作剛剛起步,未來艱險重重,然而,她現在已遇到資金短缺的困境,銀行帳戶裡只剩下50美元,她正在向美國<國務院國際開發署>申請補助,在申請獲得批准之前,只能仰賴朋友的資助｡ 由 發表於 June 2, 2003 07:39 PM | 引用迴響
the leaders in computer disk retrieval Posted by: computer disk retrieval 發表於 December 7, 2004 11:37 PM michelle vieth video was Posted by: michelle vieth video was 發表於 November 28, 2004 09:17 AM michelle vieth video was Posted by: michelle vieth video was 發表於 November 28, 2004 09:16 AM michelle vieth video was Posted by: michelle vieth video was 發表於 November 28, 2004 09:13 AM michelle vieth video was Posted by: michelle vieth video was 發表於 November 28, 2004 09:13 AM Helping individuals who have suffered a heart attack or stroke from the prescription drug vioxx vioxx class action suits
viox law firms florida Posted by: vioxx class action 發表於 November 24, 2004 01:44 PM I'm a creationist; I refuse to believe that I could have evolved from Posted by: Mortgage Refinance 發表於 November 16, 2004 01:44 AM 補充一下, 妳說: "連「New York Times 」都以這位女士的調查放在頭版的文章裡頭。" 據我這幾年的看報經驗,紐約時報恰好是我看過最不具新聞價值的報紙, 大約相當於國民黨時期的聯合報和民進黨時期的台灣日報, 它不像報紙, 而比較像一種機關報或文宣品, 人家 Chomsky 的牙齒就是因為看紐約時報而壞掉的, 因為他都看得咬牙切齒, 蠻沒品的一個報社. 我講這些都完全有根據的, 不是憑一己好惡. 以後有機會再談談這家報紙怎麼 "報新聞", 很沒品的. 陳真 2003. 6. 13. Posted by: 陳真 發表於 June 13, 2003 01:45 PM Over！Over！哈巴狗電台回應。Over！ 我不懷疑女超人確有其人，她還留有她在伊拉克某家旅館（Al Fanar Hotel）的房間號碼 507 不是嗎？甚至還有電話。可是，如果她身上只剩 50 美元，那應該睡兩晚就得走人了；因為要向國務院申請經費，不是得花很長時間嗎？ 而且，50 美元能用多久？如果這麼窮，怎麼可以這樣浪費？旅館一住就是兩個月。（她至少在 4 月 5 號就住進去了。） 而且，如果她真的挨家挨戶探訪、弔唁、調查，那她怎麼可能每天都能回到同一家旅館睡覺、接電話？難道受難者全住在她住的旅館附近？ 她有一個網站叫做“Campaign for Innocent Civilians in Conflict” （http://iraqvictimsfund.org/whoweare.htm）（“支援戰亂無辜平民運動”），也就是蜂報所提到的那個組織，不是說單是在伊拉克就有 150 個志工在挨家挨戶調查嗎？可是，妳看，在這個團體的“Who We Are?” 裏頭，卻只有一個人，也就是女超人自己，並且還有她和阿富汗人站在一起的玉照。其他人跑哪去了？他們做了些什麼？一個字也沒提到。像這麼突顯唯一個人的人權團體，我倒還是第一此看到。 而且，像美國國會這樣的一個政府機構，通過一筆微不足道、不夠買兩顆飛彈的三百多萬美元來支付所謂重建費用，自然有其一定的行政程序和政治考量，把這樣的一件事列為個人的社運成就，不是有點牽強嗎？ 講完這個似乎唯一的成就之後，網頁上另一欄就是叫大家捐款，可是，捐款的對象卻變了，變成另一個完全不一樣的名稱叫做（“同情伊拉克受難者運動”）（Iraq Victims Compassion Campaign）。這是什麼意思？ 而且，對於捐款之種種細節，毫無任何說明，比方說，捐款目的是要做什麼，如何運用、該“團體”或該女子將來是計劃要做什麼，繼續挨家挨戶調查嗎等等，毫無說明。 講不完，我做個結論好了。 1. 我不懷疑確有其人，但我完全不信那些報導，管它是紐約時報或蘋果日報。 2. 所謂“不信”，其實也不對，因為那不是信或不信的問題，那是根本不搭調的問題，脫離基本現實。 就好像若有人報導我一人踽踽獨行，在英國挨家挨戶鼓吹反戰，藉著不屈的意志，安慰了許多英國人的心，而且發起了人類歷史上最壯觀的反戰運動，但我身上只剩下三十英鎊，目前住在倫敦希爾頓飯店，準備向行政院申請一筆國際反戰運動基金，前路雖然艱苦，但我仍堅持繼續挨家挨戶鼓吹反戰到底。 如果有人看到這樣好萊塢式的報導，他沒有信或不信的問題，而是根本不該把它當一回事，因為，對於“報導”，我們才有信或不信的問題，對於“小說”，我們卻沒有信或不信的問題。 3. 我不以為西方主流媒體的報導品質會比非主流媒體（比如各人權團體或運動團體）好，也許應該說差太遠了。台灣主流媒體很八卦，西方也一樣，毫不遜色。 4. 我不是要質疑這個女超人的確做過某些事，而只是說那樣的報導和那樣的自我呈現，脫離了基本現實；就好像我也許做過一些什麼反戰的工作，但是，我若用上面那樣的報導方式來呈現自己，那我也一樣脫離了基本現實。在英國，哪有人會挨家挨戶去鼓吹反戰？不是因為它不可能做到，而是因為它脫離了基本現實，外行人講外行話。同樣地，我也無法理解在伊拉克挨家挨戶做調查的意思。 5. 伊拉克一直到現在，基本秩序仍未回復，人權觀察組織（Human Rights Watch）資深研究員 Zia-Zarifi 昨天（6 月3 號）這麼說：美軍控制伊拉克已經八個禮拜過去了，但是，巴斯拉（Basra，伊拉克第二大城市）卻仍然缺乏基本安全秩序。他進一步批評說，美國講了許多藉口，比方說人員不足，但是，Zia-Zarifi 說，許多狀況證明這純粹只是一種藉口，因為有許多安全狀況之改善與否，根本與人員數量多寡無關。完整報告長達 23 頁，請見：http://hrw.org/reports/2003/iraq0603/。 巴斯拉如此，巴格達更嚴重。MSF（醫師無國界組織）從上個月初就持續抗議美軍和英軍之疏於遵守日內瓦公約，使得巴格達沒有一家醫院能正常運作，並且導致大量病患和人員傷亡。這事直到最近幾天，仍無明顯改善。連相當保守的＜英國醫學期刊＞（BMJ）都因此於最近兩次發表聲明，譴責英國政府在巴斯拉之作為。 這類抗議和報導實在太多了。許多伊拉克婦女不敢出門，拒絕回去工作，就是因為基本安全沒有保障。 比方說，5 月 24 號，國際紅十字會和世界衛生組織（WHO）以及其它非政府組織，在巴格達開了一個會議，討論如何因應伊拉克目前的混亂狀態。與會人員指出，安全問題若不改善，國際援助物資和醫療用品就根本無法進入伊拉克。 許多病人持續喪生，比方說需要洗腎的病人、糖尿病病人、需要開緊急刀的病人等等。安全問題惡化到甚至連一位隸屬英國外科皇家學院（Royal College of Surgeons of Glasgow）的老醫師 Dr. Al-Nakeeb 都於五月中，在巴格達莫名其妙被射殺。 這項會議結束後，與會成員之一，世界衛生組織駐巴格達代表 Dr. Ghulam Popal 指出：“目前伊拉克的三個首要問題是安全、安全、安全”；沒有安全，一切人道救援工作就無法進行。 與會成員之一，Oxfam 駐巴格達的公關部主任 Alex Renton 說，巴格達有一半以上的醫院被持有槍械的“暴徒”所控制。 主要是英軍控制的第二大城巴斯拉，最近更爆發了霍亂，主要原因就是因為大部份飲水設施毀於戰火，仍未修復。聯合國兒童基金會（UNICEF）至今仍每天努力想辦法載運乾淨飲水進入這兩個城市，但是，因為安全問題而飽受阻撓。世界衛生組織更懷疑幾個主要水廠遭受霍亂菌的汙染。 諸如此類，許許多多的問題無從著手改善，甚至停擺，主要原因在於安全問題。很多人不敢出門，不是怕被搶，就是怕被姦、被殺。 我講這一堆，只是想提供一個基本現實狀況。你想，連醫院都運作不下去，連醫生、護士和許多上班族都不敢上班，在這種人人自危的混亂狀況下，實在很難想像一個美國年輕女子能夠如報導所說的那麼神勇，挨家挨戶幫助受難者，並且進行調查，甚至還榮獲美國參議員表揚說美國政府“就是需要這種講真話的人”，這未免太超現實，太八卦。 我覺得，做為一個媒體，與其誇大，不如保守，這樣才比較會受到人們的信任。我不是說報導必須一板一眼或是每個資料都得十分正確，而是說，我們至少得掌握住一個基本現實和基本事實，在這個基礎上再去做評論或甚至“創作”；而這也許是報導和文學的基本差異所在。 我相信，每一則報導都是一件文學作品，但是，兩者還是有個基本差異。就好像我也相信一切歷史作品都是文學作品一樣，但是，歷史著作終究不是小說。我相信，就算再怎麼“嚴謹”的歷史著作，它的本質，也永遠是文學性的、比喻性的（metaphorical），但是，這並不意味著歷史與文學是同一回事。 “新聞”是報導最近發生的事，而歷史也不過就是對過去的一種報導。一切報導都是文學，實在不需要再多弄出一個什麼“報導文學”的文類。就算報導文學，也仍然只是一種報導，仍然得合乎基本現實，而不是天馬行空的創作和剪接。 至於哈巴狗電台的文章，版權所有，但歡迎非營利之轉貼轉載，轉載原則請見首頁。不過，因為大多又臭又長，如果嫌太長，可以節錄，但得註明是“節錄”。還有，轉貼時不要讓人以為是作者自己貼的。這一點對我很重要。至於為什麼重要，久了就會明白，那是一種美感。 哈巴狗電台駐地球特派員 Posted by: 陳真 發表於 June 4, 2003 11:16 PM 2dogperson呼叫哈巴狗電台！OVER！ 【蜂報】能有【哈巴狗電台】直接從英文世界傳回非「主流媒體」的報導，真的是一件很令人高興的事，我想：蜂報的工作人員真的對英文有點束手無策，也希望能有更多的人在這方面給予協助，正如你所說的「中文世界的媒體從來不報導這些事」。不過希望「哈巴狗電台」對這篇蜂報的報導（不能說報導啦！應該是『中文編譯』）能夠給予一些諒解....因為，連「New York Times 」http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40813F83D5C0C728EDDAE0894DA404482或http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0720-09.htm都以這位女士的調查放在頭版的文章裡頭。 然後，我再查一下中文的「魯茲卡」就只有兩則囉！ 我想，對這部紀錄片亦然，盡快地，希望自己能用破破的英文，爛爛的翻譯，用電子報給他傳遍台灣這塊島嶼（也不管所謂的「隱私權了」！？） 總而言之，還是希望「哈巴狗電台」多多少少能向「蜂報」放送，否則，對讀者真是一個很大的損失。 Let’s take a look at the evidence presented: The Times account begins on shaky footing, assaulting the reader with indeterminate phraseology and imprecise figures: “On-site reviews of 11 locations where airstrikes killed upward of 400 civilians suggest that American commanders have sometimes relied on mistaken information from local Afghans.” Well, that’s all pretty vague. Surely the Times’s man in Afghanistan can give us some clear examples… The Times’s deep-cover agent has further information, although it is still a touch short on specifics: “The reviews, over a six-month period, found that the Pentagon's use of overwhelming force meant that even when true military targets were located, civilians were sometimes killed. (Well, gooooolly!)” The Times, again, fails to identify the covert NGO (or lone Bondian superhero) conducting these rather vague ‘reviews.’ It is then brought to our attention that the United States Air Force relies on a number of different intelligence sources in its quest to minimize civilian casualties during bomber runs, including friendly ‘spotters’ on the ground who feed information to US forces about troop movements and equipment locations. But, the Times explains, not everyone thinks this a reliable military tactic: “Its critics say that such information is inherently unreliable, and that the Pentagon has too often launched military strikes without a full understanding of what it is they were targeting.” What critics, you wonder? The CPUSA? Mumia Abu-Jamal? Hussein Ibish? Could it be the Times’s mole in Kabul again? The vague proclamations—couched in the language of a breaking story—continue: “Instead, the evidence suggests that many civilian victims have been killed by airstrikes hitting precisely the target they were aimed at. The civilians died, the evidence suggests, because they were targeted by mistake, or because in eagerness to kill Qaeda (sic) and Taliban fighters, Americans did not carefully differentiate between civilians and military targets.” Displaying a rare courage, The Times continues to protect the source of this “new evidence” more than halfway through its “USAF as Babykiller” expose. (The previous paragraph is, of course, also a bizarre logical formulation: the US military is unintentionally killing civilians because of bad information from politically motivated intelligence sources, according to “the evidence.” But, then again, the Times isn’t so sure about this. Postulate #2: Maybe the evil, mustache-twisting generals in Washington simply don’t care enough to “differentiate between civilians and military targets.” It is, the paper admits, anyone’s guess.) Finally the Times names its undercover source: “Marla Ruzicka, a Global Exchange field worker in Afghanistan, said the most common factor behind the civilian deaths has been an American reliance on incomplete information to decide on targets. ‘Smart bombs are only as smart as people on the ground,’ Ms. Ruzicka said. ‘Before you bomb, you should be 100 percent certain of who you are bombing.’" She is, according to the report, ‘investigating’ civilian deaths on the ground in Afghanistan. Global Exchange, (simply described by the Times as “an American organization”), is, in fact, a far-left group based in San Francisco that opposes globalization, conducts ‘reality tours’ of Cuba (Here is a hint: they don’t see the local gulags…), the United States military and, of course, capitalism. The Times source—Global Exchange’s foot soldier in Afghanistan—is a 24 year-old Green party apparatchik and Global Exchange member, hardly an objective source of information on civilian deaths. Here is cursory scan of Ruciska’s political curriculum vitae: -- The Marxist group Refuse and Resist recently honored Ruzicka with its ‘courageous resister award,’ for bravely ‘resisting’ the US travel ban to Cuba and holidaying on Castro’s island prison. “Marla Ruzicka and nearly fifty other high school students who traveled to Cuba in defiance of the US travel ban as part of a group organized by Global Exchange.” (Geez, pretty difficult award to win.) -- In a letter to her hometown newspaper, the San Francisco Chronicle, Ruzicka propagandizes for Fidel Castro: “Since the Cuban revolution in 1959, the government has promoted a policy of humanitarian internationalism… Pedro, who graduated from medical school in Havana in 1998, told me he was so poor before studying in Cuba that the first pair of shoes and pants he ever owned were given to him as part of his school uniform. Pedro says that his mother still has trouble believing her son is actually a doctor because he is the first one she has ever known. Because of Cuba, there are thousands of beautiful stories like Pedro's. (GASP!!)” -- Radio Havana carried an excerpt of a Ruziska speech condemning the U.S. air war in Afghanistan. -- From a news story on the World Socialist Web Site: “Marla Ruzicka, 23, an officially accredited observer from the Green Party, commented on the tactics of the Bush supporters. She described them as “really nasty. There was one guy with a bald head, like a skinhead. (See, they really are a bunch of little Goerings, ready to snatch the reins of power from ‘the people’! And then again, perhaps this particular Bushie was simply bald.) They surrounded me and called me a baby killer, because of my support for the right to abortion. (When did the issue of abortion come up?) When I pointed out Bush's presiding over the death penalty, they said: no, no, that's justice. They're scary. Maybe they're the ones who should be on the terrorist lists. (The NYT’s Woman in Kabul—the same one reporting on the Bush-backed air war—is a (now) 24 year old Green Party street brawler who thinks conservatives should be on ‘terrorist lists.’ Hmmmmm…we smell a rat)” -- A Yemeni shop owner outside of Berkeley was murdered in the weeks following 9-11. Police described the suspects as four teenage Hispanic males. The motive was never determined. Guess who showed up at the funeral? "’It's a terrible tragedy. We are against anymore innocent victims being taken,’ said Marla Ruzicka, who drove to the services from San Francisco.” -- And who could forget Marla’s criminal record: “A Green Party candidate for US Senate and two of her aides were arrested after disrupting a Democratic rally. Medea Benjamin, campaign manager Jane Brashares, and fund-raiser Marla Ruzicka were cited for trespassing and resisting arrest Monday night, police Lt. Louis Cassanego said. Democratic incumbent Dianne Feinstein was giving a speech when the trio began yelling at her, police said.” Marla Ruzicka: the Zelig of left-wing political causes and, it seems, The Times’s source for breaking news. But after 20 paragraphs of chest-puffing, the Times ultimately admits to reporting a non-story: “Indeed, the extraordinary accuracy of American bombs since they began falling 10 months ago produced few of the types of disasters that plagued past wars, when bombs aimed at one target hit something else instead.” Buried in the middle of the story, safely away from the inflammatory headline, is the truth. Welcome to the world of The Times. By Michael Moynihan. Posted by: 2dogperson 發表於 June 4, 2003 08:17 AM 後記（一）： 這文章貼出去後，我好奇地把中文字想像成英文，藉著幾個關鍵字，找到這篇中文的英文原始出處，是出現在 Chicago Maroon（http://www.chicagomaroon.com/main.cfm/include/smdetail/synid/88101.html）（如附件四）。所以，很抱歉，是我的錯。我本來以為這篇沒有署名的中文文章只是純瞎掰，根本沒有這個人。 不過，我的確還是覺得這個報導不像報導，而像在寫小說，因為完全脫離了真實情境。比方說，英文報導竟然如我所說，說這個 26 歲的美國女生等於是在給伊拉克死者家屬做“團體心理治療”。這未免太後現代了吧？首先，語言就是個問題不是嗎？而且，世上會有這麼後現代的戰亂局面嗎？ 伊拉克被“解放”後，一直處於無政府狀態，許多醫院無法運作，兩大城市只有一半的水可以喝。而且，最近霍亂增加，已經超越去年一整年的總病人數，治安混亂，難以自保…。就算語言可以通，我也很難想像會有誰家被炸彈炸毀、家人被殺死之後，還會有心情和膽量招待一個美國陌生女子到家裏給自己做心理治療或接受“悼唁”？！這未免太“西方”，太好萊塢了一點吧？！ 我也很難想像這樣子的土法煉鋼，一個月下來，能“調查”出什麼？ 再比方說，英文報導一方面指出這位女生“動員”了 150 個志工，一方面卻又說她“一個人”在伊拉克踽踽獨行，很容易引起美軍側目，所以調查很不容易進行。報導還說，“單是公文旅行就往往要好幾天”，這使得調查更為艱難。 像這些，是不是也太誇張了一點？那不就比聯合國還厲害？這時候誰跟你公文旅行？有可能嗎？她如果是如報導所說，“挨家挨戶”探訪，走遍大江南北，那麼，公文是要怎麼個旅行法？寄到哪個地址？這時候還有郵差？或是輕易就能找到電話或上網？ 報導還說，雖然這女生是個“孤獨的人權工作者”，雖然她“只有一個人”，儘管路途艱難，但是她仍然要走下去。像這些，也是太後現代、太好萊塢了。你能想像現在的伊拉克街頭有個年輕女生，天天到處踽踽獨行，一方面慰問死者家屬，一方面從事傷亡調查工作？而且才沒幾天，調查結果就出爐了？ 還有，不但“挨家挨戶調查”太後現代，更後現代的是藉著探訪墓園來調查究竟炸死幾個平民。墓園會蓋這麼快？有人會在墓碑上註明“這傢伙是被美軍炸死”？ 報導甚至還說，因為墓園往往沒有標示清楚，所以不好分清楚究竟是平民或軍人，說那是因為海珊故意叫軍人穿便服，於是更加深調查工作的困難度。像這些，真是已經像在寫科幻小說了。 更戲劇化的是，她現在銀行存款只剩 50 美元，那不就台幣 1500 塊？這樣還能繼續踽踽獨行地調查？報導說，她準備要向美國政府部門申請經費；在她拿到錢之前，她得靠朋友幫忙；她仍然要努力去做“一個人的能力所能做的”。這真是很像在看什麼勵志電影。 這位女生說，正因為調查工作是如此困難，「很花時間，所以我沒辦法今天或明天就能告訴你一個死亡統計數字。」這聽起來不會太原始、太沒有常識了一點嗎？ 還有什麼美國大使去信慰問（？）第一個平民死者，而且，這位女生是唯一一個參加這位死者喪禮的人。還有什麼抱怨“伊拉克軍方扣押傷亡記錄”，而“平民百姓的記錄又不可靠”，諸如此類，都太戲劇化、太後現代了，簡直不知道是在講什麼。她不是挨家挨戶訪問平民百姓嗎？她不是在伊拉克“解放”之後才去的嗎？哪有什麼“伊拉克軍方扣押傷亡記錄”的事？ 總之，我不是說這是個壞人（我想她很可能是個很好的人）；我只是說這不像是真的；這不是報導，這是小說創作，脫離了基本現實。 後記（二）： 關於上面講的這個美軍涉嫌屠殺三千名阿富汗俘虜的事，在這方面做最多調查工作的就是PHR（醫師人權協會）。初步完整調查報告請見這個網址：http://www.phrusa.org/research/afghanistan/report_graves.html。強烈推薦，務必一看，這幾張現場圖片就是從這裏取出。聯合國已經在今年初成立一個特別調查小組，我很希望這事終究能求得一個公道。為什麼他們永遠能逍遙法外？ 另外，PHR 還有很多關於此事或關於美軍虐待阿富汗俘虜的相關報告或公開信件。請自行查閱該網站。 American Counts Iraqi Casualties By: David Wright The Pentagon keeps a precise count of U.S. casualties in the war in Iraq. But the question of how many Iraqis lost their lives remains as mysterious as the whereabouts of Saddam Hussein or the location of all those weapons of mass destruction. Marla Ruzicka, 26, from the San Francisco Bay Area, has been in Baghdad since the day Saddam's statue fell in the city center. She has been doing a headcount of the Iraqi injured and the dead. She's found more than she expected. She has formed her own nonprofit organization, called the Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict, or CIVIC. She has organized 150 surveyors to fan out across Iraq. So far, they say they have documented 620 civilian deaths in Baghdad, 256 in Najaf, 425 in Karbala and as many as 1,100 in Nasiriyah. It is only a preliminary count. "Somewhere between 5,000 to 10,000 people died in this conflict," Ruzicka said. Ruzicka's survey teams conduct their search door to door. On Saturday, she visited the village of Rashidiya, a small farm town on the banks of the Tigris River. On April 5, U.S. warplanes strafed the village, killing nearly 100 people. All of them were civilians. In one house, 17-month-old Haider al Hamadi was the only member of his family to escape unscathed. He lost his mother, his three sisters and two brothers. His father survived, but lost three fingers. In another home, 42 people in one extended family were killed. Many were visiting from Baghdad in an effort to keep their children safe from the blitz. "Each number represents a case, a need, represents a father, a mother, a loss of life," she said. Her Own Cause Ruzicka does not represent the U.S. government. She's not affiliated with any big relief agency. She is a lone peace activist who has taken it upon herself to help the civilian victims of war. It is a difficult process, in part because there continue to be casualties almost every day. But there is still no official tally of how many Iraqi lives were lost -- military or civilian. Iraq's military kept all records secret. And the civilian documents are unreliable. Each hospital keeps a handwritten book of the dead. There is no master list. And the hospital records are in disarray after the flood of casualties during the war, and the looters who came after. Cemeteries are poorly marked. Many burials were not documented at all. And it is difficult to tell the military from the civilian dead because of the tactics Saddam's forces employed during the war: dressing in civilian clothes, staging in civilian neighborhoods, putting civilian lives at risk. "It takes time, that's why we cant give you a number today or tomorrow," said Ruzicka. "Our goal beyond getting assistance to the innocent families that are harmed is to get a proper accounting of war." Offering Condolences It is painstaking work, meeting one on one with people whose lives have been ruined. Ruzicka's task started in Amman, Jordan, two months ago. She attended the funeral of the man believed to be the first civilian casualty in this war -- a Jordanian taxi driver killed the first night of bombing. While the U.S. ambassador sent a letter, she was the only American to personally offer condolences to the grieving family. Now, every day, she meets with new victims, in sessions that often seem like group therapy. "Yes, a number is important," she said, "but it's not as important as making sure that we recognize that each number is a life. Ultimately, we can get them long-term medical care. We can get their homes rebuilt and possibly -- it's a hard possibility -- but what we're working or is some economic assistance." Fighting for Compensation The U.S. military says it does everything it can to ensure that innocent civilians don't get caught in the crossfire. But mistakes happen; war is messy. Ruzicka's ultimate goal is to win compensation for these people, which is no easy task. The only real precedent for compensating civilian casualties comes from Afghanistan, and Ruzicka helped to make it happen by successfully lobbying the U.S. Congress to help innocent victims of that war. In Afghanistan, Ruzicka's survey confirmed 824 civilian deaths -- although she believes at least double that number died in the U.S. campaign to oust the Taliban and al Qaeda. She convinced Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., to insert language in an appropriations bill, allocating $3.75 million to help the Afghan victims. "Marla Ruzicka is somebody out there saying, 'Wait, everybody. Here's what's really happening. You better know about this,' " said Leahy. "We have whistle-blowers in industry. Maybe sometimes we need whistle-blowers in foreign policy." But in Iraq, one person, however determined, is bound to have trouble getting the attention of the U.S. military, which has its hands full. Just wading through the bureaucracy can take days. Ruzicka is also chronically short on money. She now has $50 left in her bank account, so she is applying for a grant from the U.S. Agency for International Development. Until that comes through, she relies on the help of her friends. But while other aid agencies are still getting organized in Iraq, still tentatively working out the difficult security situation, Ruzicka is already out there, trying as much as one person can to help. Posted by: 陳真 發表於 June 3, 2003 10:56 AM 給蜂報：是科幻小說還是報導？ 哈巴狗電台呼叫蜂報！OVER！ 本台讀者剛剛打電報來詢問你們底下＜附件二＞這篇文章的可信度。 偶看了，嚇一大跳。哈巴狗記者在想，你們是不是搞錯了？OVER！因為實在太離譜了。 簡單說一下： 1. 雖然上上個月美國才宣佈對阿富汗的戰爭結束，但是，那也只是“宣佈”而已；消滅恐怖份子的使命，豈能一日懈怠？！事實上，美國轟炸阿富汗，從 2001 年的 10 月 7 號一直炸到現在還在炸，豈有可能只有 824名平民死亡？ 而且，你們提供的文章之行文口氣講得彷彿 824 人很多似的。我在想，你們會不會是在說戰爭第二周的死亡人數？因為直接死於炮火的阿富汗平民，大約以一天 60 的數字增加，如果是兩周，剛好死 800 人。問題是，現在已經是第八十周了。而且，該文提到伊拉克戰爭，所以顯然不是一兩年前的舊報導。那麼，這不是很奇怪嗎？ 2. 根據 BBC 去年（2002）1 月 3 號的報導（如底下＜附件 而且，別忘了，這 3767 人都是有案可查的正式報導，未經“主要媒 體”報導的不算，因此，從事這項研究的 Herold 教授說：「我得到的這些數據是非常、非常保守的一個估計。」（The figure I came up with is a very, very conservative estimate.） 他是怎麼個保守法呢？保守方式之一就是，比方說，同一事件當有各種報導出現時，Herold 取其死亡人數較低的那個數字。就好像有人弄了一個伊拉克平民死亡人數統計 Herold 教授對阿富汗的統計上下限則是 3767 到五千多人之間。但是，那是一年半前的舊數據，是指開戰前兩個月內。 一直到現在，各大國際人權機構都仍不願對阿富汗傷亡人數做出結論性的報告，因為戰爭仍在持續中，而且，軍閥割據，美軍支持的這派殺那派，死傷不斷、“圍勦”恐怖份子的神聖大業也仍在進行中。更何況，要取得種種傷亡報告越來越不容易，因為阿富汗情況越來越混亂，特別是在阿富汗西部。 Herold 教授之統計的保守方式之二是：它不包括那些被槍炮所傷，本來沒死，但是幾天後卻重傷死去的人。 保守方式之三是，它也不包括那些因為空襲，無法取得食物而餓死的，也不包括那些因為空襲，交通阻斷，本來有病卻無法及時就醫而死掉的等等這些人。 保守方式之四是，這兩個月的統計是不完整的，其中不包括特定幾次空襲或“圍勦”，原因是因為那幾次戰役規模過大。Herold 教授說，那是一種用B-52 轟炸機進行的“地毯式的轟炸”（carpet-bombing by B-52s），有的整個村落或社區被毀，記者也根本無法靠近。這部份理應佔死亡人口的一定多數，反而無法被列入，而美軍對此也三緘其口，列為“機密”。 即便如此保守的估計，即便那只是頭兩個月內的舊數據，卻仍高達 3767 人，所以，怎麼可能一年半後反而只有 824 人死掉呢？ 3. 我說美國對阿富汗的戰爭一直沒有中斷，完全是有根據的，而且，這似乎也不是一個祕密，而是一個極其平常的事實。問題是，我們中文世界的媒體或“私人電台”，從來不報導這些事。可是，只要你隨便上網查一下英文資料，保證資料多到不可數。我們不能老是因為主流媒體不報了或不太報了，就以為沒事了，天下太平了。 轟炸阿富汗不但沒有停止，而且威力比過去一兩年更猛。這不是我講的，這是美國自己講的。比方說，就在入侵伊拉克的那一天 3 月 20號，就在入侵伊拉克的前一個小時，美國發動了一個代號叫做什麼“英勇攻擊”的軍事行動，並且對外宣稱這是美軍轟炸阿富汗以來，規模最大的一次軍事行動。 因為老是“誤炸”平民，去年七月二號，國際特赦組織發文公開譴責美國不遵守戰爭應有的國際法規定。 4. 根據英國＜衛報＞ 去年二月的報導，超過八千個阿富汗平民直接死於炮火。根據英國＜衛報＞去年五月 Jonathan Steele 的報導，兩萬個以上阿富汗平民在逃難中因為饑餓、受傷及疾病等間接戰亂因素而喪生。 還是別忘了，這些都是舊數據；現在是 2003 年 6 月 2 號了，而且，戰爭還沒結束。 5. 根據英國 channel four 上上個禮拜的一個記錄片，記錄美軍在阿富汗和寮國使用集束彈（cluster bomb）的傷亡情況。影片中指出，阿富汗迄今每周平均有三十人因為集束彈留下的小炸彈傷亡。這樣的炸彈，遺害無窮，三十多年過去了，寮國平民百姓迄今仍為它所苦。影片中也指出，這些宛如地雷的小炸彈，在阿富汗境內，估計超過兩千萬枚。 6. 關於阿富汗，有些已經寫過，我就不再寫了，有興趣者，請參見哈巴狗電台： 7. 老實說，我對貴報這篇報導全然不信，因為那似乎是一個好萊塢電影看太多的人瞎編出來的故事。戰爭會是這麼好玩、這麼輕鬆好自在的一件事嗎？離實際狀況，差了十萬八千光年。不是文章講錯了什麼，而是根本不搭調，一看就知道是胡扯。 戰爭或戰亂之地會是這樣嗎？一個尋常百姓竟然能率150 人進入戰地調查？而且還能生還，甚至還能向美國國會要到一億元台幣的“經費”？天啊！這聽起來好像科幻式的英雄電影不是嗎？ 具體來說，例如，連聯合國在阿富汗西部的人道救援組織都泥菩薩過江，自身難保，因為無法顧及自身安全，於今年四月初，全部人道救援活動緊急喊停。因此，除非是女超人，刀槍不入，神出鬼沒，否則大概很難這麼神勇地進去做什麼“第一手內幕調查”。 再比方說，這位正義女超人，「一個接一個地與死者家屬接觸，而交談經常被嚎啕悲泣所打斷！」我看這可能也是好萊塢電影看太多的後果。戰亂時，逃命都來不及了，誰還有那個美國心情和美國時間，排隊接受一位美國來的陌生女子之一一訪談和安慰（心理治療？）？ 而且，這位女超人想必也是個語言天才，那麼，她才有可能在種族、語言那麼複雜的伊拉克和阿富汗進行“第一手調查”。而且，她恐怕也得會飛才行，要不然，道路橋樑大多毀損，她如何自由走動？ 而且，她又不是布希或布萊爾的太太，會有哪個伊拉克機構會願意配合她的“調查”？比方說，一個台灣人，如果不幸住在長庚隔壁，我看她就算有心，也不可能進入長庚醫院調查 SARS 的情況。 更何況女超人的“調查”究竟是怎麼個調查法？打電話去問？還是挨家挨戶做有獎問卷調查？ 其它還有很多神奇之處，我就不一一指出了。老實說，中文網路世界的資訊品質，常常讓我感到很沮喪。貴報看起來應該還不錯，實在不應該犯這麼離譜的錯。 我看過一些中文文章，談起反戰或反反戰或不反也不特別支持的自以為睿智者，自以為是地講一些有的沒的，所論所談，往往離基本事實太遠。真不懂人們下筆前為什麼不好好先做點基本功課？ 8. 我不常來，所以，若有質問或回應，如果我沒回答，請見諒，那一定是因為我沒看到。 9. 最後，想請各位看一篇文章（附件三）。請務必仔細一讀，即使需要努力查字典，也請在所不惜地讀一讀它。有時不小心在檔案夾裏看到這篇資料，就很想把它翻譯成中文，可是每次都沒有這麼做，因為讀這些東西，想這些事，總是讓人覺得很煩。我們難道真的拿布希布萊爾等等這些人沒辦法？而只能不痛不癢地叫罵或“論述”？我實在不信會有人能夠千秋萬世地為非作歹而不會遭到制止或制裁。 這篇去年 6 月 17 的報導，出自 WSWS，其它媒體相關報導一大堆。這事大概是這樣： 愛爾蘭著名的記錄片導演 Jamie Doran 拍了一部記錄片叫做＜Mazar 的大屠殺＞，這片在德國、法國等國家公開放映，影片所記錄美軍之虐殺三千名阿富汗俘虜一事，引起極大震撼和憤怒。 這三千人是某個美軍基地總數八千名阿富汗俘虜的一部份，他們後來被隔離監禁在Shibarghan一地。運送過程中，數百名俘虜窒息而死，因為他們被“塞入”一個個密不通風的“容器”中。每一個“容器”裝滿 150 到 200 人。 後來，美軍和北方聯盟知道裏頭悶死人了，但又懶得半途打開門，於是命令士兵直接對著容器開槍掃射，企圖藉著一個個彈孔，讓俘虜透氣。士兵明知這樣會打死容器裏頭的許多人，仍得照辦。目擊者說，一陣掃射後，很多容器噴出或滲出血來。 沒有死於窒息或掃射的存活者，到了另一個監獄，反而遭受更可怕的刑求和虐殺，包括砍斷手指、用手折斷俘虜脖子、灌強酸、割掉舌頭等等。目擊者表示，這些刑求無非只是為了“取樂”。 在他們被送來這裏之前，美軍曾在 Qala-i-Janghi 祕密處決幾百人。國際紅十字會證實這個說法，因為他們在大屠殺發生後立即去到現場。紅十字會人員指出，許多死者臉部佈滿驚恐。 三千名俘虜的大屠殺發生在靠近Mazar-i-Sharif 這個城市附近，據說為了逃避衛星監視，美軍軍官下令把這三千人運送到荒郊野外掩埋。目擊者說，有些人若還活著，一待抵達萬人塚，就立刻遭到處決；至於還沒斷氣的，有的甚至就留在現場讓野狗吃掉。 影片指證歷歷說，這三千人並非全是軍人，許多只是平民，隨隨便便就被抓來。 最後一幕是一大片露出地面的骨骸、頭顱和遺物。醫師人權協會 導演表示，所有目擊者均有名有姓，影片為了安全理由，只好隱去這些人的姓名，但是，導演說，這些人均表示願意到國際法庭上做證，而且願意讓導演視情況洩露他們的身份。 這影片所傳達的消息，傳遍歐洲，唯獨美國各大媒體有志一同地全部封殺。 我把我所知道的“不是故事的故事”轉述完了。這就是美國，一個整天講人權、講人道的國家。 陳真 2003. 6. 2. ======================== Afghanistan's civilian deaths mount BBC 2002. 1. 3. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1740538.stm American bombs have reportedly killed thousands of civilians The number of Afghan civilians killed by US bombs has surpassed the death toll of the 11 September attacks, according to a study by an American academic. Nearly 3,800 Afghans died between 7 October and 7 December, University of New Hampshire Professor Marc Herold said in a research report. The figure I came up with is a very, very conservative estimate. His report, which places the death toll at 3,767, lists the number of casualties, location, type of weapon and source of information. "In fact the figure I came up with is a very, very conservative estimate," Professor Herold said in a radio interview. "I think that a much more realistic figure would be around 5,000. You know for Afghanistan, 3,700 to 5,000 is a really substantial number." The figure is well in excess of the estimated 2,998 people killed in the 11 September attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center. Professor Herold said his calculations are based only on deaths reported in the mainstream media, so would not include those in remote areas of Afghanistan. It also omits those killed indirectly, when air strikes cut off their access to hospitals, food or electricity. Also exempt are bomb victims who later died of their injuries. When there were different casualty figures from the same incident, in 90% of cases Professor Herold chose a lower figure. US military professionals told the Financial Times that the quality of this sort of information must necessarily be mixed. Latest deaths US forces were reported to have killed 106 Afghan civilians when they dropped bombs on the village of Qalaye Naizi, in eastern Afghanistan. Military authorities denied having mistakenly bombed a village, and said the warplanes had targeted a compound used by al-Qaeda. We have lost too many innocent lives already. On 27 December, US bombers were said to have killed 40 civilians in Ghazni, south-west of Kabul. And last month, American warplanes hit a convoy transporting tribal elders to the inauguration of the Afghanistan government in Kabul. About 65 people were killed. Other reported incidents include: 11 October: Two US jets were said to have bombed the mountain village of Karam. The death toll was estimated at between 100 and 160. 13 October: Bombs fell on the Qila Meer Abas neighbourhood, two kilometres south of Kabul airport. Four civilians were reportedly killed 23 October: More than 90 civilians were reportedly killed when low-flying US gun ships fired on the farming villages of Bori Chokar and Chowkar-karez, north of Kandahar. 31 October: An F-18 was said to have bombed a Red Crescent clinic in a pre-dawn raid, killing between 15 and 25 people. 10 November: Villages in the Khakrez district were reportedly bombed, killing more than 150 civilians 2003-06-02 美國姑娘調查伊拉克傷亡的真相!（來源：蜂報） 對於剛剛結束的美國侵略伊拉克戰爭，關於美軍傷亡人數，美國聯邦政府五角大廈有十分精確的統計資料，但對於戰爭中伊拉克老百姓傷亡的情況，卻一直視若不見。根據美國《芝加哥論壇報》日前報導，目前一位26歲的普通美國女性正與一批志同道和者，奔走於伊拉克各地，挨家逐戶地調查統計平民百姓的傷亡數字。 這位26歲的普通美國女性，魯茲卡，是舊金山人，領導一個的社會運動組織，就在4月9日，幾乎是美軍攻佔伊拉克首都巴格達的同時，魯茲卡也和150名志願調查者冒著生命危險，遠赴伊拉克。 在調查研究過程中，魯茲卡等人深切體會到這場戰爭的殘酷，更對美英聯軍在戰爭中濫殺無辜的真相感到震驚！ 5月24日，魯茲卡走訪位於河畔的，該鎮於4月5日遭受美軍戰機的狂轟濫炸，約有一百人死亡，死者中無一名伊拉克軍人，全是平民百姓。在一棟民宅中，魯茲卡發現，近一歲半的男童哈馬迪是家裏唯一未受傷者，父母、三個姐姐和兩個哥哥皆被炸死！在另一戶人家，42名人口慘遭滅門！其中，許多是從首都帶著小孩逃難至此，未料，仍躲不過美軍的殺戮！ 從魯茲卡等人的調查研究結果顯示，伊拉克平民百姓實際死亡比人數遠高於現在所有的估計，魯茲卡推算，平民百姓死亡總數在五千到一萬之間！ 調查，是為了爭取賠償；調查工作非常艱難，這不僅因為伊拉克治安惡化，而且也缺乏伊拉克官方對士兵和平民傷亡的統計資料。醫院雖有死者的書面記錄，但由於戰爭致使傷患、屍體等人潮湧入，再加上暴徒襲劫醫院，有些記錄已經遺失，難以尋找！ 魯茲卡表示，每個統計數字都代表著一個悲劇，意味著一位父親、一位母親或一個孩子失去了生命！我們要靠精確的統計數字來為死者爭取賠償，為受傷者提供醫療，幫伊拉克平民百姓重建家園。 魯茲卡最初的工作是從約旦首都開始，3月20日，美國對伊拉克展開軍事侵略當天，一名約旦計程車司機，在以西約150公里的電話局和家裏通電話，美軍炸彈將電話局炸成廢墟，據說這名約旦計程車司機是死於戰爭的第一位平民！幾天後，屍體運回，魯茲卡到死者家裏弔唁，此後，魯茲卡便一個接一個地與死者家屬接觸，而交談經常被嚎啕悲泣所打斷！ 來伊拉克之前，魯茲卡等人先從事了因911事件而導致美國侵略阿富汗戰爭的傷亡調查工作，雖然，調查結果是阿富汗平民百姓死亡人數824人，但是，魯茲卡認為，真實的數字至少要多一倍！ 依據從阿富汗調查所得的第一手資料，魯茲卡說服了美國國會參議員裏希，爭取一筆375萬美元的撥款，用於撫恤阿富汗死難平民的家屬。裏希參議員對魯茲卡留下深刻印象，稱道：美國的外交政策需要這樣揭露事實真相的人！ 魯茲卡在伊拉克的調查工作剛剛起步，未來艱險重重，然而，她現在已遇到資金短缺的困境，銀行帳戶裡只剩下50美元，她正在向美國申請補助，在申請獲得批准之前，只能仰賴朋友的資助。 ================== WSWS : News & Analysis : The US War in Afghanistan http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jun2002/afgh-j17.shtml Afghan war documentary charges US with mass killings of POWs By Stefan Steinberg A documentary film, Massacre in Mazar, by Irish director Jamie Doran, was shown to selected audiences in Europe last week, provoking demands for an international inquiry into US war crimes in Afghanistan. The film alleges that American troops collaborated in the torture of POWs and the killing of thousands of captured Taliban soldiers near the town of Mazar-i-Sharif. It documents events following the November 21, 2001 fall of Konduz, the Taliban’s last stronghold in northern Afghanistan. The film was shown in Berlin by the PDS (Party of Democratic Socialism) parliamentary fraction to members of the German parliament on June 12. The following day it was shown to deputies and members of the press at the European parliament in Strasbourg. After seeing the film, French Euro MP Francis Wurtz, a member of the United Left fraction that organised the showing, said he would call for an urgent debate on the issues raised in the film at the next session of the European parliament in July. A number of other deputies in the European parliament called on the International Committee of the Red Cross to carry out an independent investigation into the allegations raised in the film. Leading international human rights lawyer Andrew McEntee, who was present at the special screening in Berlin, said it was “clear there is prima facie evidence of serious war crimes committed not just under international law, but also under the laws of the United States itself.” McEntee called for an independent investigation. “No functioning criminal justice system can choose to ignore this evidence,” he said. The Pentagon issued a statement June 13 denying the allegations of US complicity in the torture and murder of POWs, and the US State Department followed suit with a formal denial on June 14. Doran, an award-winning independent filmmaker, whose documentaries have been seen in over 35 countries, said he decided to release a rough cut of his account of war crimes because he feared Afghan forces were about to cover up the evidence of mass killings. “It’s absolutely essential that the site of the mass grave is protected,” Doran told United Press International after the screening in Strasbourg. “Otherwise the evidence will disappear.” Doran’s call for the preservation of evidence was echoed by the Boston-based Physicians for Human Rights, which issued a statement June 14 urging that immediate steps be taken to safeguard the gravesite of the alleged victims near Mazar-i-Sharif. Late last year Doran shot footage of the aftermath of the massacre of hundreds of captured Taliban troops at the Qala-i-Janghi prison fortress outside of Mazar-i-Sharif. His film clips, showing prisoners who had apparently been shot with their hands tied, ignited an international outcry over the conduct of American special operations forces and their Northern Alliance allies. Doran’s new film includes interviews with eyewitnesses to torture and the slaughter of some 3,000 POWs. It also contains footage of the desert scene where the alleged massacre took place. Skulls, clothing and limbs still protrude from the mound of sand, more than six months after the event. The film has received widespread coverage in the European press, with articles featured in some of the main French and German newspapers (Le Monde, Suddeutsche Zeitung, Die Welt). Jamie Doran has also given interviews to two of the main German television companies. While the documentary has become a major news story in Europe, it has been virtually blacked out by the American media. The UPI released a dispatch on the screenings last week, yet the existence of the film has not even been reported by such leading newspapers as the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post. The film and its allegations of US war crimes have been similarly suppressed by the television networks and cable news channels. This reporter was able to view the 20-minute-long documentary in Berlin. In the course of the film a series of witnesses appear and testify that American military forces participated in the armed assault and killing of several hundred Taliban prisoners in the Qala-i-Janghi fortress. Witnesses also allege that, following the events at Qala-i-Janghi, the American army command was complicit in the killing and disposal of a further 3,000 prisoners, out of a total of 8,000 who surrendered after the battle of Konduz. Afghan witnesses who speak of these atrocities are not identified by name, but, according to the director, all those testifying in the film are willing to give their names and appear before an international tribunal to investigate the events of the end of last November and beginning of December. In Doran’s film, Amir Jahn, an ally of Northern Alliance leader General Rashid Dostum, states that the Islamic soldiers who surrendered at Konduz did so only on the condition that their lives would be spared. Some 470 captives were incarcerated in Qala-i-Janghi. The remaining 7,500 were sent to another prison at Kala-i-Zein. Following a revolt by a number of the prisoners in Qala-i-Janghi, the fortress was subjected to a massive barrage from the air as well as the ground by American troops. The atrocities inside Qala-i-Janghi are confirmed in the film by the head of the regional Red Cross, Simon Brookes, who visited the fort shortly after the massacre. He investigated the area and found bodies, many with their faces twisted in agony. The American Taliban supporter John Walker Lindh was one of 86 Taliban fighters who were able to survive the massacre by hiding in tunnels beneath the fort . In one chilling scene in the film, we witness actual footage, secretly shot, of the interrogation of Lindh. We see him kneeling in the desert, in front of a long row of captive Afghans, being interrogated by two CIA officers. The officer leading the interrogation is heard to say: “But the problem is he needs to decide if he lives or dies. If he does not want to die here, he is going to die here, because we are going to leave him here and he’s going to stay in prison for the rest of his life.” Massacre in Mazar then goes to describe the treatment meted out to the remaining thousands of captives who had surrendered to the Northern Alliance and American troops. A further 3,000 prisoners were separated out from the total of 8,000 who had surrendered, and were transported to a prison compound in the town of Shibarghan. They were shipped to Shibarghan in closed containers, lacking any ventilation. Local Afghan truck drivers were commandeered to transport between 200 and 300 prisoners in each container. One of the drivers participating in the convoy relates that an average of between 150 and 160 died in each container in the course of the trip. An Afghan soldier who accompanied the convoy said he was ordered by an American commander to fire shots into the containers to provide air, although he knew that he would certainly hit those inside. An Afghan taxi driver reports seeing a number of containers with blood streaming from their floors. Another witness relates that many of the 3,000 prisoners were not combatants, and some had been arrested by US soldiers and their allies and added to the group for the mere crime of speaking Pashto, a local dialect. Afghan soldiers testify that upon arriving at the prison camp at Shibarghan, surviving POWs were subjected to torture and a number were arbitrarily killed by American troops. One Afghan, shown in battle fatigues, says of the treatment of prisoners in the Shibarghan camp: “I was a witness when an American soldier broke one prisoner’s neck and poured acid on others. The Americans did whatever they wanted. We had no power to stop them.” Another Afghan soldier states, “They cut off fingers, they cut tongues, they cut their hair and cut their beards. Sometimes they did it for pleasure; they took the prisoners outside and beat them up and then returned them to the prison. But sometimes they were never returned and they disappeared, the prisoner disappeared. I was there.” Another Afghan witness alleges that, in order to avoid detection by satellite cameras, American officers demanded the drivers take their containers full of dead and living victims to a spot in the desert and dump them. Two of the Afghan civilian truck drivers confirm that they witnessed the dumping of an estimated 3,000 prisoners in the desert. According to one of the drivers, while 30 to 40 American soldiers stood by, those prisoners still living were shot and left in the desert to be eaten by dogs. The final harrowing scenes of the film feature a panorama of bones, skulls and pieces of clothing littering the desert. See Also: Posted by: 陳真 發表於 June 3, 2003 04:41 AM 發表迴響
|