Nicholas Berg

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 5/12/04 at 7:10am

I saw the graphic still pictures of his beheading last night. I shouldn't have looked, but I did. Which explains why I didn't sleep much last night, and I know I'm not alone.

For anyone not aware of the back story, I offer this nutshell: Nick Berg, a 26 year old civilian from Pennsylvania, was an independent contractor working for a subsididary of Halliburton in Iraq. He was detained by the American military in late March and, according to his father, had been denied access to legal representation and wasn't allowed to make a phone call, even to his family. He was released after his family sued that his civil rights were being violated. Sometime between being released from US detention and getting the hell out of the country, he once again fell off the radar screen. This time he'd been picked up by the other guys.

The other guys are reportedly Al Qaeda...you know, the Al Qaeda that didn't used to be in Iraq until we made it a place of interest by invading. And they now appear to be embracing those photos of US Iraqi prison abuse as a battle cry... as fuel for a fire that's already burning out of control... as a recruitment tool. Who didn't see THIS coming?

But back to Nicholas Berg. It doesn't matter that, in my opinion, he shouldn't have been there. What matters is that he got screwed by both sides. Screwed is, perhaps, too mild of a term. I'm outraged (not in the inhofean sense) at his beheading. And I'm outraged that those hidious photos showing the US military abusing and torturing prisoners of war and civilian detainees provided the impetus for Berg's death. We don't even have a corner on the moral or ethical high ground any more from which to shout our indignation. And until we know what's in those 200 to 300 unreleased photos, we'd better be VERY careful.

I saw the video at 11 that played Nick Berg's almost last moments for all to see and hear. Stating his name, his parent's names, his brother's and sister's names into the camera. The image of him as a 3-dimensional human was imprinted in my mind. The internet photo that I came across a little later last night showing Nick's severed head held high, face easily identifiable, has left me shaken and on the verge of tears.

But in our collective horror and grief, as a nation, we need to keep in mind that the people in "our" photos, the one's not yet released, also show real humans enduring unthinkable horrors at our hands. I can't imagine how there can be an acceptable resolution to the current state of affairs. I am very sad. And very frightened. And my heart literally aches for the Berg family.

Updated On: 5/12/04 at 07:10 AM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/12/04 at 10:33am

"We don't even have a corner on the moral or ethical high ground any more from which to shout our indignation."

I agree with you completely. The US needs to be very careful with its back and forth, eye-for-an-eye stuff. Look what a relatively short time it took for the Abu Ghraib yahoos to move down the Barbarian Continuum. How quickly they began to resemble the horror inflicting monsters they went to Iraq to remove.

[orion59]

Posted: 5/12/04 at 10:53am

Exactly. The US went in there to remove the barbarians, the evil doers who were torturing their own people and then we acted no better than they. Now we hear our leaders screaming revenge, justice and vowing zero tolerance for such behavior. The people responsible will be brought to justice. It's too bad we didn't didn't bring those prisoners to justice, treat them humanely and show that we are above that type of uncivilized behavior. We gave Al Qaeda every opportunity to justify their own inhumane behavior and the ammunition needed to back up their claims that our nation is one that cares only for imposing it's "satanic" values on the rest of the world.

As outraged as we may all be in this country, I think we do need be very careful with the revenge. An eye for an eye is only going to leave more and more people blinded.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 5/12/04 at 10:55am

The be-heading and video have accomplished what I believe the terrorists intended. It has made us sick, horrified, ashamed and questions our patriotism. On the other hand, I am afraid it will also reinforce our anger and we will in turn have to pluck out the other eye. When will it end?

I could not stop thinking about this on a day in my life where there was enough drama to begin with. I was afraid of seeing the images on the news, grief stricken for his family and filled with a terrible sense of dread.

As a friend of mine said, it was a horrible thing for them to do, but after seeing the abusive photos of the Iraqi prisoners and putting them in perspective of that culture, you can hardly blame them and we should not be all that surprised.

[WindyCityActor]

Posted: 5/12/04 at 11:03am

"It's too bad we didn't didn't bring those prisoners to justice, treat them humanely and show that we are above that type of uncivilized behavior."

And that might not ever happen. So far anyone detained can be held indefinately without any legal recourse.

And of course those contractors are not held accountable under the law for any of their actions.

Where is the leadership during this entire mess?!?!

[orion59]

Posted: 5/12/04 at 11:03am

It's not surprising that Al Qaeda would do something like this. It's horrifying that we gave them the means to justify to jsutify doing it.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 5/12/04 at 11:47am

Outrage is now in the eye of the beholder, measured on a sliding scale, and big surprise, a new barometer to determine whether one is a true patriot or a wimpy traitor. The Republicans are outraged that Kerry is supposedly "using" the prison abuse to raise funds. Well, I am outraged that they're quickly using their superior level/brand of outrage over the tragedy of Berg's execution to distract us from problems we must address. We are ALL deeply shaken, grieving, and yes, morally outraged. These crises are inexorably linked, and pretending that focus on one vs. the other is the answer only lead to more division, more impasse, more death.

Updated On: 5/12/04 at 11:47 AM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/12/04 at 12:05pm

Unless the US is swift (which I seriously doubt), this is only the first of these executions we will witness. I did not see the photos of Berg's decapitation or severed head. I do not require the disturbing visuals in order to understand the permanence and severity of the act. As I said in another post, I find it morally reprehensible, irresponsible, and disrespectful for the press to decide that the general public "needs" to witness the murder of a human being. The "need" is only that of the station to boost their ratings and hold themselves in esteem.

That said, considering that Berg's assassination was in retaliation to the acts of the soldiers at Abu Ghraib, I think they should also be held responsible for his death. What they did was not only reprehensible, but depicted as gleeful and so unbelievably careless with disregard to every citizen not only in Iraq, but in the US. Their irresponsible and juvenile behavior has put us all at risk. I simply refuse to believe that NONE of the American soldiers or "non-military intelligence officers" (i.e. scapegoats conveniently free of military law), or whoever they want to point the finger at, realized that their actions might be construed as innapropriate at the very least.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 5/12/04 at 12:18pm

mister matt!!! i was working up an indignant post, but you have just said better what i was thinking than i could. and coming from you (not a shill for the bush admin, like me) it even carries wright. bravo.

oops, check that, i thouht you were attributing blame to the media as well.

Updated On: 5/12/04 at 12:18 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/12/04 at 12:25pm

But Rumsfeld and apparently the US press couldn't quite imagine the abuse in the prison was bad until the photos surfaced. How is that possible? That's one thing that's served by photos being released.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/12/04 at 12:35pm

I am attributing partial blame to the media. They would rather decide themselves what the public "wants" or "deserves" rather than weigh the consequences of broadcasting or publishing photos or videos. Free speech is not a pass to show whatever you please irresponsibly or violate the privacy of the victims and their families (though I know lawyers have found ways to bend it to their whim so that journalists remain blameless and free to show pretty much anything). Free speech allows them to tell the story honestly, which they are able to do without photos or videos of bloody murder as it was done for decades before the American public suddenly developed a ravenous appetite for gory "realism".

I consider myself a Democrat, but I do hold somewhat conservative views on a few issues. Despite what the parties demand of us, I find it best to hold personal views on each individual issue rather than be forced to choose one direction or the other regarding everything at once. But when it comes to the 2004 Election, I simply cannot fathom why ANYONE would vote for Bush. How can anyone view the last four years as an improvement? Unless, of course, they are simply sado-masochists that enjoy watching our country suffer.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 5/12/04 at 12:36pm

how could anyone who read the report not realize how bad things were? how could a graphic description of what the prisoners suffered not have explained it? front page articles with headline screaming about the abuses could not have sufficed? but hey, since they didn't and couldn't i can't see how the american people can be expected to appreciate nick berg's death without seeing it. if they're too stupid to understand torture until they see it, they're too stupid to understand murder until they see it. can't have it both ways. show the video.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/12/04 at 12:43pm

Namo - I sincerely doubt all of the US press would not report the story simply because they are not allowed to print the photos. Rumsfeld viewing the photos has nothing to do with the media publishing them. Most likely, he saw the photos shortly before the media plastered them everywhere. If not, then I'm sure the simple mention of Vietnam would quickly jolt his memory.

I don't think the release of those photos served anything other than to feed the ego of the press. Whoever ran it first is sure to win an award and get a salary increase. They were best served by those photos.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/12/04 at 12:49pm

papa - So basically, you're saying two wrongs will make it right? Show the video out of spite? That's like the soldiers at Abu Ghraib saying, "Why is everyone mad at us? They did worse things than we did!"

Why do you personally want to see the video?

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/12/04 at 12:52pm

"Most likely, he saw the photos shortly before the media plastered them everywhere."

Well, that's what he said. But how would THAT even be possible? And in his testimony, he dismissed the earlier reports of abuse from the Red Cross and Amnesty International and said the descriptions provided to them didn't have much of an impact on him until he saw the photos! And what revealing word did he use to describe the photos? "Unbelievable!"

I'm sorry. Somebody's not telling the truth.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/12/04 at 1:13pm

Considering his track record, he would say just about anything to cover his ass. But the government showing him the photos and the media broadcasting the photos are two very different things.

[WindyCityActor]

Posted: 5/12/04 at 1:20pm

WAR is horrific, and should used as the the last resort.

But we give such nice comfy words to describe it:

Friendly Fire
Detainees
Civilian Contractors
Security Risks
Casualities

All those lovely words that the "spin doctors" sprinkle about to persuade us that war "ain't really that bad!"

I saw the still photo's of Berg's death.

Did I get a thrill seeing them?

No.

Was I glad that I saw them?

No.

Did they impress on me the full horror of the whole experience rather than just reading the word "beheaded?"

Yes, they did.

I kinda have to disagree with you, Matt. I'd rather have the whole horrific mess flung in our faces, rather than have the media and government determine what they think we should see and know.

Besides, it's a moot point anyway. Those images and videos are gonna find their way to the public, one way or another. The worse thing the administration can do it to try to bury them. These are electronic images. Copies exist. It's not like snatching the film out of somebody's camera.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 5/12/04 at 1:30pm

i've already seen it, matt. the point i am making is that showing one side of an issue and not the other is disingenuous. i didn't think the photos should have been shown (neither the torture pics or the beheading), but now that the media has lowered the bar let's open the floodgates and let it all flow. only when the media hits bottom will it start to recognize that there are objective standards of decency that should be observed, and the bottom is a ways off yet.

i think that the soldiers at abu grahib like those at camp bucca should be punished and that no excuse they give can explain away or justify their actions.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/12/04 at 1:43pm

But how is a detailed description of a victim beheading insufficient? The moment I read the word "beheaded", I know EXACTLY what it means and what happened to the victim. The horror has been fully realized by me. I don't believe the public has a "right" to access of the photos or video of the actual beheading in progress. And I'm not suggesting the administration attempt to pretend they don't exist. I just cannot believe that publishing them is necessary any more than the distribution of Faces of Death is necessary for the public to believe that these atrocities exist. It's sensationalism.

I guess what I cannot understand is someone's desire to see them. I know that I do not want the general public to access witness of my death regardless of the circumstances. Nor would I want the death of someone I loved so dearly plastered on the front page everywhere I go. I can quite clearly comprehend the horrors of war without being shown a single photo or video. It is not at all difficult. Some members of the press may use those comfy words, but very few of them. With words such as "torture", "beheaded", "victim" and "death toll" used quite frequently in every article, the proverbial picture is clear enough.

Updated On: 5/12/04 at 01:43 PM

[orion59]

Posted: 5/12/04 at 1:48pm

Matt, I understand what you are saying about not showing the photos. Normally I would agree. Horrfic photos of a violnet murder, especailly these particualr images, are only to teh benefit of the press. However, our society has become so immune to horror that for many, the only way to make them undrstand and to get them to do something is to show it. It may not be teh right thing to do but, it may be necessary. Not everyone can read or hear the words and know what that means in terms of the reality of the situation. It's unfortunate but, that's what has happened to us. We are so desensitized to the horrors of war that we need it shoved in our faces in order to feel empathy for the victims and outrage over the part our own government has played in it.

I personally hope never to see the images because I can understand what happened but some people can't and they need to.

[WindyCityActor]

Posted: 5/12/04 at 2:01pm

Thanks Orion. You expressed it quite well.

Some folks can fully comprehend the meaning of all of this...or they don't want to know...

Hell, we have a President who doesn't read the papers, and first saw the images on television. And Rummy admitted he didn't realize how serious the situation really was until he saw the images. These are our leaders! Even they didn't comprehend it.

Do I want images of my death, or the death of my loved ones splashed all over the front pages? Absolutely, not...but if it directly relates to international events, then it's going to happen...regardless of my feelings.

You know, I came across a scrapbook my mother made during World War II. I saw the same type of images. This debate has been going on for decades.
Updated On: 5/12/04 at 02:01 PM

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 5/12/04 at 2:14pm

I have not seen the video of the execution, however it was first described as a "beheading" which gave me the image of a clean, quick and painless execution. Since then, the actual act has been described as anything but. "A hack and saw", "Messy job"; not quite the imagie I had at first. So to hear some one was simply beheaded does not have the same emotional impact nor does it stir up my rage and horror as hearing this more detailed description. I can't imagine watching it, but have no doubt that it was taped and shown to make the horror more real. Everyone involved knew what they were doing, from the terrorists who taped it and put it on the internet to the news companies that chose to air it.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/12/04 at 2:26pm

"However, our society has become so immune to horror that for many, the only way to make them undrstand and to get them to do something is to show it."

Which brings us back to the media. It was the exact same argument I made about The Passion of the Christ. The public "need" for graphic violent depiction of any event in order to validate it has continually escalated. Feeding that need only escalates it further. Where will the line be drawn? At what point does it become unacceptable? Live public executions? I'm not talking about broadcast live, but performed right in front of you. Will that be enough? Or maybe the public needs to experience it personally.

The defense I'm reading of the importance to show these images only exposes the primary reason not to show them. The more violent images we have freely shown to the public, the more desinsitized the public becomes to violence, the need for more violent images to prove a point. I think there will come a day when all this will finally reach a halt, but until a major catastrophe occurs, the press could care less.

[Jane2]

Posted: 5/12/04 at 2:32pm

I had seen the video of the first beheading, of Daniel Pearl a while back. It horrified me. Maybe I was naive to think that such a thing could even be done outside of a movie. But besides that, what it did to me was cause incredible hatred towards those who did it. Maybe it IS important to see both sides of the story - to see what we did to them also. Or at least to know the truth.

Does anyone know the details of what we did inside the prison? I've only heard about homosexual activity which goes against Islam. Did our men torture and kill? Just wondering, I don't want to see photos.

[orion59]

Posted: 5/12/04 at 2:43pm

What I ahvbe heard as far as what happened in the prison was prisons forced to perform sex acts on one another, prisoners beaten, dragged around on leashes, attacked by dogs, US soldiers attempting to rape a female prisoner....probably much more taht hasn't come out yet but those incidents are enough to bring charges against the soldiers.

That includes Lyndie English who claims now that she was ordered to do this and is seemingly enjoying herself in the photos becasue she was also "ordered to smile for the camera." I wanted to slap her the minute I saw that stupid looking face of hers with the cigarette hanging out her mouth