PDA

View Full Version : Contractor Says Marines Abused Him in Iraq


Dorian Gray
11th June 2005, 07:54 AM
Here's (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/10/AR2005061001777.html) the article. The thing about this is that these aren't Iraqis (mostly), they aren't regular people, they are ex-military! The main guy in the article is an ex-Marine! They (the mercenaries) are risking their lives in Iraq as much as the military is. Why did this happen? And who is more credible?
RENO, Nev. -- Security contractors were heckled, humiliated and physically abused by U.S. Marines in Iraq while jailed for 72 hours with insurgents, one of the detainees said Friday.

"It was disbelief the whole time. I couldn't believe what was happening," said Matt Raiche, 34, an ex-Marine who was one of 16 American and three Iraqi contractors detained at Camp Fallujah last month.

"I just found it crazy that we were being held with terrorists, that we were put in the same facility with them," he told The Associated Press in an interview at his lawyer's office. "They were calling us a rogue mercenary team."

Defense officials disclosed on Thursday that the security guards for Charlotte, N.C.-based Zapata Engineering were detained for three days after they fired from trucks and SUVs on Iraqi civilian cars and U.S. forces in Fallujah, 40 miles west of Baghdad.

The military has denied the contractors were abused. No charges have been filed against any of the contractors, who the military said were separated from suspected insurgents.

Company president Manuel Zapata said the only shot fired by his workers was a warning blast after they noticed a vehicle following them.

Raiche, of Dayton, Nev., said the contractors were stopped and taken into custody on May 28. He said a Marine told him that shots had been fired, and Raiche told him, "It wasn't us."

Raiche said several of the contractors were interrogated before they were released June 1 with no official explanation for their detention.

Raiche said guards intimidated the detainees with dogs, made them strip and told them to wear towels over their heads when they went to the restroom so insurgents in the facility would not recognize and harm them, Raiche said.

One of his colleagues was slammed to the ground by a guard, he said.

"His head bounced off the asphalt." Raiche said. "He told me he heard one guard say to another, `If he moves, let the dog loose.'"

Raiche said his colleague told him that a guard then reached down and "squeezed his testicles so hard he could barely move."

When Raiche first arrived at the facility, he said a guard ordered him to the ground and put a knee in his back. He said he heard one Marine say, "How does it feel now making that big contractor money?"

Raiche said the Marines handcuffed them with "zip lock ties." When the detainees complained they were so tight they were losing circulation in their hands, they were cursed at and told to shut up, Raiche said.

Raiche returned to Reno on Thursday night. He said he had been in Iraq for about two years before returning to Nevada earlier this spring, then headed back to Iraq on May 2.

An estimated 20,000 Americans, many of them former military personnel, are believed to be working in Iraq for contractors. More than 200 private workers have died in Iraq.

Zapata Engineering contracts frequently with the Defense Department and Zapata said he was waiting for completion of the investigation before he draws conclusions about how the military treated his workers. In another article in USA Today a Zapata spokeswoman (Gail Rosenberg) said "It's pretty inconceivable to believe that they would fire on American servicemen."

corplinx
11th June 2005, 08:08 AM
It must be a difficult day to be Dorian. He has to try to figure out if the evil imperial US military or the evil mercenary forces of US employ are right/wrong.

Mephisto
11th June 2005, 08:19 AM
"I just found it crazy that we were being held with terrorists, that we were put in the same facility with them."

Hmmmm, here's a case of an "innocent" American contractor being thrown into prison by the US military for trumped up charges, and for an undetermined time, without due process, based on a suspicion . . . YET he's certain that the Iraqis in the prison with him were all terrorists.

What is wrong with this picture?

Ed
11th June 2005, 08:46 AM
Originally posted by Mephisto
"I just found it crazy that we were being held with terrorists, that we were put in the same facility with them."

Hmmmm, here's a case of an "innocent" American contractor being thrown into prison by the US military for trumped up charges, and for an undetermined time, without due process, based on a suspicion . . . YET he's certain that the Iraqis in the prison with him were all terrorists.

What is wrong with this picture?

What is wrong is that if his story about the Iraqi "terrorists" is suspect, perhaps his whole story is suspect.

demon
11th June 2005, 08:48 AM
Mephisto:
"Hmmmm, here's a case of an "innocent" American contractor being thrown into prison by the US military for trumped up charges, and for an undetermined time, without due process, based on a suspicion . . . YET he's certain that the Iraqis in the prison with him were all terrorists.
What is wrong with this picture?"


He`s not Elind`s brother by any chance?

Mephisto
11th June 2005, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by demon
He`s not Elind`s brother by any chance?

Oh, then you HAVE seen the photos the GIs are circulating!

varwoche
11th June 2005, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by Mephisto
"I just found it crazy that we were being held with terrorists, that we were put in the same facility with them."

Hmmmm, here's a case of an "innocent" American contractor being thrown into prison by the US military for trumped up charges, and for an undetermined time, without due process, based on a suspicion . . . YET he's certain that the Iraqis in the prison with him were all terrorists.

What is wrong with this picture? I don't know if it's true or not. That said, the guy's on-the-spot, probably erroneous assessment sheds zero light one way or the other imo. It's like taking hyper-semantic jref argumentation and applying it to the real world.

Renfield
11th June 2005, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Here's (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/10/AR2005061001777.html) the article. The thing about this is that these aren't Iraqis (mostly), they aren't regular people, they are ex-military! The main guy in the article is an ex-Marine!

Clearly this ex-marine hates America. Everyone knows the US military and our intelligence agencies are beyond reproach . Anyone who questions things like the patriot act or Gitmo has to.

Dorian Gray
12th June 2005, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by corplinx
It must be a difficult day to be Dorian. He has to try to figure out if the evil imperial US military or the evil mercenary forces of US employ are right/wrong. It must be easy being Corplinx, because, you know, ignorance is bliss.

Dorian Gray
12th June 2005, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by Renfield
Clearly this ex-marine hates America. Everyone knows the US military and our intelligence agencies are beyond reproach . Anyone who questions things like the patriot act or Gitmo has to. I had forgotten that once you leave the military your credibility is automatically questionable - like the general that said he didn't recall ever seeing Bush report for duty in Alabama. Furthermore, if our forces or agencies are ever in conflict with each other, clearly the right side is the side that is alive and/or undetained.

Rob Lister
12th June 2005, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Here's (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/10/AR2005061001777.html) the article. The thing about this is that these aren't Iraqis (mostly), they aren't regular people, they are ex-military! The main guy in the article is an ex-Marine! They (the mercenaries) are risking their lives in Iraq as much as the military is. Why did this happen? And who is more credible?
In another article in USA Today a Zapata spokeswoman (Gail Rosenberg) said "It's pretty inconceivable to believe that they would fire on American servicemen."

This is easy. Read the story and the "why" question is answered in detail. As to whom you should believe, the best you can do is to apply the same standards the legal system uses. Strike all hearsay, require context, specifically as to the timeline, examine physical evidence, allow and listen to rebuttal witnesses, etc.

On the face of it, without even hearing from rebuttal witnesses or examining any physical evidence, I suspect they were handled more or less gingerly given the circumstances. Actually, they're lucky they didn't get conked on the side of the head with the butt of an M-16 the first time they opened their mouths to 'protest' their treatment, especially during the heat of the arrest (during the handcuffing, for example). Those that have been in combat will understand why I think this. Those that haven't, might not.