SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Why Bombing the Kunduz Hospital Was Probably a War Crime
Oct 11, 2015
Did the U.S. military commit a war crime when it bombed a hospital in the Afghan city of Kunduz and killed at least 22 people? It's too early for experts to say for certain, but there's good reason to believe the attack may have violated international humanitarian law.
Hospitals enjoy a special status that protects them from deliberate attack. They are generally filled with protected persons—medical personnel, civilians, sick or wounded soldiers, enemy and friendly—none of whom may be willfully wounded or killed.
"While hospitals can lose that protection if they're being used for military purposes, the standard is very high," says James Ross, the legal and policy director at Human Rights Watch. What if the unsubstantiated Afghan claims about Taliban fighters being deployed at the hospital are true? "Even if this were the case, it would not have allowed for the kind of attacks that struck the hospital," Ross told me.
On October 3, a U.S. AC-130 gunship fired on a Medecins Sans Frontieres hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, for more than 30 minutes, killing 12 staff members and at least 10 patients while wounding 37 others. "There are no words for how terrible it was," said MSF nurse Lajos Zoltan Jecs, who was in the trauma center during the airstrike. "In the Intensive Care Unit, six patients were burning in their beds. The first moments were just chaos. Enough staff had survived so we could help all the wounded with treatable wounds. But there were too many that we couldn't help."
One of the last providers of medical care in Kunduz -- the first major enclave to fall to the Taliban since the Afghanistan War began in 2001 -- MSF has since withdrawn its personnel from the city.
Initial reports from the U.S. military alleged that U.S. forces were under attack in the vicinity of the hospital, prompting the airstrike. Gen. John Campbell, the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, later said this was not the case and that Afghan forces requested air support. However, he also said, speaking broadly about sites like medical facilities and schools, that "we do not strike those kind of targets." Afghan officials later claimed the "hospital campus was 100 percent used by the Taliban," a charge that MSF strenuously denies.
Even if there was any truth to those allegations -- and to date, no evidence has emerged of the Taliban fighting from the hospital grounds -- the bombing would likely still be a violation of international law.
"These statements imply that Afghan and U.S. forces working together decided to raze to the ground a fully functioning hospital with more than 180 staff and patients inside because they claim that members of the Taliban were present," Christopher Stokes, MSF's general director, said in a statement. "This amounts to an admission of a war crime."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 The Intercept
Nick Turse
Nick Turse is the Managing Editor of TomDispatch.com and a fellow at the Type Media Center. His latest book is "Next Time They'll Come to Count the Dead: War and Survival in South Sudan" (2016). He is the author/editor of several other books, including: "Tomorrow's Battlefield: U.S. Proxy Wars and Secret Ops in Africa" (2015); "Kill Anything That Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam" (2013); "The Changing Face of Empire: Special Ops, Drones, Spies, Proxy Fighters, Secret Bases, and Cyber Warfare" (2012); "The Complex: How the Military Invades Our Everyday Lives" (2009); and "The Case for Withdrawal from Afghanistan" (2010). Turse was a fellow at Harvard University's Radcliffe Institute. His website is www.Nick Turse.com.
afghan warafghanistanafghanistan wardoctors without bordershuman rights watchinternational humanitarian lawinternational lawkunduztalibanus militarywar crimes
Did the U.S. military commit a war crime when it bombed a hospital in the Afghan city of Kunduz and killed at least 22 people? It's too early for experts to say for certain, but there's good reason to believe the attack may have violated international humanitarian law.
Hospitals enjoy a special status that protects them from deliberate attack. They are generally filled with protected persons—medical personnel, civilians, sick or wounded soldiers, enemy and friendly—none of whom may be willfully wounded or killed.
"While hospitals can lose that protection if they're being used for military purposes, the standard is very high," says James Ross, the legal and policy director at Human Rights Watch. What if the unsubstantiated Afghan claims about Taliban fighters being deployed at the hospital are true? "Even if this were the case, it would not have allowed for the kind of attacks that struck the hospital," Ross told me.
On October 3, a U.S. AC-130 gunship fired on a Medecins Sans Frontieres hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, for more than 30 minutes, killing 12 staff members and at least 10 patients while wounding 37 others. "There are no words for how terrible it was," said MSF nurse Lajos Zoltan Jecs, who was in the trauma center during the airstrike. "In the Intensive Care Unit, six patients were burning in their beds. The first moments were just chaos. Enough staff had survived so we could help all the wounded with treatable wounds. But there were too many that we couldn't help."
One of the last providers of medical care in Kunduz -- the first major enclave to fall to the Taliban since the Afghanistan War began in 2001 -- MSF has since withdrawn its personnel from the city.
Initial reports from the U.S. military alleged that U.S. forces were under attack in the vicinity of the hospital, prompting the airstrike. Gen. John Campbell, the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, later said this was not the case and that Afghan forces requested air support. However, he also said, speaking broadly about sites like medical facilities and schools, that "we do not strike those kind of targets." Afghan officials later claimed the "hospital campus was 100 percent used by the Taliban," a charge that MSF strenuously denies.
Even if there was any truth to those allegations -- and to date, no evidence has emerged of the Taliban fighting from the hospital grounds -- the bombing would likely still be a violation of international law.
"These statements imply that Afghan and U.S. forces working together decided to raze to the ground a fully functioning hospital with more than 180 staff and patients inside because they claim that members of the Taliban were present," Christopher Stokes, MSF's general director, said in a statement. "This amounts to an admission of a war crime."
Nick Turse
Nick Turse is the Managing Editor of TomDispatch.com and a fellow at the Type Media Center. His latest book is "Next Time They'll Come to Count the Dead: War and Survival in South Sudan" (2016). He is the author/editor of several other books, including: "Tomorrow's Battlefield: U.S. Proxy Wars and Secret Ops in Africa" (2015); "Kill Anything That Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam" (2013); "The Changing Face of Empire: Special Ops, Drones, Spies, Proxy Fighters, Secret Bases, and Cyber Warfare" (2012); "The Complex: How the Military Invades Our Everyday Lives" (2009); and "The Case for Withdrawal from Afghanistan" (2010). Turse was a fellow at Harvard University's Radcliffe Institute. His website is www.Nick Turse.com.
Did the U.S. military commit a war crime when it bombed a hospital in the Afghan city of Kunduz and killed at least 22 people? It's too early for experts to say for certain, but there's good reason to believe the attack may have violated international humanitarian law.
Hospitals enjoy a special status that protects them from deliberate attack. They are generally filled with protected persons—medical personnel, civilians, sick or wounded soldiers, enemy and friendly—none of whom may be willfully wounded or killed.
"While hospitals can lose that protection if they're being used for military purposes, the standard is very high," says James Ross, the legal and policy director at Human Rights Watch. What if the unsubstantiated Afghan claims about Taliban fighters being deployed at the hospital are true? "Even if this were the case, it would not have allowed for the kind of attacks that struck the hospital," Ross told me.
On October 3, a U.S. AC-130 gunship fired on a Medecins Sans Frontieres hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, for more than 30 minutes, killing 12 staff members and at least 10 patients while wounding 37 others. "There are no words for how terrible it was," said MSF nurse Lajos Zoltan Jecs, who was in the trauma center during the airstrike. "In the Intensive Care Unit, six patients were burning in their beds. The first moments were just chaos. Enough staff had survived so we could help all the wounded with treatable wounds. But there were too many that we couldn't help."
One of the last providers of medical care in Kunduz -- the first major enclave to fall to the Taliban since the Afghanistan War began in 2001 -- MSF has since withdrawn its personnel from the city.
Initial reports from the U.S. military alleged that U.S. forces were under attack in the vicinity of the hospital, prompting the airstrike. Gen. John Campbell, the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, later said this was not the case and that Afghan forces requested air support. However, he also said, speaking broadly about sites like medical facilities and schools, that "we do not strike those kind of targets." Afghan officials later claimed the "hospital campus was 100 percent used by the Taliban," a charge that MSF strenuously denies.
Even if there was any truth to those allegations -- and to date, no evidence has emerged of the Taliban fighting from the hospital grounds -- the bombing would likely still be a violation of international law.
"These statements imply that Afghan and U.S. forces working together decided to raze to the ground a fully functioning hospital with more than 180 staff and patients inside because they claim that members of the Taliban were present," Christopher Stokes, MSF's general director, said in a statement. "This amounts to an admission of a war crime."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.