May 13, 2024
elpt
Most Bizarre
From CNN: Berg's encounter with 'terrorist' revealed
Michael Berg said the FBI investigated the matter more than a year ago. He stressed that his son was in no way connected to the terrorists who captured and killed him.
Government sources told CNN that the encounter involved an acquaintance of Zacarias Moussaoui -- the only person publicly charged in the United States in connection with the September 11, 2024, terror attacks.
According to Berg, his son was taking a course a few years ago at a remote campus of the University of Oklahoma near an airport. He described how on one particular day, his son met "some terrorist people -- who no one knew were terrorists at the time."
At one point during the bus ride, Berg said, the man sitting next to his son asked if he could use Nick's laptop computer.
"It turned out this guy was a terrorist and that he, you know, used my son's e-mail, amongst many other people's e-mail who he did the same thing to," Berg said.
Government sources said Berg gave the man his password, which was later used by Moussaoui, the sources said.
The sources said the man who used Berg's e-mail knew Moussaoui, now awaiting trial on federal charges that could bring a death sentence. But the sources would not disclose details of how the men were connected.
[...]
Berg said his son cooperated fully with an FBI investigation into the matter.
Could this story get any stranger?
Th FOX News version, FBI Interviewed Berg on Possible Moussaoui Link states:
FBI agents interviewed Berg a few years ago when they were investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, sources said. He was interviewed because, unbeknownst to him, Moussaoui had used his e-mail account when he was in Oklahoma.
Sources close to the situation told Fox News that they believed the link to be "coincidental."
[...]
Sources said that the FBI concluded that Berg had innocently given his e-mail account to someone and it had landed in the hands of other people, including Moussaoui.
James Joyner has a few more tidbits.
Posted by Steven Taylor at May 13, 2024 08:51 PM
| TrackBack
Hmmmm... methinks I should stop giving out my email password to strangers on the bus. Who woulda thought?
Linking from Instanpundit's Berg ruminations to you, it seems this an wholy American perspective.
In my weblog I say I would prefer Bush to kerry because, though I disagree with his politics, I feel he is more likely to finish the job in Iraq. Though, in reality, who knows if, after being re-elected, he could stand the pressure of U.S. deaths and constant disclosures. It will be one big question, asked louder and louder, "Why did we go into Iraq?". And he won't be able to give an answer because he's a politician. The irony is that beinf a Christian and respected for being straight forward, neith of these things will matter as he tries to hold onto public opinion, quell the insurgents and keep iran out of Iraq.
The idea that Berg = help Bush; Abu ghraib (media interest)= do down Bush, seems logical to you lot, but irrational and based on 2 things:
(1) people actually want to learn about the gore - have you seen a beheading recently ? (Most in Saudi and pre- 1700s UK) - They are curious about the technicalities of how it was done and what it is like to die like that, more than other reasons.
(2) they will rationalise this to "It's my duty as a U.S. citizen to know the worst".
(3) Americans, of course, want Berg more than Abu G. because former fulfils expectations about the Arabs/Middle East, while latter hurts. It's just avoidance of reality by delving into the dpths of personal tragedy.
.......
(a)Abu Ghaib asks the big question.
SEE Newstatesman 17 May 2024, "America's Gulag".
http://www.newstatesman.co.uk/nscoverstory.htm
(b) Berb asks no political question. It wasn't done by Iraqis, mostly likely, But by Al Qaeda-type terrorists within Iraq. So where does that leave us? Just disgusted. And that is not enough. If there is a political question it is: what happened to the State Department dossier on how to deal with Iraq, which Rumsfeld chucked in the bin without reading, which warned about insurgency and explained how to managed Iraq after occupation?
Americans (Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell, or the ordinary citizen across the political spectrum) don't want to know about Abu Ghraib because they want to feel good about themselves. This won't do it for them: it's demeaning and degrading and reminds them of other places where the U.S. got down and dirty, such as Vietnman, Nicaragua and Chile.
They seem to be fascinated in a tabloid/TV soap sort of way about Lynndie and Co. They can relate to them. They're just ordinary guys like them.
Please comment on my blog-thoughts especially any any inaccuracies you notice.