This is inconsistent with the "terrorist" statement and prior American statements.
Why did our government lie about having Berg in custody? A good criminal investigator would not let this go. Given the reasonable suspicion, based upon circumstantial evidence that Berg was actually in American custody when he was murdered, (the chair, the orange suit, the Abu Ghraib decor, the Army bdu cap) it should be noted that his death is completely consistent with bush administration motives and policy. Berg's father challenged the junta, politically and later in court, in an effort to save his son form unlawful confinement. His reward, unsupported accusations of treason against his son, and seeing his son beheaded. They've upped the ante from outing Ambassador Wilson's spouse.
Berg's father was about to judo flip the junta in federal court, I guess he didn't didn't get the last word in on Mr. Ashcroft or Mr. Rumsfeld. To rub it in, the brutal killing was used to defend and strengthen the fascist regime when it was in danger of succumbing to outrage concerning its systemic unlawful torture policy and breaches of international law.
This administration has methodically created the unlawful framework for an international gulag where people are tortured and disappear. It isn't just a subversion of international law, it is linked to attacks on the Bill of Rights and Constitutional safeguards at home. Many democratic elected officials have dimwittedly just gone along for the ride. Like Dachau, as long as its true scope is disguised, people try to pretend nothing is seriously amiss and that the Constitutional mechanisms are still in place. Denials by public officials and facile rationalizations by Generals are taken at face value by fawning elected officials.
The rhetoric of human rights remain in an adumbrated mode, but the abdication of rights, political machinations, legal misrepresentations, propaganda and psychological warfare are having their impact. It is embodied in Congressional legislation and executive orders doing away with the due process of law. One hardly holds out much hope for the Supreme Court to do anything about it in the important cases now pending before it.
Violating the Conventions in Afghanistan is okay, in Gitmo it is okay, but we have some reservations about "abuse" in Iraq but the terrorists are worse, it was only a few soldiers, look they beheaded Nick Berg! Just in time, too! Fascinating, mesmerizing, mass propaganda of a dictatorship and totalitarian regime in the making.
Just substitute Berg's name for Derwish in the following article.
From:
CIA Target: Americans
Officials: U.S. Citizens Working for Al Qaeda Can Be Killed in CIA Actions
By John J. Lumpkin
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/cia_americans021203.html<Try to keep in mind the big picture of the Bush II administration’s plans for new “justice” system for accused terrorists. If the Bush administration wins all of its court cases and implements all of its expressed policy preferences, anyone accused of terrorism who is not a “state actor,” that is a soldier of another state, would get neither the protections of the criminal justice system, nor the protections afforded POWs under the Geneva Convention. This is the system in place, for example, in Guantanamo and Iraqi prisons. >
<The Bush administration sees it differently. In killing him, the administration defined Derwish as an enemy combatant, the equivalent of a U.S. citizen who fights with the enemy on a battlefield, officials said. Under this legal definition, experts say, his constitutional rights are nullified and he can be killed outright.>
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
