Other Columns by Frank Salvato
Frank Salvato Bio

Printer-Friendly Version

Avenging the Death of Nicholas Berg
By Frank Salvato
May 24, 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, for 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 TheRant.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. He can be contacted at oped@therant.us.

--------------------

Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.