Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Cultural Analysis of Berg Case/ with video
There is a need to be skeptical about the Berg case. People need to ask the question: "WHO GAINED FROM BERG'S BEHEADING?"
The Beheading of Nick Berg in Iraq: A Muslim Perspective
By Sam Hamod
Al-Jazeerah, May 13, 2004
[Prof. Sam Hamod is the former Director of The Islamic Center of Washington,
DC; editor of 3rd World News (DC); he was born and raised in Gary, Indiana;
he may be reached at shamod [at] cox.net]
All human beings must give their condolences to the family of Nick Berg who
was ignominiously beheaded. This is a heinous and brutal crime, and anyone
who would do this is a sinner, an animal, a brute; if captured and proven
guilty, those who perpetrated this crime should be punished to the full
extent of the law.
If it was Muslims in Iraq, or wherever, because we actually don't know if he
was beheaded in Iraq or elsewhere, we as Muslims condemn such behavior by
whoever did it. Mr. Berg, from my understanding, was a person who was
working on communications towers for the good of the Iraqi people; he was
not a combatant or a mercenary who might have killed or hurt anyone. Islam
makes clear, you do not kill innocent people. The Qur'an states, "To kill
one innocent man or woman is to kill all of humanity; to save one human is
to save all of humanity."
I say, "If it was Muslims" because there are many other players in Iraq at
this time, and we can't be sure it was Muslims or Arabs. There are elements
of the slaying that make it appear it may not have been Muslims. When
Muslims execute a person, it must be after a proper trial, with credible
witnesses, and the person who does the execution must say a prayer for the
person being killed and to ask forgiveness for doing the killing. None of
this was done. Also, a proper way of killing in this situation is to cut the
throat in one swoop, not to hack at a person's neck. Muslims do not often
cut off the head, but do execute by law, but not by revenge as in this case,
though some Middle Easterners may do it by culture and tradition (that is
still not allowed in Islam)
I say this because it may have been Muslims in Iraq who were taking revenge
for the torture at Abu Ghraib as was alleged in the tape, but if it was,
then they were acting as part of the culture of the middle east and not as
Muslims. There is a long tradition, practiced by the Arabs (Muslims and
Christians) and Jews of revenge for a misdeed against one's family or
people; but this is against Islamic law.
There is another strange matter to this situation that troubles me. Why was
Mr. Berg picked up by coalition forces and imprisoned, so much so that his
family sued Donald Rumsfeld for his release and information on him. The
military says it released him, but suddenly then, he disappeared becausse
when people went to see him at the hotel he was allegedly registered at, he
wasn't there and no one there knew of him. Very strange point number two is,
why was Mr. Berg in an American issued orange jump suit--the kind Americans
put prisoners in, when he was photographed and killed? The Iraqis or other
Arabs would have had him in Arab clothing so as not to draw suspicion to him
of his being a prisoner--not an orange jump suit. Also, the way the men were
standing, and their size, as a person experienced in the middle east, most
Arabs don't stand that way and most Iraqis are not that tall--the men stand
more like Westerners of some sort, or even Israelis, but not like Arabs or
Iraqis.
As to the Arabic, there are many Americans and Israelis who speak excellent
Arabic. But, no Muslim would do that awkward "Allahu Ahkbar" --it was
strained, it was not a natural voicing of that phrase, "God is great." I
don't know who did this heinous crime, and it could have been bad Muslims or
Arabs, but I am now wondering more and more who actually did it because of
so many strange things surrounding this heinous deed.
But, it may also be that this was perpetrated by Israeli agents, who have
been operating in Iraq since the American invasion and have been advisors
and combatants for Blackwater, and for the U.S. military, especially in
interrogation techniques. I do not know if it was Israelis, but I do
remember in the early 1980s when the Mossad of Israel shot Israel's own
ambassador to London to help justify the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. You
may recall the general who led the brutal assault was none other than Ariel
Sharon; the present brutal prime minister of Israel.
We must also ask the question intelligence agencies use, "Who would most
benefit from this act?" In this case, if not Israel, then Bush and America
to take the heat off of America for the brutality of the torture in Iraq and
Guantanamo. This terrible act also took a lot of pressure off the U.S. Thus,
it is also possible, since the killers were hooded, and thus we can't know
who they were, that it could have been American counter-insurgency agents,
CIA or mercenaries who did this heinous act at a time when the glare of anger
toward the U.S. was growing in the world. I don't know that this is true,
but having worked in intelligence situations, I know it has been done in the
past. Remember, also that the Nazis blew up the Bundestag to blame it on the
Jews and others who they wanted to punish. America also used the boiler
explosion on the U.S.S. Maine as a pretext for the Spanish American War by
blaming it on Spain (even though it our intelligence knew it was simply a
result of the boiler blowing up). We pushed into Viet Nam after our false
report of the attack on one of our ships in the Bay of Tonkin. Our nation
has not always been lilly-white in matters of truth when we wanted to take
an action--we found ways to justify matters, or to lie to our advantage. We
even allowed our own navy men to be killed on the U.S. S. Liberty in order
to allow the Israelis freedom to do a sneak attack on Egypt --not allowing
our own airplanes to go to the rescue of the Liberty when Israeli planes and
torpedo boats were attacking it. To this day, the U.S. government has not
allowed the Liberty case to be opened, or the men to be compensated, even
though Admirals and others have asked for an open naval inquiry as to what
happened and why President Johnson or someone in the Pentagon called back
American planes that were going to the rescue of the Liberty. Israel has
never been reprimanded for the attack, though clearly the ship had American
flags, gave American signals and did not look like any Egyptian or Arab
vessels. Unfortunately, our hands have been dirty before; it is possible
they have dirtied themselves again for the sake of Bush's policies in the
"war on terror"--and what better way than to turn the spotlight on the
victims and make them "terrorists" through such an act. There are just too
many questions here, to many odd things about this savage act.
With all these possibilities, and with the dirty politics and lies that have
been told by so many in the world, the Americans, the Israelis, Al Qa'eda,
angry Iraqis, just who did this is unclear. As I said, as a Muslim leader, I
condemn this act by whoever did it; if it was an alleged "Muslim", then they
are condemned to hell; but it may have been others from some other country
who did it in order to put blame on the Muslims of Iraq. Remember also, many
Israelis speak Arabic as well as Arabs themselves--so we can't take the
Arabic on the tape as being from Arabs. We also know that some of the
mercenaries and American military speak Arabic. The problem is that the
criminals who killed Nick Berg were hooded, so we can't truly know who did
this dirty deed.
At this point, we don't know who did this; nor do we know that the alleged
Al Zarkawi's website is actually put forth by Al Zarkawi or any of his
colleagues. This is all very murky and none of us will know for some time.
Sadly, President Bush said, "We'll hunt these people down." The problem is
that he doesn't know who did it and it is my hope that he will not punish
innocent people because we don't know, and may never know if this heinous
act was perpetrated by Arabs, Muslims, Israelis or American
counter-insurgency operatives or even mercenaries who work for Halliburton,
Brown & Root or Bechtel or Blackwater Security.
I think we have to keep an open mind on exactly who did this; because, as I
said earlier, we don't really know because there are so many angles to this
deed and the people it hurts most are the family of Nick Berg, but America
and Israel benefit from this the most because it makes the Arabs and Muslims
(if they are blamed for it) look like savages and brutes. If these were
Arabs or Muslims, then these men are brutes and should be punished if they
can be captured and proven guilty of this terrible deed.
We all pray to God that the killers will be found and brought to justice and
proper punishment for this inhuman, murderous deed.
Prof. Sam Hamod is the former Director of The Islamic Center of Washington,
DC; editor of 3rd World News (DC); he was born and raised in Gary, Indiana;
he may be reached at shamod [at] cox.net
By Sam Hamod
Al-Jazeerah, May 13, 2004
[Prof. Sam Hamod is the former Director of The Islamic Center of Washington,
DC; editor of 3rd World News (DC); he was born and raised in Gary, Indiana;
he may be reached at shamod [at] cox.net]
All human beings must give their condolences to the family of Nick Berg who
was ignominiously beheaded. This is a heinous and brutal crime, and anyone
who would do this is a sinner, an animal, a brute; if captured and proven
guilty, those who perpetrated this crime should be punished to the full
extent of the law.
If it was Muslims in Iraq, or wherever, because we actually don't know if he
was beheaded in Iraq or elsewhere, we as Muslims condemn such behavior by
whoever did it. Mr. Berg, from my understanding, was a person who was
working on communications towers for the good of the Iraqi people; he was
not a combatant or a mercenary who might have killed or hurt anyone. Islam
makes clear, you do not kill innocent people. The Qur'an states, "To kill
one innocent man or woman is to kill all of humanity; to save one human is
to save all of humanity."
I say, "If it was Muslims" because there are many other players in Iraq at
this time, and we can't be sure it was Muslims or Arabs. There are elements
of the slaying that make it appear it may not have been Muslims. When
Muslims execute a person, it must be after a proper trial, with credible
witnesses, and the person who does the execution must say a prayer for the
person being killed and to ask forgiveness for doing the killing. None of
this was done. Also, a proper way of killing in this situation is to cut the
throat in one swoop, not to hack at a person's neck. Muslims do not often
cut off the head, but do execute by law, but not by revenge as in this case,
though some Middle Easterners may do it by culture and tradition (that is
still not allowed in Islam)
I say this because it may have been Muslims in Iraq who were taking revenge
for the torture at Abu Ghraib as was alleged in the tape, but if it was,
then they were acting as part of the culture of the middle east and not as
Muslims. There is a long tradition, practiced by the Arabs (Muslims and
Christians) and Jews of revenge for a misdeed against one's family or
people; but this is against Islamic law.
There is another strange matter to this situation that troubles me. Why was
Mr. Berg picked up by coalition forces and imprisoned, so much so that his
family sued Donald Rumsfeld for his release and information on him. The
military says it released him, but suddenly then, he disappeared becausse
when people went to see him at the hotel he was allegedly registered at, he
wasn't there and no one there knew of him. Very strange point number two is,
why was Mr. Berg in an American issued orange jump suit--the kind Americans
put prisoners in, when he was photographed and killed? The Iraqis or other
Arabs would have had him in Arab clothing so as not to draw suspicion to him
of his being a prisoner--not an orange jump suit. Also, the way the men were
standing, and their size, as a person experienced in the middle east, most
Arabs don't stand that way and most Iraqis are not that tall--the men stand
more like Westerners of some sort, or even Israelis, but not like Arabs or
Iraqis.
As to the Arabic, there are many Americans and Israelis who speak excellent
Arabic. But, no Muslim would do that awkward "Allahu Ahkbar" --it was
strained, it was not a natural voicing of that phrase, "God is great." I
don't know who did this heinous crime, and it could have been bad Muslims or
Arabs, but I am now wondering more and more who actually did it because of
so many strange things surrounding this heinous deed.
But, it may also be that this was perpetrated by Israeli agents, who have
been operating in Iraq since the American invasion and have been advisors
and combatants for Blackwater, and for the U.S. military, especially in
interrogation techniques. I do not know if it was Israelis, but I do
remember in the early 1980s when the Mossad of Israel shot Israel's own
ambassador to London to help justify the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. You
may recall the general who led the brutal assault was none other than Ariel
Sharon; the present brutal prime minister of Israel.
We must also ask the question intelligence agencies use, "Who would most
benefit from this act?" In this case, if not Israel, then Bush and America
to take the heat off of America for the brutality of the torture in Iraq and
Guantanamo. This terrible act also took a lot of pressure off the U.S. Thus,
it is also possible, since the killers were hooded, and thus we can't know
who they were, that it could have been American counter-insurgency agents,
CIA or mercenaries who did this heinous act at a time when the glare of anger
toward the U.S. was growing in the world. I don't know that this is true,
but having worked in intelligence situations, I know it has been done in the
past. Remember, also that the Nazis blew up the Bundestag to blame it on the
Jews and others who they wanted to punish. America also used the boiler
explosion on the U.S.S. Maine as a pretext for the Spanish American War by
blaming it on Spain (even though it our intelligence knew it was simply a
result of the boiler blowing up). We pushed into Viet Nam after our false
report of the attack on one of our ships in the Bay of Tonkin. Our nation
has not always been lilly-white in matters of truth when we wanted to take
an action--we found ways to justify matters, or to lie to our advantage. We
even allowed our own navy men to be killed on the U.S. S. Liberty in order
to allow the Israelis freedom to do a sneak attack on Egypt --not allowing
our own airplanes to go to the rescue of the Liberty when Israeli planes and
torpedo boats were attacking it. To this day, the U.S. government has not
allowed the Liberty case to be opened, or the men to be compensated, even
though Admirals and others have asked for an open naval inquiry as to what
happened and why President Johnson or someone in the Pentagon called back
American planes that were going to the rescue of the Liberty. Israel has
never been reprimanded for the attack, though clearly the ship had American
flags, gave American signals and did not look like any Egyptian or Arab
vessels. Unfortunately, our hands have been dirty before; it is possible
they have dirtied themselves again for the sake of Bush's policies in the
"war on terror"--and what better way than to turn the spotlight on the
victims and make them "terrorists" through such an act. There are just too
many questions here, to many odd things about this savage act.
With all these possibilities, and with the dirty politics and lies that have
been told by so many in the world, the Americans, the Israelis, Al Qa'eda,
angry Iraqis, just who did this is unclear. As I said, as a Muslim leader, I
condemn this act by whoever did it; if it was an alleged "Muslim", then they
are condemned to hell; but it may have been others from some other country
who did it in order to put blame on the Muslims of Iraq. Remember also, many
Israelis speak Arabic as well as Arabs themselves--so we can't take the
Arabic on the tape as being from Arabs. We also know that some of the
mercenaries and American military speak Arabic. The problem is that the
criminals who killed Nick Berg were hooded, so we can't truly know who did
this dirty deed.
At this point, we don't know who did this; nor do we know that the alleged
Al Zarkawi's website is actually put forth by Al Zarkawi or any of his
colleagues. This is all very murky and none of us will know for some time.
Sadly, President Bush said, "We'll hunt these people down." The problem is
that he doesn't know who did it and it is my hope that he will not punish
innocent people because we don't know, and may never know if this heinous
act was perpetrated by Arabs, Muslims, Israelis or American
counter-insurgency operatives or even mercenaries who work for Halliburton,
Brown & Root or Bechtel or Blackwater Security.
I think we have to keep an open mind on exactly who did this; because, as I
said earlier, we don't really know because there are so many angles to this
deed and the people it hurts most are the family of Nick Berg, but America
and Israel benefit from this the most because it makes the Arabs and Muslims
(if they are blamed for it) look like savages and brutes. If these were
Arabs or Muslims, then these men are brutes and should be punished if they
can be captured and proven guilty of this terrible deed.
We all pray to God that the killers will be found and brought to justice and
proper punishment for this inhuman, murderous deed.
Prof. Sam Hamod is the former Director of The Islamic Center of Washington,
DC; editor of 3rd World News (DC); he was born and raised in Gary, Indiana;
he may be reached at shamod [at] cox.net
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$330.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
May 16, 2004
The Terrible and Strange Death of Nick Berg
By James Conachy
The terrible death of Nick Berg in Iraq — beheaded in front of a video camera — has taken place in such strange and suspicious circumstances that it raises deeply troubling questions. Among them is whether American agencies had a direct or indirect hand in the young man’s murder.
Questions immediately arise from the timing and political consequences of his killing. At the height of a massive scandal engulfing the Bush administration, Berg’s death has been exploited by the American government and the US media to launch a counter-offensive against the revelations of systematic US torture in Abu Ghraib and other Iraqi prisons. A wholesale attempt is being made to shift American and international public opinion away from the outrage over the criminal character of the US occupation of Iraq and behind the self-serving argument that American forces are needed in Iraq to prevent the country descending into barbarism and chaos.
Were Berg’s murderers being directly paid by the American government, they could not have performed a more timely service for the Bush White House.
Berg’s killing was carried out in the name of al-Qaeda-aligned Jordanian terrorist Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi. Whoever is operating in the name of Zarqawi, they have a proven record of provocative actions that have only helped to prop up the American occupation of Iraq. On February 9, amid signs that the majority Iraqi Shiite population was on the verge of joining the armed resistance being fought mainly in Sunni Muslim areas, a letter was made public, allegedly authored by Zarqawi, calling for Sunnis to provoke a civil war with the Shiites. American officials used the letter to argue that their occupation was the only thing holding Iraq’s religious groups apart. Several weeks later, on March 2, suicide bombings at Shiite mosques in Karbala and Baghdad were blamed on what the US now calls the “Zarqawi network.”
Contrary to the schema outlined by US officials and in Zarqawi’s letter, the bulk of the Iraqi masses spurned sectarianism. The growing unity has been on display in mass demonstrations and joint struggle since the eruption of a Shiite uprising in early April. Even before the torture revelations, the US occupation of Iraq had crumbled into a morass of bloody reprisals against the Iraqi people and growing American casualties. Opposition has been steadily growing in the US and internationally.
The group who carried out the beheading of Berg and then ensured it was broadcast around the globe must have known that it would horrify American and world public opinion and assist the efforts at damage control in Washington.
Further questions are raised by the attempts of the US government to conceal or distort what it knew about Berg himself and the events leading up to his disappearance in Baghdad on April 10. Berg vanished in Iraq just 72 hours after being released from 13 days in US military custody and questioning by the FBI.
Berg has been described by his family and friends as adventurous. He had a limited knowledge of Arabic and an interest in obtaining reconstruction contracts in Iraq for the family telecommunications company, Prometheus Methods Tower Service. In December 2003 he travelled to Iraq and went home on February 1. Among the places the young man inquired for contract work was the Abu Ghraib prison—which he referred to as a “notorious prison for army and political prisoners.” He returned to Iraq in mid-March.
CBS News revealed yesterday that the young man had been on the FBI’s books for at least two years. In 2002, he was interviewed as part of the investigations in the September 11 terror attacks, over the fact his computer password had been used by alleged al-Qaeda terrorist Zaccarias Moussaoui. According to Berg’s family, the FBI was reportedly satisfied the password was obtained during a brief encounter on a bus, when Nick Berg had allowed an acquaintance of Moussaoui to use his computer.
On March 7, the pro-Bush website FreeRepublic.com published a list of “enemies” who were opposing the US occupation of Iraq. Among the names, taken from a public list of people who had endorsed a planned March 20 antiwar demonstration on the website of the group ANSWER, was Michael Berg—Nick’s father—and the name of the Berg family company. Such information would be entered into the databases of US intelligence agencies as well.
Berg was seized on March 24, within one week of returning to Iraq, and held incommunicado without charges in a Mosul prison for unspecified “suspicious activities.” His parents in Philadelphia were visited by the FBI on March 31 and asked why their son was in Iraq. Berg reported being interviewed at least three times during his detention by FBI agents and asked whether he had constructed pipe bombs or had visited Iran. He was released on April 6 only after his family filed a federal court case against the US government the day before for illegal imprisonment. Dan Senor, the Coalition Provisional Authority spokesman in Iraq, claimed this week that Berg had never been detained by US forces, only by Iraqis. This has been exposed to be a lie. Berg’s family has produced an email from Beth A Payne, a US consular official in Iraq, dated April 1. Payne wrote: “I have confirmed that your son, Nick, is being detained by the US military in Mosul... He was picked up approximately one week ago.” The chief of the Iraqi police in Mosul has also publicly rejected the claim that Berg was detained by his command. He told a press conference on May 13: “The Iraqi police never arrested the slain American. Take it from me... that such reports are baseless.”
After his release, Nick Berg travelled to Baghdad. His family last heard from him on April 9, when he reported he was looking to leave Iraq via Kuwait as soon as it was safe enough. They have indicated Berg told them he was wary of trying to fly out to Jordan on the grounds it was too dangerous. At the time, much of Baghdad was in engulfed in heavy fighting. Large parts of the city, including the roadways leading to the airport, were under constant attack by the Iraqi resistance and Westerners and Japanese had been taken hostage by various groups.
The last alleged contact with Berg by a US official was on April 10. A State department spokesperson told CBS an American diplomat offered to arrange a flight for him to Jordan. He allegedly refused and restated his intention to travel to Kuwait. His hotel has reported he left early on April 10, saying he intended to be back within a few days. If the American government is to be believed, no US agency then took any further interest in his activities or well-being until it was apparent he had disappeared. No satisfying answers have been given to obvious questions. Were Berg’s movements in Iraq being monitored by American intelligence? Why was he detained and on whose orders? Was he under surveillance after he was released on April 6? If he was, how did he come to be kidnapped in the centre of Baghdad? Throughout this week, Berg’s father Michael has repeatedly denounced the Bush administration for complicity in his son’s death. He told Boston radio station WBUR on Tuesday: “
[W]hat cost my son his life was the fact the US government saw fit to keep him in custody for 13 days without any of due process or civil rights and released him when they were good and ready. It goes further than Donald Rumsfeld. It’s the whole Patriot Act, it’s the whole feeling in this country that rights don’t matter any more because there are terrorists about. Well in my opinion ‘terrorist’ is just another word like ‘communist’ or ‘witch’ and it’s a witchhunt and this whole administration is just representing something that is not America.”
Yesterday, he told Philadelphia radio: “My son died for the sins of George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld. This administration did this.” He has also demanded to know whether “it is true that al-Qaeda offered to trade my son’s life for another person,” as is alleged in the video-tape statement of Nick Berg’s killers.
The issues being raised by Michael Berg point to the fact, that at best, the US authorities created the conditions in which his son could be kidnapped by extremists and killed.
The more disturbing possibility that arises from all the evidence that is known is that Berg’s disappearance and subsequent killing was the work of US agencies or pro-US Iraqi factions. One month after he disappeared, Berg was murdered at the most opportune moment for the US government.
Anyone who believes it is unthinkable or outrageous to suggest that the American government would sanction having one of its citizens murdered to shore up its fortunes is underestimating the political situation.
The Bush administration and elements of the American military hierarchy, media and corporate establishment are indictable war criminals. They ordered, directed, propagated or have profited from a criminal war, in flagrant violation of international law. The year since the US-led invasion of Iraq has been marked by further war crimes and atrocities. For significant sections of the American ruling class, everything depends upon preventing opposition to the occupation of Iraq within the American and international working class from developing into a conscious movement for political and social change. To them, the life of 26-year-old Nick Berg would have meant nothing. (By courtesy of WSWS.org)