The Raping of Nick Berg
The Raping of Nick Berg
In recent weeks, Americans have finally gotten the opportunity to see what exactly the American occupation in Iraq is like. We have been shown photographs of Abu Ghraib prisoners being humiliated, tortured and otherwise compromised. We have also been able to see a snuff video which has 5 face-covered men killing Nick Berg. This is widely different than 2002 when we had to struggle to find images of Danny Pearl’s killing. But, have we been getting the full and truthful story, or is the government trying to create a world where the press is worried that every piece of negative information it releases will lead to another additional brutal death in the war?
Chronology
It helps to analyze the current chain of events in recent politics, in order to put the recent news in perspective. For over a year, we have had troops in Iraq trying to quell the terrorist factions in order to create a civilized life for the Iraqi public. As the source of money is running out, and more and more politicians are getting cold feet about our presence in Iraq, the number of our troops is dwindling. In fact, on July 1st, we intend to transfer our authority to the Iraqi people and its government. This will be useless given that the terrorist factions are still powerful and able to conquer a government not backed by US troops.
In January 2004, photographs detailing prison abuse at Abu Ghraib are released to the American government, who then launches their own investigation into the incident in order to punish the criminal abusers. This investigation is made public, but not readily told, and rather hidden from the general American.
The Associated Press reported on March 41 that Iraqi militants were distributing a leaflet claiming Al-Zarqawi was dead. They claimed that he had been killed in one of the US’s bombings. Due to a wide level of distrust in this claim, no further reports have been implied. The French government laid investigational claims that Al-Zarqawi was behind the March 11 Madrid bombings.2
On March 24, Nick Berg was arrested and detained in Iraq. Whom he was arrested and detained by is unclear at this point in time. The US government had stated that he was detained by Iraqi forces, while Nick Berg’s parents have recently release e-mails dated April1st, from US Consular Officer Beth A. Payne informing them that Nick Berg was in the US custody. US officials have stated that at no time was Nick Berg in American custody. Nick Berg was supposedly released on April 6, and US officials said that they did not notify Berg’s parents at all because the information was not revealed until April 7. At some undetermined point of time and place, Berg was supposedly captured by Iraqi terrorists.
Also, on April 6, during a US military report on Al-Zarqawi, who had laid claim to the series of attacks at this time, they reported on a May 2002 medical visit. Prior to this report, Al-Zarqawi had been reported as having his leg amputated in the May 2002 visit to Baghdad. CNN reports, “The official would not discuss the reason for the change in assessment.”3
On Wednesday, April 28, 2004, CBS airs a story on 60 Minutes II which features some of the abusive and humiliating photographs of the Abu Ghraib prisoners. CBS, and Dan Rather, had been told to delay the broadcast of the story by the American government to protect our troops in Iraq and to prevent further distaste from the American public. CBS delayed the story for two weeks before finally airing the story on a Wednesday night broadcast of 60 Minutes II, airing against the popular show The O.C.
After the airing of the photographs on the relatively unwatched 60 Minutes II, the press picked up the story, and it became front page headlines. The photographs were an embarrassment to the US military, as well as showing activities made illegal under the Geneva Convention. As a result of the worldwide press which the photographs received, many blamed and took a negative stance toward the US military, the Pentagon, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Some even blamed Donald Rumsfeld for the abuse happening in Abu Ghraib, and called for his resignation. The US Government then proceeded to repeat that they had not wanted the photographs to be aired because of the effect it would have on the Iraqi street.
On Saturday, May 8, 2004, Associated Press4 writes a story about an art exhibit in Baghdad, Iraq, which features 3 alabaster statues on images which were strikingly similar to the images revealed in the photographs. This is exactly 10 days after CBS had released the photographs to the madding press. An artist in the exhibit who created the statues states, “The pictures did not surprise me” and said that many of his statues were based on stories from released prisoners.
Also, on Saturday, May 8, the US military claim to have found a dead body. There is no announcement. However, after the video is released on Tuesday, the military gives the body an identity, Nick Berg. We are not told if the body was headless, but give the video, we inherently believe it to be so. Also, we are not shown the body, nor are we given any hint that such a body actually exists, beyond official US reports, which are always dependable.
On Tuesday, May 12, 2004, 36 days after Nick Berg was supposedly released from Iraqi/US custody, and 13 days after CBS aired the release of the photographs, a website associated with Al-Qaida released a grainy, and edited, web video of Nick Berg being beheaded by 5 masked men which followed a lengthy speech from the center standing of the men. The center man is purported to be Abu Mus’ad Al Zarqawi, a sheikh closely associated with Osama Bin Laden. As part of his statement, he says one of his reasons for this video is “the shameful pictures and news of evil humiliation.”5
The Video
The initial aspect of the whole video is that it starts with Nick Berg tied to a chair alone stating facts about himself to confirm his own identity. The first thing we notice about the video is that it has been taken by two different cameras, each with a time stamp, each stating a different time. This is obviated by a cut at 0:08 on the video. The continuity of the first segment is undeniable, but one should notice the difference in the time stamps: Camera 1 has a time stamp of 13:26:27 and Camera 2 has a time stamp of 2:18:36, or a difference of 11:07:51. One can tell it is a time stamp and not a time code because there is no frame counter, and there are not 13 hour video tapes. The time stamp is an important piece because it is set by an internal chip.
At 0:19, the video cuts to a lengthy section where Nick Berg is sitting tied up on the floor with five masked men standing behind him. The center man gives his lengthy speech, before attacking him. This section is filmed by Camera 2.
At 4:30, we hear a strange, horrifying scream, though Nick Berg is neither screaming nor being attacked.
At 4:37, the five men pounce on Nick Berg and take him to the floor. And, at 4:38, we have a discontinuous cut to Camera 1. The time stamps become important here. At the beginning of this cut, Camera 2 has a time stamp of 2:44:37. Camera 1 has a time stamp of 13:45:47, or a time difference of 11:01:10. At this point, Camera 1 has a close-up of Nick Berg with his hair being pulled with a cringe on his face. At this point, no cutting has been made.
At 4:43, we are submitted to an extreme close-up of the chaos, as well as a cut. The cut is not from Camera 1 to Camera 2, but Camera 1 to itself. We have jumped ahead by 7 seconds, 13:45:52 to 13:45:59. The change in camera angle is representative that this was not a malfunction in the camera’s time stamp chip.
For the next 34 seconds, Camera 1 stays pretty constant while the screams stop and the men proceed to cut off Nick Berg’s head. Then, at 5:17, we are subjected to another cut. This time, again, from Camera 1 to itself. The time stamp has a difference of 73 seconds going from 13:46:33 (which works with the duration of the clip) to 13:47:46. In the space of this cut, the head of Nick Berg has been fully removed from his body. At the beginning, his head looks very much in tact, while at the end it is easily removed. The head is then held up for the Camera one to see in a very imposing stance.
One should note that the time difference of Camera 1 from its initial frame to the final stance holding the head is 121 seconds. From 13:45:47 to 13:47:48.
At 5:24, our second to last cut, the one proving the impossibility of this being a real video filmed simultaneously. This one cuts back to Camera 2, which now has a time stamp of 2:46:18. Note: the last time we saw Camera 1, at the initial push of Nick Berg, it had a time stamp of 2:44:37. The difference in time: 101 seconds. How is it possible that the bookend time from start to finish is 20 seconds shorter than the time of the actual recording?
At 5:29, our final cut shows the head resting on the decapitated body. We are back with Camera 1, now showing a time stamp of 13:48:38.
The overall graininess and distortion inherent to web videos causes the viewer trouble in discerning the details of the video. One can’t really see the blade, or if the neck is still in tact, or if it is actually real. What one can tell is that the attackers are not Arabic, but Anglo-Saxon as they have hands which are paler than Nick Berg’s head. One can tell this by comparing the hand to the head, as the hand is picking up Nick Berg’s head as they are cutting it. When they lift the hand up, after the cut, the hand appears darker, or the head, by contrast, has gotten paler.
Theories
Just from watching the video, one cannot determine that it is a fake until one notices the little details, like the lack of dripping blood from the head. However, from a bit of viewing of the media circus underlying the whole video, one can determine that the US government is definitely benefiting from it. With a little pay-off to Nick Berg and/or his family, the government could easily create a false murder to scare the press into submission.
In addition to being a fear factor for the press, this is also a great piece of anti-Islamic propaganda. This is a piece that causes Americans to jump up and shout “We need to silence the terrorist factions before they behead more of our personnel!” So, between a well-needed piece of propaganda as well as working to scare the press, the government has a lot to gain from creating the media hype around this video which rapes the our military, and Nick Berg.
1 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4446084/
2 http://www.news-leader.com/today/0327-L
3 http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/0
4 http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto
5 http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/
posted by Pointedly Anonymous @ 1:48 AM
|
