Only one plane was lost, a US Air Force F-15 on March 21, 2011.

On board were a pilot, Maj. Kenneth Harney and a weapons officer, Capt. Tyler Stark.

Now that the official investigation into the incident is over, they can tell their stories.

Anchor Marco Werman speaks to them on a line from Cambridge, near their base in England.

Another 16 French soldiers were injured, some seriously, in the incident in Kapisa province.

An official told the BBC that an Afghan non-commissioned officer got into a “verbal clash” and opened fire.

President Nicolas Sarkozy said France was suspending its training programs in Afghanistan following the attack.

Marco Werman talks with the BBC’s Bilal Sarwary in Kabul.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Marco Werman: I’m Marco Werman, this is The World. There was an incident today in Afghanistan that highlights a growing problem for US troops and their allies there. A soldier of the Afghan National Army opened fire on a group of French military trainers. Four French soldiers were killed and at least 16 more were injured. In Paris, French President Nicolas Sarkozy reacted by saying French troops are not in Afghanistan to be shot at by their allies.

Nicolas Sarkozy: [Speaking French] We are the Afghan people’s friend and we are the Afghan people’s allies, but I can’t accept that Afghan soldiers could fire on French soldiers. If the security conditions are not clearly established then the question of an anticipated withdrawal of the French Army will be raised.

Werman: This is not the first time an Afghan soldier has fired on allied foreign troops. The BBC’s Bilal Sarwary is in Kabul. What’s known about this soldier, this Afghan soldier and his motives, Bilal, and the circumstances under which his attack on the French soldiers took place?

Bilal Sarwary: Well, we do know that he is a noncommissioned officer with the Afghan National Army, and that he had a verbal clash. Soon afterwards he fired at the French, killing 4 and injuring 17 others. The Afghan Minister of Defense here in Kabul has sent a delegation to find out more, but we do understand that the Afghan National Security Forces, the French soldiers serving with NATO, the International Security Assistance Force, were conducting a huge clearance operation in what is known as a volatile region.

Werman: This is not the first time this has happened where an Afghan soldier or policeman kills foreign troops inside Afghanistan. Do you know how many coalition troops have been killed by Afghan forces in this manner?

Sarwary: I don’t have an exact number, but I know enough to say that this is a very grave problem, one which has created deep mistrust between the Afghans and the international forces.

Werman: Any sense of why it’s happening now?

Sarwary: Well, it’s very difficult to say why, but I’ve followed the case of one Afghan rogue soldier who killed six US Special Forces. In this case he was recruited for 3-1/2 years by the Taliban. His uncles were leading the insurgency in that region, and the Afghan government totally failed in terms of counter intelligence to really understand that this was no more an Afghan border policeman, but a Taliban infiltrator. And it’s really difficult to have intelligence on people who come from areas where the Afghan government is simply not there. What is really ironic is that a lot of the Afghan National Army and police soldiers have Taliban hypnotic chants as their ringtones on their mobile phones…

Werman: Really.

Sarwary: including those serving on joint Afghan international bases I have come cross in the eastern province of Nangarhar, I saw it in Kandahar last week. If you listen to those hypnotic chants, if you listen to those Taliban songs with their music, they really prey on the most basic emotion of an Afghan. And a lot of those people who come to the Afghan Security Forces come from the country’s royal areas with no education and with areas where the Afghan government has never been there. The second big problem that seems to be there is the issue of cultural differences. For example, when I was in the eastern province of Nangarhar I went to an Afghan border police training center where the Americans were training the Afghans. And the problem there was that the Americans were absolutely disgusted in their own words, tired and frustrated that the Afghans were taking hours for their lunch, prayer and tea breaks. And according to the Americans the Afghans there were simply lazy, they were not working hard. Now, if you went to the Afghans in the same camp they would have told you the Americans are using the F-word, they’re not allowing us to pray, they’re not allowing us to eat, so both sides were involved in a tit for tat sort of war.

Werman: Well, thanks very much for the update. The BBC’s Bilal Sarwary in Kabul.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

“After 10 years in the wilderness, I would expect more than a few of them would like to try something different,” Crocker told host Marco Werman from the US Embassy in Kabul.

Crocker’s optimism comes despite roadblocks to the negotiations thrown up by Pakistan. Officials in Islamabad on Wednesday turned down a request by U.S. special envoy Marc Grossman to visit Pakistan. Grossman, the special representative on Afghanistan and Pakistan is handling the reconciliation effort. Relations between Islamabad and Washington have been especially tense since a NATO cross-border air attack killed 24 Pakistani soldiers on Nov. 26.

Many analysts are skeptical that the talks can move forward without Pakistan’s approval.

Crocker told Werman that sitting down with the Taliban does not mean giving in to their demands.

” This is hardly conceding the field to the enemy. It’s going to require an adversary to make some pretty tough choices as to whether they want to be part of a new Afghan society on Afghan government terms,” Crocker said.

The Taliban ruled Afghanistan from 1996 until 2001. American troops toppled the Sunni Islamist group after the September 11th attacks.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Marco Werman: Next door to Pakistan the war in Afghanistan grind on. The US is trying to jump start negotiations with the Taliban in an effort to start winding down the conflict. Pakistan could help given its reported links with the Taliban, that’s what US Special Envoy, Marc Grossman, wanted to discuss with officials in Islamabad. It’s his job to bring all the factions to the table, but as we noted earlier, Pakistan refused Grossman’s visit today. Still, the effort continues. The American Ambassador in Kabul, Ryan Crocker, says if the talks happen, Afghan officials will have to be at the forefront.

Ryan Crocker: Any process we’re gonna be involved in has to be one that is Afghan lead and aims at a reconciliation between the Afghan Taliban and the Afghan government.

Werman: Right, I keep hearing American officials say that Afghans have to lead this process in any negotiations with the Taliban. What is the evidence that Afghans are pushing on that front?

Crocker: Well, they’re very engaged, doing a lot of work, have a clear vision of where they want to see this go. So they are ready to lead, there’s no question in my mind. Marc Grossman will be visiting here, will be meeting with President Karzai and members of his team, basically to learn from them and him how they want to proceed with respect to any useful role we might play. This is their initiative. They’ll make decisions. They’ll decide how they run it and they’ll decide who they want in the room.

Werman: Now, Pakistan has actually said today that because of consternation over drone strikes that that visit with Marc Grossman is going to have to be delayed. Does that concern you?

Crocker: Well, clearly we’ve gone through a rough patch with Pakistan over the last couple of months, and they’ve got a whole range of internal problems of their own. I think these are nonetheless very important relationships between us and Pakistan, between us and Afghanistan, and between Afghanistan and Pakistan. So, clearly, there are problems. I think equally clearly the interests of all three countries are of such significance that we’ve gotta find a way to talk about them.

Werman: Could negotiations with the Taliban happen without Pakistan?

Crocker: Well, we’ll just have to see how it unfolds. Clearly, Pakistan is in a position to make the process easier or to make it more difficult, but I don’t think they can completely block it.

Werman: I mean the Pakistani military has been so closely tied to the Taliban and insurgents, it’s hard to imagine them letting the Taliban negotiate with complete independence.

Crocker: The Taliban of course are our adversary as they are the adversary of the Afghan government, but they are also Afghans. And you know, after 10 years in the wilderness I would expect that more than a few of them would like to try something different and see if they can come to terms.

Werman: What have you seen on the ground lately that’s given you the most encouragement that things may be headed in the right direction in Afghanistan?

Crocker: Well, I think there are a lot of encouraging signs. One of them, a lot of people would consider a negative, horrendous traffic in Kabul. They may exceed Cairo for world record traffic jams. The level of violence in Kabul is very, very low. When you’re out and about it’s a normal city; stores are open, people are on the streets, you know, there are art galleries, one feels very comfortable driving around again, as long as you can fight your way through the traffic.

Werman: Do you think Kabul would still have that vibrant quality if the US were to pull out today?

Crocker: Well, bare in mind the city of Kabul transitioned to Afghan security control in the summer. It’s Afghan security forces exclusively that are keeping the peace in the city and doing so effectively. When there have been incidents it has been those same Afghan forces that have resolved them. You know, Kabul is already totally in Afghan hands for security purposed.

Werman: Ambassador Crocker, explain something to me and my listeners, I mean wasn’t the goal in Afghanistan to keep it from becoming a safe haven for al-Qaeda and its allies, that would be the Taliban for one; and keeping the Taliban from ever returning to power? And by negotiating with the enemy isn’t the US admitting that the goal can’t be met?

Crocker: Actually, I would see it in completely contrary terms, Marco. Insurgencies normally end through some kind of political settlement. The terms the Afghan government has set for reconciliation, which we fully support, set the bar quite high. There has to be a complete break by the Taliban with al-Qaeda, a complete renunciation and sensation of violence, and respect by the Taliban for the Afghan constitution, including its protections for women and minorities. So this is hardly conceding the field to the enemy. It’s going to require an adversary to make some pretty tough choices whether they want to be part of the new Afghan society on Afghan government terms or not.

Werman: Ryan Crocker, the US Ambassador to Afghanistan, speaking with us from Kabul. Thank you very much indeed, Ambassador.

Crocker: Thank you.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

The Marine officers named a lead investigative officer in the case Friday.

All four Marines seen in the video have now reportedly been identified.

US officials, including Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, are worried that anger over the incident could undermine the US military effort in Afghanistan.

Anchor Marco Werman talks to Prof. Morris Davis of Howard University School of Law about the rules US service members are required to follow when it comes to enemy dead on the battlefield.

Marco Werman: I’m Marco Werman and this is The World, a co-production of the BBC World Service, PRI and WGBH Boston. The Pentagon is following through on its promise to quickly investigate that infamous video, the one of four marines apparently urinating on dead Taliban fighters. Today the Marine Corps officially named a lead investigative officer in the case, and all four marines seen in the video have now reportedly been identified. U.S. officials, including Defense Secretary, Leon Panetta, are worried that anger over the incident could undermine the U.S. military effort in Afghanistan. Fawzia Kofi, a member of the Afghan parliament is worried too.

Fawzia Kofi: Our deviated Taliban, and the utilities, and links to Taliban are looking for an excuse to use against intermission forces in Afghanistan. This could be good propaganda means.

Werman: A swift US investigation could help counter the negative image created by the incident. But, the Afghan government wants more than that. According to Afghan Foreign Ministry spokesman, Janan Mosazai.

Janan Mosazai: Our expectation is that an economist will conduct a thorough investigation into this incident, and punish all of those soldiers found to have been part of this reprehensible crime, and that they will be punished accordingly.

Werman: So what sort of legal charges could the four Marines involved be facing? Morris Davis is a retired Air Force colonel. He served as chief prosecutor at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, from 2005 to 2007. He resigned from that post in 2008, and now teaches at Howard University School of Law. Colonel Davis, article 15 of the First Geneva Convention of 1864 prohibits the delivered mistreatment of a body on the battlefield. It appears that in this particular case in Afghanistan, the soldiers did not abide by the Geneva Convention. Would that be where the legal case starts?

Morris Davis: It could, but if you recall when we started the war in Afghanistan, the Bush administration said the Geneva Conventions didn’t apply. The Supreme Court disagreed in the Hamdan decisions, said Common Article 3 applies, but regardless, customary international humanitarian law recognizes that mistreating a corpse is prohibited.

Werman: And what are the guidelines for how you treat corpses in battle?
Davis: Well, there aren’t detail-specific guidelines other than the Geneva Conventions that talk about showing respect for the treatment of the dead body. I mean, there are certain things you would assume don’t need to be written down for most reasonable human beings to understand you don’t do, and certainly the behavior depicted in the video falls well below that standard.

Werman: This is not the first time we’ve heard of such an instance in Afghanistan; it also happened in Iraq. I’m also reminded of stories of American soldiers in Vietnam taking body parts as souvenirs. Can you help us understand how the generally accepted rules of war can fall by the wayside on the battlefield when it comes to the dead?

Davis: Some people have a hard time grasping that there are rules that apply to war. I mean, I think some people assume that if the situation reached a point where war is broken out, then it’s “anything goes”. And that’s one of the arguments that you hear now, is “look at how the Taliban behaves”. But, we don’t gage our conduct by the conduct of our adversaries. And there are certainly, as you mentioned, exceptions from Iraq and from Vietnam, and from World War II. But that doesn’t change the fact of the matter, that we pride ourselves, the military, for our professionalism and living up to a higher standard than our adversaries.

Werman: How psychically difficult do you think it is to treat the dead with respect when you’re in the midst of war and there’s bullets flying all over? Is it too much to ask of troops?

Davis: I don’t think it is; I mean, I think it’s basic human dignity not to mistreat the dead. I mean, the law of war permits conduct that in normal circumstances would not be permitted, for instance, killing. But, once the enemy is no longer capable of fighting, whether they’re sick, wounded, captured or killed, then you lose the right to do things that you ordinarily couldn’t do. And certainly, in this video, if it is what it appears to be, then our soldiers, their conduct fell below the standards that are acceptable.

Werman: Colonel Davis, when the rules of war are not followed, where do you place the blame? On the troops themselves or is this a leadership problem?

Davis: I think accountability and responsibility should be throughout the process. I mean, certainly there’s no excusing what’s depicted in the video. So that’s kind of the bottom of the pyramid, but at the top of the pyramid, when we started out this war in Afghanistan, the Bush administration said the Geneva Conventions were quaint and didn’t apply. Basically, “take your gloves off and anything goes”. So, there should be some accountability at the top too for creating this atmosphere that allows this kind of behavior to occur. I mean, it’s certainly a lack of leadership to create an environment where any troop would think that this behavior is acceptable for a member of the U.S. armed forces.

Werman: It sounds like you take it back to that statement from the Bush administration that the Geneva Conventions don’t apply. Do you think that things started there?

Davis: Without a doubt in my mind. You know, America for 200 years, we viewed ourselves as the city on the hill that others should emulate and live up to. We still serve as an example, but often we serve as a bad example, not a good one. So, I think in this instance, the Pentagon is taking it seriously; I think the people will be held accountable, and hopefully this kind of behavior will continue to be the very rare exception and not the rule.
Werman: Retired Air Force Colonel Morris Davis recently served as executive director at the Crimes of War Education Project in Washington, D.C., where he worked to enhance global public awareness of international humanitarian law, and to highlight violations of the laws of war. He’s currently teaching at Howard University School of Law. Colonel Davis, thank you very much for your point of view.

Davis: Thank you.

A statement confirmed the move, which has been backed by Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

Marco Werman talks to David Roberts of the Royal United Services Institute in Qatar about the proposed Taliban office.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Marco Werman: I’m Marco Werman, this is The World. Afghanistan today officially welcomed peace talks between the United States and the Taliban. It also welcomed the proposed opening of a Taliban office in the Gulf Emirate of Qatar. US and Afghan officials hope the new office will help hasten the end of the war in Afghanistan. Officials in Qatar lead by the country’s monarch may be relishing the fact that they get to play the role of matchmaker in any deal. Qatar, which is home to the Al Jazeera news network has worked hard to increase its influence in the region. David Roberts is with the Royal United Services Institute, a British think tank. He’s based in Doha, the capital of Qatar. Roberts says the opening of a Taliban office there makes a certain amount of sense.

David Roberts: Qatar has been involved for a little while now with America and Germany specifically, to try to I suppose engineer some kind of a resolution to some degree. And to be perfectly honest it makes a lot of sense. It doesn’t come as a surprise to me that this has happened here. Qatar has a quite long and illustrious history in recent years of trying to help with mediating in various conflicts.

Werman: Well, we’ll get to that in recent history, but as far as the Taliban, what does it mean to have an office in Qatar? I mean in my mind I see Taliban headquarters on the door of the office. What kind of physical profile will this office actually have?

Roberts: Yeah, indeed, I’m curious about that myself. I confess I don’t know. I don’t think anyone does to be perfectly honest. A lot of the way things work in Qatar are pretty ad hoc, no one knows specifically what the form will be. But in terms of the use of the office, I mean if we look at a couple of recent attempts to get some kind of negotiation going in Afghanistan, in September last year an Afghan government mediator was assassinated because he couldn’t find the right Taliban person to speak to. And the year before the American was fined several hundred thousands dollars for pretty much the same reason. So with the office here it’ll provide a bona fide represents to the Taliban, which it’s a very small step, but a crucial one.

Werman: As you say David, I mean this is the latest of several efforts by Qatar. It’s made efforts to try and broker deals in Syria, and Darfur and Sudan, on and off in Yemen. It sent four of its Mirage jets to the no-fly zone over Libya. Now this business with the Taliban. Why is Qatar stepping forward internationally?

Roberts: To some degree it’s because it can. It’s a very small state. It’s a threat to no one. It’s completely secured by America, it has two huge bases here, so it’s sort of intrinsically able to do this. The last point on that idea is obviously it’s a very small place as I say; if the mayor or the prime minister who’s very emboldened here, if they have an idea that they want to push forward no one in the bureaucracy will stop them at all. So it’s quite personalized in that way. And in recent years the elite have obviously had this desire to mediate in conflicts around the region. And if I could just mention Qatar and Darfur, they’ve been involved there for many years now to affect some kind of a resolution there. So why they’re doing this, yes, I think we can mention some altruistic reasons perhaps, but let’s not forget that Sudan is the bread basket of Africa as it’s known. Qatar is a very food insecure country. And obviously with all these years of negotiations they’ve built up a huge amount of goodwill in the country, not to mention a huge raft of contacts. So in that specific example we can see other reasons afoot shall we say. And you know, we can’t go through all the examples, but there are always multiple reasons essentially for this.

Werman: David Roberts, the deputy director of the Qatar office of the Royal United Services Institute. He joined us from the capital, Doha. Thank you very much indeed.

Roberts: Thank you.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

U.S. Army Cpl. Joseph Rentie,1st Battalion, 279th Infantry Regiment, concludes a search of a truck at a Pakistan border crossing in Paktya province. (Photo by: U.S. Army)

The attack sparked fury in Pakistan and led the country’s leaders to close a critical US supply route to land-locked Afghanistan.

Before 9/11 and the US invasion of Afghanistan, cargo transport across the Pakistan-Afghanistan border was minimal. But now, with over 130,000 NATO troops to sustain in land-locked Afghanistan, supplies had to come from somewhere, and the cheapest and fastest route is through Pakistan.

“The industry has grown from zero to a phenomenal size,” said Mohammed Rajpar, managing director of a major shipping agency based in Karachi. “The way the western countries sustain their troops is even the water they shower in is imported, forget the water they drink,” Rajpar said. “And all their food, drink, transport, surveillance, weapons. It spawned an entire industry.”

At its peak, some 500 trucks carried fuel and goods each day from the port at Karachi to Afghanistan. Today, that number is down to between 200 and 300, as NATO shifted some supply to what is known as the “northern route,” going through the Central Asian republics. Even now though, almost half of NATO’s supply travels through Pakistan.

But after last Saturday’s attacks on a Pakistani border post, the Pakistani government closed off its border crossings with Afghanistan. Private transporter unions issued statements of support for the government reaction.

Nawab Sher Afridi, secretary general of the Oil Transporters Association, said six of his trucks are involved in the transporting fuel to Afghanistan, but that he has always been against NATO’s actions there – a contradiction he readily admitted.

“We are against NATO, I’m telling you plainly,” Afridi said. “Our original home is in Afghanistan. We are ruining it ourselves. What kind of interview do you want from someone who is ruining his own home. But when our livelihood is at stake then the name of necessity is “thank you”. There is no limit. You have to accept the law that they have imposed, and that is the dollar. And in front of the dollar, my faith is nothing.”

But now, the truckers said they’re glad the government is taking a stand against NATO, and, for now at least, they said they’re willing to bear the financial loss.

Babu Jan Shinwari, a driver and owner of a goods supply truck, said the personal gains they have made over the past 10 years have come at a cost for society.

“Its true, we are making more money than we did before,” he said. “But if you look at it another way, we have also suffered a great deal. We have lost human lives, homes have been destroyed, there have been drone attacks and terrorist bomb blasts. It’ a huge loss.”

In fact, in 2005, Babu Jan’s cousin was killed in a bomb attack near the Kandahar Air Base, in Afghanistan, while he was sleeping in the cabin of his oil tanker.

While the truckers claim to be in favor of Pakistan’s action, the closing of the supply lines is having an impact. Many of the trucks that would normally be on the roads to Afghanistan are sitting idle in Karachi. And shippers have had to rent extra space at the port to store cargo that has nowhere to go for the meanwhile.

This isn’t the first time that the supply lines have been suspended. And most observers find it hard to believe that Pakistan will keep the supply lines shut permanently this time, because of both strategic and economic interests.

But shipping company director Mohammed Rajpar said the industry is already starting to think of what comes next, since NATO has already announced plans to leave Afghanistan by 2014.

“These truck drivers and truck owners are probably among the most clever commercial, versatile businessmen on the planet. They have operated in the roughest of environments and the most difficult of circumstances at great personal risk to their life and property,” he said. “They’ll find other avenues of business. And second they will transfer some of this knowledge to elsewhere in the business. How to secure cargo, meeting deadlines. Hopefully they’ll transfer this to the commercial side.”

It’s the fallout of a NATO airstrike on a Pakistani border post near the border with Afghanistan on Saturday which killed at least 24 Pakistani troops. Pakistan says the attacks were unprovoked, while coalition forces say they are investigating the incident.

It has brought the already strained relations between the US and Pakistan to a new low since they became in the war against terror after 9/11.

“Those who are friends of America and NATO are traitors.”

That’s the rally cry here at this protest demonstration in Karachi organized by the officially banned Jamaat ud Dawa Islamist group.

The turnout isn’t huge, just a few hundred people waving black and white Jamaat ud Dawa flag. But it’s just one of several such protests across the country on Monday, and follows a larger rally in front of Karachi’s US consulate on Sunday.

They are seething against Saturday’s NATO airstrike on Pakistani soil. And speakers like Navid Qamar are calling on the Pakistani government to take a stronger response.

“If US or NATO helicopters event enter Pakistan then they should be shot down even if that means following them back into Afghanistan, to take revenge for your martyrs,” Qamar said.

The participants at this demonstration are all associated with Pakistan’s Islamist parties, and do not represent the bulk of society. But this specific issue of cross-border attacks does resonate across much of the political spectrum in the country.

Many Pakistanis have long been uncomfortable with their government’s alliance with the US in its War on Terror.

“Today, NATO forces are spilling the blood of oppressed Muslims in Afghanistan,” demonstration speaker Nasrullah Shaji said. “We shared air bases and our intelligence with them. Today those same NATO forces are attacking the Pakistani military.”

Many of those at this rally, this is the last straw, and are just as angered by the Pakistani government’s weak response as they are by NATO’s attacks on Pakistani soil. Abdul Rehman, a spokesperson for the Jamaat ud Dawa, says the killing of uniformed Pakistani troops makes matters even worse.

“If your borders are being breached, your soldiers are being killed then there is no reason to apologize. You just go scramble your jets and raid their posts. That is the basic thing you have to do. Temporarily settlements like asking them to apologize or closing supply lines is not the solution. So there is no point in saying we have our sovereignty. Either give them everything you have, or defend it,” Rehman said.

Others, like Asadullah Bhutto of the mainstream Islamist Jamaat-e-Islami party, want the government to take this up with the international community.

“I think it is the right of Pakistan to take this matter to the UN security council and other international forums,” Bhutto said. “Because it is a violation of international conventions. They have violated our geographical territory. Govt of Pakistan should take it seriously.”

The immediate popular anger in response to this airstrike is likely to eventually die down, as has been the case with previous incidents like this. But what is unclear is what the incremental impact of all of these incidents will be on Pakistani-US relations in the long term.

They didn’t.

Anchor Marco Werman speaks with archeologist Hafed Walda of Kings College in London.

Dr. Walda thanked NATO at a conference last week in Rome for sparing Libya’s antiquities.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Marco Werman: Outside military intervention in Syria seems a remote possibility. In Libya, by contrast, NATO’s air campaign was widely seen as decisive in the eventual overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi. But NATO’s raids in Libya felt a couple of places there unchanged and that’s a good thing. We’re talking the ancient cities of Sabratha and Leptis Magna. They are considered to be among the most magnificent Roman ruins anywhere. Libyan-born archeologist Hafed Walda is with Kings College, London. I’d like you to tell us Dr. Walda just how crucial it was for NATO to avoid any collateral damage at the sites of these Roman ruins. But describe for us, first of all, Leptis Magna and Sabratha because I am sure a lot of our listeners won’t know these two sites very well.

Hafed Walda: They are, more or less, untouched because they were covered by sand after they had been abandoned in the late Roman period. The sand stayed there covering the antiquities until the late 19th century once people started knowing about them. The backdrop is the blue Mediterranean. So, it is an idyllic place; it’s breathtaking.

Werman: Magnificent sites as you say and ones which potentially could have suffered greatly during the fighting to unseat Gaddafi from power. At a recent conference in Rome, Hafed Walda, you gave an update on what’s been happening at Leptis and Sabratha and you actually thanked NATO for sparing them. What do you know about NATO’s bombing strategy when it came to Sabratha and Leptis? Were there strict orders not to go anywhere near these two cities?

Walda: I know the strategy to avoid hitting any cultural heritage areas because we have been supplying them with [code nets???] via an organization called The Blue Shield which gives NATO and America [code nets???] of heritage sites to avoid and not to damage them. At one time, an area near Leptis Magna - it's a hilly area - there is a radar setting by the troops of Gaddafi; I went there and, to my astonishment, every single radar were hit by missiles and there is a Roman arch next to them that hasn't moved at all.

Werman: Wow! That's amazing!

Walda: It was very impressive.

Werman: I heard that early on in the battles Gaddafi loyalists were said to be hiding weapons in Sabratha - in the ruins, thinking that they would be protected there. Do you know whether NATO was prepared to take those weapons out if they had to?

Walda: I think they are not really high-caliber weapons and they are not threatening to the civilians. At the same time, the guards of the antiquities were persuaded not to endanger themselves and endanger the site.

Werman: What do you think that says about the overall appreciation in Libya of these Roman ruins? I mean, people must really value them.

Walda: They value them but, I'm afraid, it's not all of Libya that is like that because the previous regime disconnected heritage from the identity of Libya. Only the identity of Libya is linked to the Gaddafi's heritage. We want heritage to be a top priority as much as health, education and other things.

Werman: Hafed Walda, you were born and raised in Libya before moving to London. How large do sites like Sabratha and Leptis play in your own imagination? What do they mean to you personally?

Walda: They mean a lot to me because this is why I became an archeologist. I lived not far from Leptis and my father used to take us to Leptis Magna to go and see the ruins. He never explained exactly what are the building and history, but I tried very hard to get that information. Leptis Magna is not just history, it's the art, it's the architecture, it's the setting. It's the whole set of things. It's fantastically rich and it excites my imagination - I can't tell you more.

Werman: Hafed Walda, Research Fellow at Kings College, London, thank you very much indeed.

Walda: Thank you very much.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Lisa Mullins: As the Protest against the Assad regime continues in Syria, the people in Libya are taking the first steps toward a post Gaddafi future. But they are also distracted by lingering questions about how Muammar Gaddafi was killed last week. The interim government says the opposed dictator died in crossfire after capture. The chief investigator for human rights watch in Libya says Gaddafi was illegally executed by the rebels who found him. Videos from cell phones clearly show brutal treatment of Gaddafi immediately after his capture. Many of those video were located and published by the online news site Global Post. Tom Mucha is Editor at Global Post, he’s in Boston. How did you get your hands on these videos Tom?

Tom Mucha: Well we got our hands on these videos through our correspondent on the ground insert, Tracy Shelton, who arrived on the scene moments after the actual event happened. She procured these video sources from the actual rebels who were there on the scene.

Mullins: From the rebels who shot them themselves?

Mucha: Correct, mobile phone video footage that the rebels shot themselves.

Mullins: When they came to you did they have to be authenticated?

Mucha: Yes, we very much counted on the reporting instincts in town of our correspondents on the ground to verify this information and she did that by interviewing many of the rebels who were there on the scene.

Mullins: And then what happens, Tom, in a case like this? First describe the videos because the reason we are talking to you is because the videos are so graphic and there are many news organizations that have issued cautions about how much should be used or can be used. What was the process when you saw these videos? And tell us what these videos contain.

Mucha: It was the earliest known footage of Gaddafi being pulled from his hiding place and being captured by the rebels so when we had this information we can be in a meeting of our most senior staff at Global Post and carefully examine what we had in our possession. And it became very clear to us that this was clearly news, particularly as the international community was demanding formal investigations about what happened and the president of Libya’s National Transitional Council was claiming that Gaddafi was killed by his own supporters. So when you have conflicting accounts it’s the role of journalism to present the facts as we collect them. So, our decision making process was to run the videos with ample warnings throughout about the graphic nature of the content.

Mullins: This was when they were mocking him, they were physically attacking him and in one case it appears that he is being sodomized as well with some kind of a stick or a knife. When you saw those, how did you determine how much of those videos you wanted to run on your site.

Mucha: Well we looked at those videos and we actually did a frame by frame analysis of the actual event. The actual event, Lisa, took place in less than a second. So what we did is we isolated those individual frames that clearly showed what had happened. And then we showed the video in its entirety, which was about 3:30 minutes long.

Mullins: Can you tell us in your own experience, not only as editor of Global Post, but in your journalistic experience how things have changed in terms of images that now tell us what happened in an event, but then also have an afterlife? Give us your own experience in cases like these.

Mucha: We are finding that it is very popular with news audiences because people want to see events as they happen. It’s raw, its visceral, it’s in real time, it’s delivering information that people want without filters and without multiple layers. This new technology allows viewers to really get a first draft of what’s happening in a way that was never really possible before. Imagine if mobile phone cameras had been around when Mussolini executed in Italy or when Ceauşescu was shot by his own people in Romania. Coverage of that would have been ubiquitous. Now imagine if 9/11 had occurred yesterday, the amount of video coverage of that even would have been overwhelming. You would have had literally thousands of tiny personalized records of that day, from multiple sources, multiple locations, multiple perspectives. At Global Post, how do we look at this? We view these as new reporting tools, which can’t be controlled by any one news organization, but they offer new opportunities for smart journalists to tell better and more complete stories on consequential topics like this one in Libya.

Mullins: Tom Mucha, Editor of Global Post in Boston, thank you.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

Caution: This video contains graphic imagery

BBC Interactive: How Gaddafi Died

Libya Coverage on The World

BBC Libya Coverage

Read tweets about Libya

Caution: This poem contains some graphic language.
Listen to Mattawa’s reading of “After 42 Years”

Download MP3

After 42 Years

by Khaled Mattawa

Five years old when the dictator took over in a coup —

curfew shut our city down

Bloodless coup, they said —

The many who thought this could be good.

The dictator, a young man, a shy recluse assumed the helm, bent in piety,

the dead sun of megalomania hidden in his eyes.

Could not go to the store to buy bread or newspaper,

could not leave home, visit friends,

the radio thundering hatred, retching blood-curdling song —

Signs that went unread

Factories built and filched, houses stolen, newspapers shut down,

decades of people killed, 42 years.

But that’s all over now —

How can you say over when it took 42 years —

I was five when the dictator took my brother away

Over now, 42 years, must look ahead.

His face half blood-covered, half smirking

Like Batman’s Joker,

hands raised, fingers pressed together upward

Saying wait, calm down, wait

Wait 42 years — five years old when my father was killed

standing in front of a hotel.

Bloodless coup,

the country like a helpless teenage girl

forced into marriage hoping her groom will be kind.

In between there was blankness

that burned like a million of suns into our eyes,

Death like air, everywhere.

What was it like to be held by his men?

Fingers pulled out, testicles fried,

To be hung from a clothesline rope , the dictator’s mistress pulling at my legs?

How many killed by his men over the decades,

The cracked skulls, the mass graves, the uncounted dead?

What and who taught you O sons of my country to be so fearless cruel?

Him, they say, for 42 years, 42 years of him.

Who taught you to be reckless heroic?

The no-life we had to live, under him, the lives we were asked to live as dead.

Alive we want him alive, many kept shouting.

So that they could give him tastes of his own medicine?

Alive, alive!

And many others disbelieving they’d caught him.

Their shrill Allahu Akbars exclamations of astonishment —

What have I done O Lord to deserve the honor of capturing the rat?

Exclamations of disbelief —

The nightmare — GAME OVER — the night-game of breaking into houses, arresting sons; the day game of civility — we’ll bring him in a few hours —

we’ll bring him back in 42 years —

Could it be so easy — GAME OVER — the capturing of a 69-year-old rat?

A clown in a rat-colored outfit, a wild mop of hair, a wig

Holding a golden pistol like a child playing hero, high-heeled boots.

Is that what our history amounted to?

No.

Because somewhere there were suns that would never light.

Somewhere, there were holes in the air that was full of death.

We managed to hold our breath and live our lives.

Could it be so simple O Lord to end an epoch? —

killing kidnapping murder massacre slit throats vaginal tests for women he wished to sex vaginal rapes anal rapes of dissidents he wished to humiliate — humiliation denigration outsourced whippings money changed on oil tankers boiling water poured on the entreating heads of maids hot iron pressed on servant flesh slit throats broken ribs feet whipped until swelled like cantaloupes bodies left hanging in public squares —

I was five when my brother disappeared,

I was thirteen, I was twenty, I was seventy six, I was never

allowed to reach birth.

What will be our aftermath?

One minute and all of that history is found hiding

like a rat, history like a rat,

hiding in a sewer drain.

History too hot to hold —

the magic was in seeing it come to end —

the pain too dark to bear, too light, too cold,

the astonishment unbearable, would kill you if it lasted too long.

He died of his wounds.

No, no, they just shot him dead.

Perhaps he was a magnet and he drew evil out of men’s chests,

his hands, his hands saying wait, wait

reached into their lungs and wound and knotted their raw souls,

a magnet now siphoning cruelty to itself.

No, no, they just shot him dead.

But I heard he died of his wounds.

Too much for a young man who could not stop being a killer,

a young man who did what millions wished to do.

To tear him to bits, my mother’s friend once said,

to tear him to bits, six millions hearts had prayed —

O God grant me the sight of him dead!

One bullet, or two, some say three,

despite the pleading fingers tainted with their own blood.

Surprised as if he’d never seen or heard of blood,

Surprised that he too would bleed if cut.

One bullet, two, or three and it’s done with, our history, our epoch.

The book of misery read

The rabid beast captured, kicked about and shot in the head.

O Lord is that our history tossed into a freezer like a lump of rotting flesh?

O Lord how little our lives must be, when so much can be buried lost, dumped in a

hole, forgotten dust!

No, because

somewhere, an earthly sun is shining on us, with us, again.

There is air in the air again.

What will our aftermath be then?

We wash our hands,

put on spotless clothes.

There is no “after” until we pray for all the dead.

A National Transitional Council (NTC) official told the BBC the bodies were buried at dawn in an unknown location.

This follows days of apparent uncertainty among the new leadership about what to do with the bodies.

Anchor Lisa Mullins speaks with Peter Bouckaert of Human Rights Watch who says Gaddafi was executed without trial.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Lisa Mullins: I’m Lisa Mullins and this The World. Muammar Gaddafi was buried in the Libyan desert today. The location is a secret. That’s to keep the site from becoming a shrine for supporters or a target for vandals, but the move does nothing to quell international calls for an investigation into how the deposed Libyan dictator was killed. Libya’s interim leaders says Gaddafi was killed in crossfire, but the main investigator for Human Rights Watch in Libya thinks otherwise. Peter Bouckaert is in Misrata and he’s concluded that both Gaddafi and his son, Mutassim, were illegally executed.

Peter Bouckaert: We know that Muammar and his son Muttasim were captured alive, that they were not fatally wounded. We know that both men were quite brutally treated, especially Muammar. That evening, a young fighter arrived at the place we were staying and showed me a hand full of hair that he had pulled out of Muammar Gaddafi’s head, but they were certainly not fatally wounded. So somewhere after their capture and after they were removed from the scene of their capture, they were shot and killed by Misrata based rebels. Not in crossfire, but basically executed, in our opinion.

Mullins: In your opinion they were executed. There are report, in fact we have seen them. James Foley filed on for GlobalPost showing one of the rebels saying, “Yes, one person came up and fired once in Gaddafi’s head.” Have you been able to verify that yourself?

Bouckaert: Well, we have seen those reports. We do not believe that the fatal shot was fired at the scene where Muammar Gaddafi was captured. We believe he was killed at some point after he was taken away from the scene of his capture, and it’s even clearer that his son, Mutassim, was executed after he was captured because we have video footage showing him sitting on a couch, smoking a cigarette, drinking water, and speaking to his captors. Certainly not with any kind of fatal wounds on his body.

Mullins: There are Libyans who are saying at the same time, “We don’t really care how they died and how Gaddafi himself died.” Why do you believe that they should care?

Bouckaert: I think they should care because it’s not just about the death of Muammar Gaddafi and his son, Mutassim. They are certainly very hated people in Libya. I believe that it would have been much better if they had been put on trial to answer for their crimes rather than executed, but the much larger question is about the lack of control that the transitional council has over many of these fighting groups which are now acting with impunity.

Mullins: You know, now Libya’s interim Oil and Finance Minister issued a statement talking about the fighters who may have executed Gaddafi and I want to just play this for you now.

Libya’s interim Oil and Finance Minister: Until yesterday we were defending ourselves against this killer and in war things happen. So these are young men who saw their friends killed in front of them, who saw their cities burned, who saw their sisters raped and I’m amazed of the self control that they had.

Mullins: Peter, what does one do now with the impulse of mob justice. I mean you’re looking ahead to the rule of law, but what happens to the kind of that these people feel after being under Gaddafi’s thumb for decades?

Bouckaert: Well that’s what leadership is all about. The new leadership has said that they don’t want to see vengeance, that they want to see justice for those committed crimes and reconciliation between different communities. A war is fought between people on different sides and it’s very important that entire communities such as the towns of Bani Walid and Sirte and Sebha and Tawargha are not victimized for the crimes commited by some of their residents and yesterday I was driving back from Sirte to Misrata and we stopped at the town of Tawargha and watched rebel forces burn homes right in front of our eyes until they started firing into the air to send us a clear message that we should leave. If people from these town feel that they are the losers and subjected to vengeance and that their houses are being burned and they return to towns like Sirte and find the bodies of their neighbors executed by rebel forces, there really is a risk of civil war and the situation spinning out of control in Libya.

Mullins: That is Peter Bouckaert who is Emergencies Director for Human Rights Watch. He spoke with us from Misrata, Libya.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

BBC Interactive: How Gaddafi Died

Libya Coverage on The World

BBC Libya Coverage

Read tweets about Libya

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Lisa Mullins: I’m Lisa Mullins and this is The World. Libya’s National Transitional Council has authorized an investigation into how Muammar Gaddafi died. The interim government’s leader announced the investigative committee today. Videos of the captured dictator raised concerns around the world. The images showed a bleeding and confused Gaddafi being pushed around by a mob. Gaddafi’s body meanwhile remains in cold storage now in a room in Misrata. Libya’s new leaders are debating what to do with the corpse. The BBC’s Gabriel Gatehouse is in Misrata and he says authorities there tried to stop the body’s public display today.

Gabriel Gatehouse: The commander there seemed to be quite reluctantly closing the gates. He tried to close them several times and each time he got there a few more people would arrive saying no, no, cue it up, please let us in. This went on for an hour or so before they finally did manage to shut it down. Now, he said he was under orders form on high not to let anybody else tomorrow. I think in a sense the body is this grisly spectacle. The body of Colonel Gaddafi has become a political bargaining chip; the fighters of Misrata captured him. That’s what they did, it’s their war trophy. And I think the delay in his burial is in part explained by some behind the scenes maneuvering, positioning for power in a country which has absolutely no precedent or experience for plural politics.

Mullins: They have no experience whatsoever, which makes me wonder to what extent the authorities, transitional authorities are interested in imposing the rule of law. I mean does it seem as if that’s one of the reasons they’re closing the doors and trying to move on with this aside from the politics?

Gatehouse: I think they are interested in imposing the rule of law. I think if you look at what the head of the National Transitional Council, Mr. Abdul Jalil is saying and the noises that are coming out of Benghazi, you will see that they are interested, I think, in trying to implement the rule of law, trying to present a civilized and unified face not only to the outside world, but also to their own people. The question I think is to what extent are they able to because this is a country that’s had its regime toppled by a disparate group of brigades that are in a sense only to themselves, the Misratans don’t even answer to a Misratan command structure, these are people under the command of their own people and they answer only to themselves. This is a country awash with guns, full of independent minded people, and it’s going to take a very concerted, almost superhuman effort, I think to disarm this country, disarm all of these people, persuade them to hand in their guns or join the regular army…and to instill some kind of common purpose, to corral them all into a single direction while at the same time making everyone feel like they’ve got a stake in this new country.

Mullins: There’s a lot going on, not only in the country, but it sounds like right behind you, Gabriel. Can you tell us, I mean you’re in Misrata. I don’t know if you’re near where the body is right at this minute, but what is happening there?

Gatehouse: Oh, it’s about a 10 minute drive away from here actually, it’s on the outskirts of town, but for the past four nights we’ve seen wild and crazy celebrations in this town ever since Colonel Gaddafi was captured and killed. Every evening it has gone mad here. People have been driving at breakneck speed around the streets of this city doing handbrake turns, terrible screeches, firing off guns into the air; not just Kalashnikovs I might add, but heavy caliber anti-aircraft machine guns; and also fireworks. Sometimes at first it’s difficult to distinguish between the two. I have to say that what’s going on behind me now is relatively quiet. It seems that after three days of nonstop partying these people have decided to give it a bit of a rest tonight. But the mood here has been absolutely jubilant and now that Colonel Gaddafi is dead, people seem to be released from any inhibitions that they’d earlier been living under.

Mullins: Yeah, that’s for sure, you can tell by some of the noises behind you right now. I hope you’re safe, Gabriel, but assuming that you are let me just ask you a couple more quick things here. What happens to Gaddafi’s body right now? Do we know?

Gatehouse: We don’t. I’ve been speaking to a source who’s very well connected and who’s been very reliable on this so far, and he says there are talks ongoing between the military authorities from Misrata who captured Colonel Gaddafi and the political authorities in Benghazi, who now supposedly run this country on what to do with it. But the issue hasn’t been resolved. And this man said to me that it’s possible he’ll be buried on Tuesday in Misrata rather than Sirte. I think the feeling is that they don’t want it to be public burial. I think there are quite a lot of people who are against the idea of releasing it to members of his, of Colonel Gaddafi’s extended family. I think they want to avoid any possibility that his final resting place could become some sort of a shrine. But at the moment we are no clearer on what’s actually happening.

Mullins: All right, the BBC’s Gabriel Gatehouse in Misrata, Libya. Thank you for the latest, Gabriel.

Gatehouse: My pleasure.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

Libya Coverage on The World

BBC Libya Coverage

Read tweets about Libya

Libya Coverage on The World

BBC Libya Coverage

Read tweets about Libya

Under Islamic tradition burial should have taken place as soon as possible. But Libya’s oil minister said the remains may be kept “for a few days.”

It is unclear whether the ex-leader will be buried in Sirte, where he was killed on Thursday, in Misrata where the body has been taken, or elsewhere.

Lisa Mullins talks with Reporter Marine Olivesi in Misrata.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

LISA MULLINS: To Libya now, the country’s interim authorities have delayed the burial of Muammar Gaddafi. Libya’s new interim leaders reportedly cannot agree on what to do with the former dictator’s body, and there are lingering questions about how Gaddafi was killed yesterday. The United Nations is asking for a full investigation. We’re going to hear from a UN human rights official later in the program. First, we turn to reporter, Marine Olivesi. She’s in the Libyan city of Misrata, and that is where Gaddafi’s body is right now. Yesterday, Olivesi went to a private home. It was on the outskirts of the city where the bodies of Muammar Gaddafi and his son, Mo-Tassim, were on public display. She recorded this sound of the chaotic scene with people crowding into the large room to see the bodies. Olivesi says the owner of the house was a businessman well connected to the military units in Misrata.

MARINE OLIVESI: The word got around that you could actually see Muammar Gaddafi, and a lot of people starting crowding around the place. They had to restrict the access even though the crowd was hardly manageable. People were crowding around. They all wanted to see the former leader for themselves. Several people said, “Until I’ve seen him with my own eyes, I won’t believe he is dead.” When you enter that main sort of living room or a storage room, you could see the two bodies on the ground, on mattresses. Muammar Gaddafi was… It was quite difficult to see what exactly had killed him because Mo-Tassim Gaddafi had definitely some big holes in his body, one on his throat. Muammar Gaddafi didn’t seem to have extensive injuries. His face was a little muddy. There was a little dried blood on his face, but you couldn’t see where the worst injuries were on his body. In any case, everybody was crowding around taking snapshots with him. People were just touching his belly, was touching his hair. There was a sense of dealing with him as an object or someone very new, that’s for sure.

MULLINS: So that’s where you saw Muammar Gaddafi’s body as well as the body of his son, Mo-Tassim. Where is Gaddafi right now?

OLIVESI: The public’s viewing of him was between 6:00 and 8:00 PM yesterday local time, and then he was taken to a secret place where apparently he would undergo a DNA test and undergo autopsy. There, the general public was not able to see the body.

MULLINS: So, this was to put a final point on the fact that he was indeed dead, but I wonder were the people that you were talking to, especially in Misrata, how widespread is the sentiment that Gaddafi should have been captured alive and faced trial?

OLIVESI: Honestly, I have not met one single Libyan so far who’s expressed that view. They all said that they were scared if Muammar Gaddafi was still alive, as long as he would be alive, they would be scared that he could prepare for a comeback. Just a few days ago, remember, too the National Transitional Council expressed concerns that Muammar Gaddafi might be preparing for a big comeback with the help of other African countries where he has a lot of allies there. These kind of stipulations, some people think it would have gone on and on as long as Muammar Gaddafi was alive. Several people said that now that he’s dead, it puts an end once and for all to the rumours and we’re sure that he won’t be a threat anymore, and that era is behind us now.

MULLINS: All right, reporter Marine Olivesi in Misrata, Libya. Thank you.

OLIVESI: You’re welcome.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

Libya Coverage on The World

BBC Video: Gaddafi’s Body In Cold Storage

BBC Libya Coverage

Read tweets about Libya

Joshua Landis (Photo: University of Oklahoma)

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

LISA MULLINS: I’m Lisa Mullins, and this is The World, a coproduction of the BBC World Service, PRI, and WGBH in Boston. The killing of Muammar Gaddafi is Libya gave new energy to anti-government rallies in Syria today, but the response to those rallies was the same that it has been, brutal government repression. Unconfirmed reports from Syria say several demonstrators were killed by security forces. The United Nations estimates that more than 3,000 Syrians have died in the crackdown over the past seven months. Demonstrators have been calling for President Bashar al-Assad to step down since March. Joshua Landis is the Director of the Center For Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma in Norman. He also publishes a blog that’s called Syria Comment. How worried, Joshua Landis, do you think that President Assad of Syria should be today?

JOSHUA LANDIS: Well, I’m sure he didn’t sleep well last night. The entire world will now be sharpening their knives for Syria. Syria, Yemen are the two authoritarian dictators yet to fall in this Arab Spring. Of course, the situation is very different, but it gave a big boost to the Syrian opposition. Amongst Alawites and others who defend the regime, of course, there was a great deal of anxiety. Friends of mine who saw the footage of Gaddafi being captured became very worried because this is the future for places like Syria.

MULLINS: Joshua, maybe you should mention more about the Alawites themselves and how this minority group, the same group as Bashar al-Assad is figuring into this. This is also Alawites make up most of the Syrian military. What’s the significance of this?

LANDIS: The Alawites, in general, are implicated in this regime in a big way because much of the officer class and the security, the intelligence are made up of Alawites, and they’re going to be targeted, and that’s the big worry. My wife is an Alloite, and she woke up at 5:00 in the morning tossing and turning and worried about her father and their village and so forth and how to get them out. They’re, of course, frightened to go to Damascus where they could get a VISA from the American Embassy because they don’t want to drive on the streets anymore.

MULLINS: Wait, do they have reason to feel frightened, especially right now?

LANDIS: That’s the big question is do they have… There have been a number of incidents of assassinations. When you look at Libya and you see entire towns of 30,000 emptied out because they helped Gaddafi, people aren’t asking questions. They’re shooting first, and that’s the anxiety about the future of a country like Syria where you have big religious differences and people are lining up supporting the regime or against the regime based on that religion.

MULLINS: One of the things, let me just say this, that was working in favor of those who wanted a NATO type intervention in Libya, which is what happened, was that the Arab League was very much in support of it. In fact, Arab countries were working alongside NATO countries for this. Is that a possibility with regard to Syria?

LANDIS: The Arabs have condemned Syria. Turkey has condemned Syria, but Syria is 23 million people. Syria does not have a Benghazi, no high defections. There’s nothing for the West to really latch onto and say this is going to win. This could prolong for years.

MULLINS: Why would the Arab League, for instance, come out against Gaddafi of Libya and call on him to leave power and not Assad of Syria?

LANDIS: Half of his country had fallen out of his control.

MULLINS: Libya.

LANDIS: There were major defections at every rank of the government. Everybody hated Gaddafi. He had tortured the Saudis, and in every Arab League meeting, he stood up and made fun of them. Bashar al-Assad is young. He’s provoked the Saudis, but he’s a key player in this region, and it’s an ethnic civil war potentially. Tat scares people because it’s right at their door and it’s a big country of 23 million people. There could be lots of refugees. There’s no oil money. The West has said we’re not going to come in and get militarily involved. This could be a long process, and it scares a lot of people.

MULLINS: Joshua Landis teaches modern Middle Eastern history and politics at the University of Oklahoma. He also blogs at Syria Comment. We’ll make a link at TheWorld.org. Thank you very much.

LANDIS: It’s a pleasure.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

Read tweets about Syria