|
| |
Avenging
the Death of Nicholas Berg
EDITORIAL
Frank Salvato
May 20, 2004 |
"Those who are wringing their hands and shouting so loudly
for 'heads to roll' over [the Iraq prison abuse] seem to have conveniently
overlooked the fact that someone's head has rolled -- that of another
innocent American brutally murdered by terrorists. Why is it that there's
more indignation over a photo of a prisoner with underwear on his head than
over the video of a young American with no head at all?" -- Sen. Zell Miller
The pre-mature reporting by FOX News that four Islamic militants in Iraq had
been arrested in connection with the murder of Nicholas Berg presented a
dilemma. You will remember that Nicholas Berg was beheaded at the hand of
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the active hand of al Qaeda terror, to little
condemnation by the Islamic world. While the crime may not command the
attention that it should in the Middle East – along with the murder of
Daniel Pearl and the four Blackwater contractors in Fallujah – it should
command the attention of the free world, the true atrocity that it is. The
dilemma that bears contemplation in preparation of the capture of these
cretins is this: How are we going to go about extracting information from
them?
Much emphasis has been placed on the interrogation techniques used on
detainees since the infractions being actively investigated at Abu Ghraib
prison. The accent on this matter has been stressed not only by
international organizations such as the Red Cross and Amnesty International
but by many in the liberal circles around the world and in this country as
well. While Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his staff have assured
everyone but the terrorists themselves that the order of the day is to
adhere to the Geneva Convention where POW’s are concerned – remember that
investigations into prisoner mistreatment started almost immediately upon
the military hierarchy’s notification despite what the major news media and
the liberal-left would have you believe – many in our culture would suggest
that the basic premise of the Geneva Convention should be upheld when
dealing with terrorists. This would be a big mistake.
Let’s take the four miscreants that aided Zarqawi in the Berg murder as an
example.
Here we have four…well, people I suppose, who not only murdered a man in
cold blood but filmed themselves doing it. They claim the killing was in
retaliation for the mistreatment of Islamic terrorists, ex-Ba’ath Party
officials and other assorted thugs arrested for perpetrating crimes against
Iraqi citizens and attacking coalition troops since the fall of the Hussein
regime. Granted there are a small number of low-level criminals incarcerated
at Abu Ghraib but they had been arrested nonetheless because they broke the
law. As President Bush has made clear in no uncertain terms, the actions of
these creatures cannot be justified and will not be rationalized.
What we do know is that the four appurtenant terrorists would know quite a
bit about Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, how to get in touch with him, his
whereabouts, the locations he considers safe-houses and perhaps even his
plans for the future. In any event, they would know more about Zarqawi than
what we currently know. This can be surmised simply by the fact they stood
shoulder-to-shoulder with the one-legged death machine and danced with glee
as Zarqawi hacked at the neck of a screaming Nicholas Berg, screaming that
was drowned out by their chants about how great Allah is. Combine what these
four might know with the now very real possibility that Zarqawi and his
cohorts possess some or all of Saddam Hussein’s WMD arsenal and it is fair
to say that the implications of not extracting the information they might
possess reaches beyond the confines of the Middle East.
Which brings us again to our dilemma: How would we go about extracting
information from these four and how should they be treated during the
interrogation? Is this information vital enough to acquire at all costs when
a multitude of lives hang in the balance?
Personally, and I wouldn’t be surprised to have the majority of readers
agreeing with me on this, I would allow the interrogators to use whatever
means necessary to extract all the information harbored by these evil and
heartless louts. The fact these individuals are terrorists – non-uniformed
enemy combatants – and not prisoners of war technically exempts them from
the Geneva Convention. Therefore, there shouldn’t be any indignation as to
the violation of the Geneva Convention where terrorists are involved. But
this being an election year and with the left in this country, in the media
and around the world twisting and contorting anything the Bush
Administration does, strictly for political gain, the fact that terrorists
are exempt from treatment as outlined in the Geneva Convention will most
likely matter little. No, we are to play on an uneven playing field, the
advantage going to people who would disembowel even the most innocent of us
given the chance.
So, while we were busy submitting interrogation guidelines to Ted Kennedy,
Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Carl Levin, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and the
rest of the political correctness police for approval – I would have said
John F. Kerry as well but he hasn’t been making many votes or committee
meetings lately – Zarqawi would undoubtedly be busy changing the information
about his location, his safe-houses, how to be contacted and most likely
augmenting his plans so that the information, if extracted from the four
captured executioners, would be rendered obsolete. In essence, we would be
allowing Zarqawi to slip through our hands because of a self-imposed set of
ethics; we would be allowing Zarqawi to slip away because of political
correctness.
I don’t know about you but I believe involving political correctness in a
war with an enemy that doesn’t even acknowledge the Geneva Convention is a
bit on the stupid side. It is unintelligent to say the least. I believe I
speak for a great many people when I say I have had enough political
correctness for a thousand lifetimes. And I have definitely had enough
political correctness where the War on Terror is concerned.
It is time to put the anti-war activists and those opposed to a victory in
the War on Terror on the sidelines of the active battlefield so that it can
be won. To date, they have been the biggest obstacles in the effort to
thwart another attack on Americans both at home and abroad. The United
States has to be a little less concerned about how we are viewed in the eyes
of those who hold us in contempt and a little more focused on making sure
that future terrorists aren’t getting flight training in Tehran.
The idea of those opposed to military action and the harsh treatment of
those who perpetrate acts of terrorism against us actually holding sway in
the decision process with regard to the execution of this war lends to the
idea conjured by the world oxymoron. And anyone who believes otherwise can
be described as the latter part of that word.
Frank Salvato is a political media consultant and
the managing editor for The New Media Journal.us. He served as an editor and is a
contributing writer for The Washington Dispatch. He writes regularly for
GOPUSA, OpinionEditorials, Men’s News Daily, Canada Free Press &
AmericanDaily. His pieces are regularly featured in Townhall.com. He has
appeared as a guest on The O’Reilly Factor, The Kevin Matthews Radio Show
(Chicago) and The Brad Messer Radio Show (San Antonio). His pieces have been
recognized by the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention and are occasionally
featured in The Washington Times and The London Morning Paper as well as
other national and international publications.
 |
|
