|
May 15, 2004
The video of the beheading of Nick Berg (reputedly by the Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who has links to Al Qaeda) was taken down from the Muntada al-Ansar al-Islami website before I could find and download it.
If you want to see the video check here or, better still, here.
There are some graphic stills from the video on the net:
More stills here.
I have not seen these powerful still images online in the major media. Does a double standard operate here?
It is not a war any more in Iraq. It is an occupation, complete with uprisings, torture and savage reprisals. Paul McGeough talks in terms of cycles of violence:
"This week's grotesque beheading of a Jewish-American in Iraq came after the appalling scandal of the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by their US captors, which followed the debacle of the American attack on Falluja, which was retribution for the butchery of four American security contractors in the same city, which Arab observers claim bore the hallmarks of a revenge attack for an unspecified American act at some point in the past 13 months."
In the Senate, Robert Hill, the Australian Defence Minister, who understands that the moral footing of the occupation is slipping, continues to talk about the transfer of sovereignty to Iraq on June 30th. This implies that the Americans will leave Iraq by June 30. Does this mean that their troops go with the hand over of sovereignty?
The stark reality is that the US occupation will continue, and so will the cycles of uprisings, torture and reprisals.
There does seem to line being run softly softly by politicians in Australia.This says that the decapitation of Nick Berg was cruel and inhumane, and that this barbarism puts the American torture of prisoners in Abu Ghraib in some sort of context. The perspective is that the Americans are better than the Arabs. The former are better deal with the crimes committed by their bad guys whilst the crimes committed by the bad Arabs go unpunished by Arab states.
Thus Alexander Downer, the Australian Foreign Minister, says in relation to the torture in Abu Ghraib prison to induce prisoners to speak:
"...Well, they're crimes. There's no question about that. However you define the crimes they're crimes and I expect people who commit crime to be prosecuted. That, at least, is cold comfort but it's comfort that where people like Americans and Brits are concerned they do prosecute these crimes, they're not just left undealt with. Under Saddam Hussein's regime much more evil crimes than this occurred and of course no one did anything about it."
Might not these crimes imply that the incarceration of terrorist suspects at Guantanamo is insufficiently transparent?
What Downer is endeavouring to do is to prop up the loosening moral footings of the occupation. In doing so he has places two things to one side. First, he is silent about the way his noble West helped create Saddam the monster. Second, Downer ignores that the Abu Ghraib prison photos show intention – a plan – to ensure Arab subjugation to get them to talk; a plan that probably goes to the top. Downer seems to accept the bad apple theory: the military personnel had bad (wild, untamed, animal) natures that got out of control.
Is there a moral equivalence being suggested here in Downer's better (US is civilized) and worse (Arabs are barbarians) duality? The softly softly implication that is being suggested is the implication that, if the barbarians are willing to do those evil things to the American civilians, then the US is partially, if not wholly, vindicated in the abuse it has perpetrated. It's a moral equivalence interpretation of tit for tat.
Is this moral equivalence to shore up the slipping in moral footings of the occupation? Is there a moral equivalence here? Or is it illusory? I think it is illusory: how can there be moral equivalence between us (civilized) and them (barbarians).
So Downer's black and white attempt to shore up the moral footings looks very shaky given the indications that Washington probably knew about the system of interrogation involving sexual humiliation, physical force and torture. The line between civilization and barbarism is much thinner than Downer implies.
On another note, there are comment on the beheading as human sacrifice and the sacred here and here
Update
The Weekly Standard's moral clarity article talks in terms of forces opposing a free society in Iraq. The word 'free' needs to be questioned after the images from the Abu Ghraib prison and the indications that this was standard operating procedure.
I have been reading some Iraqi blogs this evening to see their reaction to the execution of Nick Berg by the Ansar al-Islam group. Many are shocked and in recoil. The beheading was condemned by many Muslim leaders as contrary to Islamic law. This is not acknowledged by the Howard Government or the Bush administration in their condemnation of the lack of outrage shown by Muslim world to the Nick Berg beheading.
Some good comments on this can be found at Mykeru.com
|
No matter what noises his mouth makes, Hill's body language is saying 'Jesus Christ, oh God, can I leave now?'
Quite a contrast with the born to rule confidence he and Downer displayed in the leadup and early days. Downer on Lateline the other night looked like a prefect trying to explain the missing lunch money.
The breeding doesn't seem to have helped much. Upper lips may be stiff; chins, where they exist, might be up, but they are steering SS Clueless at the moment. In fact, they always have been; it's just that this has now dawned on them too.
Their shuddering had an analogue in Bush the other day, his little voice barely holding up as it bravely assayed phrases from the playbook. And of course Blair, though he still sounds reasonably plausible if you don't think too hard, looks as if he's just been convicted of insider trading.
Shock and awe. Bring it on. Operation Vast Ignorance and Millennial Fear. It's going a treat ain't it?