There´s a lot of thing we aren´t told directly and that we have to read between the lines.
Wether i think it would have happened anyway is beside the point. But if you must know, no i don´t.
The american had been in iraqi hands since April 6 or its whereabouts. He had been just released (so they say) from US custody, for wich the family sued the US army, for wrongfull arrest.
The voice in the tape, that the "comuniqué" perported to be from Al Zarqawi, has not been identified by various reporters that know his voice well. So we gather it wasn´t Al Zarqawi after all.
But the real point is, the iraqis (or whomever had him in custody), didn´t slay him for weeks. That it happened in this particular time, is of some importance.
Had there not been the Abu Ghraib scandall, this man might have been released, or at least not have been killed in this manner.
So there´s your answer.
But what bothers me, is why the US authorities refused to exchange him for other prisioners! It has been a current practice between parties at conflict, for since ever we can remember. Armies exchanged prisioners since the begining of time. Why not this time? Were they afraid of releasing some terrorist that would kill americans later on? It´s a risk, but a risk worth taking if it saves the man´s life. They could still pick up those released, after.
Of course, this is all academical now.
As for the abuse scandall posing a good excuse, it has been like that for both sides. The US used the Fallujah incident to begin a full scale campaign in the city, punishing thousands, when we know only a hand full wee responsible for the deed itself.
The point being, both sides are looking for ways to justify their actions, just like the Palestinian issue.
If anyone thinks this was another barbaric act of the iraqis, as in opposed to the "fairness" and "humanity" of the american side, think again. Although not on camera, the iraqis have been systematically murdered in horrifying ways, that never get this amount of media atention. Dozens died in the prisons at the american´s hands, some of them in a very slow and painfull way. And since the US decided to resort to an "eye for an eye" strategy, it is only fair to expect the iraqi resistence to adopt similar attitudes in response. What were they expecting?
Don´t get me wrong, here. I am not condoning any of this. It´s just the opposite. But i´m not so quick to demonize them, as the american media is doing. I guess they needed the public focus to swirve elsewhere, from the Abu Ghraib disaster. And this incident has given them the perfect decoy. Just as it happened during the Fallujah campaign.
And you know what´s worst? I see this conflict spreading, and gaining contours like the Balcans, with side to side acts of savagery and barbarity.
Bush´s decision to force the Congress into aproving sanctions to Syria is not helping. Especially now.

Just as a comparison, i´m shure some of you here have seen the footage where the tchechen resistence decapitaded a russian soldier. If you haven´t, you should. It´s 10 times more graphic, and it didn´t get a fraction of the western media´s attention. And why? Nobody cared...
Many americans still view Russia with cold war eyes, and they must have thought the russians "had it coming". There was not a peep. Just silence.
But now that the shoe is in the other foot, look at the frenzy!
Hipocrisy at it´s finest...

__________________
"Quincitilius Varus, give me back my legions!"
Emperor Augustus of Rome.