Using the Death of an Innocent
Not that this surprises me, but the Bush administration–very likely enjoying a great deal of relief–has been using the death of civilian Nick Berg in Iraq to its greatest advantage.
In recent days everyone was focused sharply on the administration concerning the growing Abu Ghraib scandal, with harsh criticism hitting them from every direction. But then, yesterday, when the news came out that there was a videotape of the beheading of American Nick Berg at the hands of an apparent al Qaeda group, administration officials likely high-fived each other: they had a possible ‘out.’
Everybody had been looking at the U.S. as the bad guy, the aggressor, the barbarian. The story itself was not that damaging, after all it had been out for some time without people noticing, but the damning part was the artwork. The photos of the prisoner abuse, so graphic and shocking, were what made the story move. But then here came al Qaeda to the rescue, with a videotape even more graphic and barbaric. Nick Berg was suddenly the administration’s man. All they had to do was say, “this guy is us,” and they could absorb his victimhood and make the prisoner abuse (which they had known about for many months but had hidden) seem to be, if not justified, then at least less bad.
Republican Senator Jon Kyl said it succinctly: “As bad as some of the things were that were done to Iraqi prisoners, it didn’t involve beheading. … That doesn’t justify it, but it does to some extent put it in context and show you what you’re dealing with in terms of the enemy.” Translation: we’re going to use this murder to take the pressure off of ourselves. Isn’t that sweet?
The administration not only enjoyed the distraction of the press from Abu Ghraib and used the story to excuse their own wrongs, but it even tried to use the killing to justify the war in general, trying to use Berg’s death to the greatest possible advantage to further their political agenda at home.
What’s worse, the administration is actually indirectly responsible for Berg’s death. Although the administration is now in the process of denying it as forcefully as possible, Berg’s family is being inconveniently unquiet in laying some of the blame at their door. Berg was in Iraq voluntarily to do reconstruction work–not as a contractor, nor as a soldier, but on his own. On March 24th, Berg was arrested by the Iraqi police. The U.S. knew he had been arrested from the beginning, of course, and says that the FBI visited him three times. Berg’s family say that the FBI informed them that Berg had been turned over to U.S. custody, and tried everything they could to get him released, even to the point of going to court and suing the U.S. government to let him go.
The Bush administration, then and now, feebly argue that they didn’t have him, the Iraqis did–but even if it is true and he was never turned over to the U.S., since the Iraqi police are still under U.S. control that is a razor-thin distinction, and even then only in legal terms and most certainly not in fact. Had they wanted him released immediately, they could have done it. Only when his family filed suit did they let him go–the next day–and Berg’s attempt to then leave the country on his own is what put him into the hands of the terrorist cell that soon executed him. He had planned to leave the country March 30, but could not when he was jailed; he left Baghdad April 10, and was likely captured soon thereafter. He was killed on Saturday, May 8, and his body found the same day.
Berg’s father spells out how he sees the government as responsible: “I think that they caused his death indirectly by detaining him without any rights. Even after detaining him I think they at least had an obligation to get him safely out of the country.” The administration is now claiming through an anonymous source that Berg had been told to leave the country–when and by whom, the source “refused to elaborate.” Just after he was released, handed his hat, and left to his own devices? Or before he was arrested–which would suggest that maybe his arrest was not a random or coincidental act?
Whatever the case, the administration’s handling of this affair is despicable. Despite their shoddy treatment of Berg, their arrest and dismissal of the American, when he was murdered they shamelessly exploited his graphic murder to their best advantage. One can be certain that if it were not for the fact that the family is now grieving, their pointing out the administration’s faults would have by now resulted in a now-familiar Bush smear campaign by the administration to besmirch their son’s reputation and call the family liars and publicity hounds. You can even see that much happening at a very subdued level, knowing they cannot go too far, but the echoes of it are there–the family is not telling it right, Nick Berg was arrested for “suspicious activities,” we told him to get out or Iraq, and even an ominous-sounding “more on him is coming next week” from an unnamed source in the administration.
So chalk one up for the administration’s spin team, they’ve been working overtime lately.
I didn’t check all the links you posted in your write-up, but one of the emerging possibilities is that rabid right-wingers in the US themselves are partly responsible for Berg’s death.
Among the comments in the post about Nick Berg’s death, on Steve Gilliard’s blog, was this tidbit…
Beheaded Man’s Firm Was On Right-Wing ‘Enemies’ List
by Fintan Dunne, Editor, BreakForNews.com EXCLUSIVE
Research by Kathy McMahon, 12th May, 2004
Freeper “Enemies” list (if it’s still there):
Essentially, Nick’s father (who is anti-Iraq War and anti-Bush) signed a petition for a “GLOBAL DAY OF ACTION on the FIRST ANNIVERSARY of the U.S. BOMBING and INVASION of IRAQ” on Sat, March 20, 2004 sponsored by the group A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism). He signed it using his and Nick’s company name, Prometheus Methods Tower Service. Nick, on the other hand, is a strong supporter of the war and of Bush.
In the guise of seeking out and exposing “enemies” of America’s involvement in Iraq, one poster on the Free Republic website (“doug from upland”) copied and posted the entire list from the ANSWER website to the Free Republic site, thereby unleashing a flurry of vindictive comments toward everyone on the ANSWER list. The article above details the connection with Nick’s death, but what’s interesting is that Nick apparently had no troubles in Iraq at all until after this list appeared on the Free Republic website, a site frequented by ex- and current US military personnel, who certainly have connections with those in Iraq right now.
The belief is that this list, which painted Berg and the company name (no distinction being made now between father and son) as “enemies”, made its way into the hands of coalition and Iraqi police/soldiers, ever on the lookout for these “enemies” since it’s assumed they’re in Iraq to help the Iraqi insurgents, al Qaeda folks and other nefarious elements if they aren’t there overtly supporting the US and the coalition (another example of Bush’s dangerously simplistic black-white, good-bad mentality in action). This is one of the main reasons it is believed Nick was held for so long for “suspicious activities” by Iraqi and/or US military authorities, contrary to the spin now whistling out of the FBI, Pentagon and White House. Unfortunately, and sadly, we don’t have Nick to ask now about what really happened…
Seeing the way these Freepers above react, especially now with US congressmen dragging America down in the mud by comparing the torture and other atrocities at Abu Ghraib and other prisons as “not as bad” as what Saddam did (so therefore it’s OK?!), leads me to believe America is in for — in Rummie’s words — a long, hard slog to get back the honor and the moral high ground it once had, or at least believed it had. Perhaps some day, we hope, things will change enough such that it can.
As always, too, reading through comments on rabidly pro-war and nearly neo-fascist sites like Free Republic and Little Green Footballs is a sordid lesson in just how low many Americans can sink, dragging America’s good name down with them. Caveat… Don’t look for any semblance of rational thought if you venture in their direction.
Apparently, the Freeper poster, “doug from upland”, who posted the long ANSWER list on the Free Republic website, is now embroiled in a controversy with Salon because a Salon reporter dared to ask him where he got the list (since it appears that ANSWER’s own website has possibly deleted Nick Berg’s father’s name from the endorser list.) Unfortunately, all poor “doug from upland” and his numerous followers can do is vilify both Salon and its reporter, as well as anyone who might read or support Salon and anything “liberal”, for even thinking of asking questions in pursuit of an accurate story. Reading through the posts makes it quite clear “doug from upland” is quite flustered, but all he does is get more and more angry at Salon. It’s pretty sad.
Salon, btw, did have a story about the Berg killing on May 12, Horror show, by Farhad Manjoo, which also links to the actual horrific video. Apparently, Salon is getting a fair amount of criticism for doing so, too. If a Salon reporter is contacting the culprit who posted the anti-war endorser list that had Berg’s father’s name on it to verify facts, then it seems like Salon may be reporting more on this whole story. (Regarding the video, I myself refuse to watch it; I don’t need such graphic violence, a la Mel’s Passion film, to comprehend what took place and its effects on me, on Iraq, and on the world at large.)
Whoops. Sorry.
Here’s the link to the controversy raging over at Free Republic regarding the anti-war action list with Nick’s father’s name on it, and a Salon reporter’s questions about the list.
The military admitted that Iraqi’s died while under their “care” so . . .
Murder by beheading — wrong, vicious and inhuman.
Murder by beating, abusing, violent treatment and withholding medication — fine, dandy and humane.
Even if the victim lives, torture is still as horrendous (indeed, in some cases possibly worse) than a beheading.