Stardate 20011202.1236 (On Screen via long range sensors): In the chaos of battle, many contradictory reports can come out. The conflict at the POW prison in Mazar-e Sharif has only just been finished, and now more accurate reports are appearing. This seems to be a very accurate account, written by a reporter for the London Times who was present during the entire episode, and who directly witnessed most of it (and was wounded for his trouble by a grenade fragment from the very first killing of a Northern Alliance soldier by a prisoner with a smuggled grenade). It makes many things crystal clear: there was no atrocity, no massacre of un-armed prisoners. The prisoners who died were armed and resisting heavily right up to the end. They wanted to martyr themselves and take as many of their enemies with them as they could. And yet, the Northern Alliance still did not kill them all; 80 were ultimately retaken prisoner. It also makes clear that the air strikes were not "disproportionate" (if that even means anything in open combat), but were rather an essential piece of regaining control of the situation due to the fact that the Northern Alliance troops involved were substantially outnumbered once the Taliban prisoners had armed themselves from a nearby arsenal.
The reports of dead men with their arms bound were misleading. They were not executed. Rather, the NA troops were in the process of searching the prisoners to look for weapons when the revolt happened. As part of that process, the prisoner's arms were bound (a normal precaution) and when the fighting began those few who had already been tied up were caught in the crossfire and were killed. Under the circumstances that was probably unavoidable.
Finally, what this proves beyond any doubt at all is that Amnesty International was too quick on the trigger. Before issuing its condemnation and call for an investigation, it should have waited for the situation to stabilize and more accurate reports to appear.
Amnesty International is dismayed that the United Kingdom has rejected calls for an urgent inquiry into the deaths of prisoners and others in Qala-i-Jhangi.
"The rejection of an inquiry by the United Kingdom into what is apparently the single most bloody incident of the war, during which serious abuses of international human rights and humanitarian law may have been committed, raises questions about their commitment to the rule of law," Amnesty International said
Actually, what it mostly raises questions about is Amnesty International's objectivity. Have they been raising equally strident calls for investigations into the war crimes which the Taliban have been committing? Will they apologize for their false condemnations in this particular case? Fat chance of either of those happening. (discuss)
I used to respect Amnesty International. But then, I also 
used to respect Medecins Sans Frontieres.
