Severed Fingers Of Contractors Delivered

Grisly Clues To Status Of Five Men Kidnapped In Iraq As Long As 2 Years Ago

(AP)  Severed fingers of five Western contractors were sent to the U.S. military in Iraq, giving the men's relatives hope that they are still alive, a brother of one of the missing men said.

The men were abducted in two separate incidents that occurred a month and a half apart more than two years ago, a U.S. government official said Thursday in Washington.

The Austrian weekly magazine News first reported the delivery of the five fingers in Wednesday's edition, citing unidentified authorities working on the case.

Patrick Reuben, a Minneapolis police officer whose twin brother, Paul Reuben, is among the missing, said late Wednesday the FBI told his family members that "the fingers were confirmed to be those of the hostages."

Patrick Reuben said the news of the severed fingers was "shocking," but that the initial word the family got was "much more serious than that. Later on we found that it was fingers that were recovered and that the DNA confirmed it was the hostages."

Four of the men were guards for a convoy ambushed near the Kuwaiti border on Nov. 16, 2006. The fifth, Ronald J. Withrow, 40, of Lubbock, Texas, was a contractor working for JPI Worldwide and abducted on Jan. 5, 2007 near Basra.

In addition to Reuben, those abducted in the earlier incident were Jonathon Cote, 25, of Getzville, New York; Joshua Munns, 25, of Redding, California; and Bert Nussbaumer, 26, of Vienna, Austria, said the U.S. government official in Washington. The official spoke only on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record about the matter.

A fifth hostage taken in the Nov. 16, 2006 ambush was John Young, 45, of Lee's Summit, Missouri. None of his fingers was sent to the U.S. military.

In a statement, the FBI declined to confirm the men had been identified by fingers.

"The FBI has received DNA evidence and is conducting an examination," spokesman Richard Kolko said. "We understand this is a very difficult time for the families and discussing this matter further in the media is not appropriate."

The four men kidnapped in the Nov. 16, 2006 incident were working for Crescent Security Group, a Kuwait-based private security company. Men in Iraqi police uniforms ambushed a convoy near the southern city of Safwan.

Patrick Reuben said his family is "certainly hopeful, but there's nothing definite right now."

The father of Cote said he and other families were visited by the FBI two to three weeks ago, when they were told DNA samples had been identified as those of the hostages. The agents would not say how they had gotten the samples.

When Francis Cote read a news report about the fingers, he contacted the State Department but was given no confirmation or denial.

"They told us the FBI would visit us," Cote said.

Cote received calls Wednesday from Paul Reuben's wife, who was in tears, and Munns's mother. The hostages' families frequently contact each other to share news and compare notes, he said. Cote assured the women that the hostages were still alive.

"It's possible they did sever (the fingers) to show proof of life," Cote said. "I'm sure somebody from our government was asking for proof of life and I guess proof of life was severing a finger versus delivering a video."

Cote said he was frustrated by the government's reticence.

"We have no news, we have activity," has been the extent of officials' comments on the hostages for months, Cote said. "It's very vague."

Police. Col. Rudolf Gollia, a spokesman for the Austrian Interior Ministry, said the report that the severed fingers had been sent to U.S. authorities was being treated as a rumor.

He said U.S. officials in Baghdad forwarded information to the Austrian Embassy in Amman, Jordan, that the Americans described only as "based on fingerprints and DNA profiles."

He said Austrian officials were trying to get more information from U.S. officials and other sources in the Middle East.

[parrot2ok]

I could give a d a m n whether Bush had alterior motives for invading Iraq or not. Fact is, I''''m absolutely fine with destroying Saddam and his murderous regime for whatever reason.
Posted by infe5 at 01:26 AM : Mar 14, 2008

I stopped reading right here - this is very typical of a very dedicated Repug. Cheers!

[robrob791]

I am in favor of our troops staying there as long as they be very careful and not kill anybody, I know our political hacks in Washington have the same thoughts.

[brianbwb-2009]

"How do we make this work? I have no clue... I''''m not nearly smart enough to figure that out." Posted by infe5

I believe you are smart enough. We should get out, let the Iraqis sort it out themselves, as they will do anyway, and any changes in the political reality is to be taken as a lesson not to let liars flim-flam us into private wars. (no use killing over spilled milk)

As for the two girls reference, it was just begging to become an allegory for today''s political climate...

[infe5]

brianbwb,

Props. A 2 girls one cup reference on a news site.

[infe5]

"What benefits the United States of America in Iraq is nil except for a few of the elite. There''''s no benefit there for bankrupting this country or sacrificing our young for the incorporation of Iraq."

Uh oh, here is where I have to concede that you have a point. Thus far, the war has cost countless billions with no tangible benefit. That being said, the potential future costs of us leaving, without getting what we want, could be disasterous. That is why we should stay and make this work. How do we make this work? I have no clue... I''m not nearly smart enough to figure that out. Yes go ahead and laugh, it''s a simple statement; but neither is anyone else so far, otherwise this wouldnt be an issue.

[brianbwb-2009]

"I would rather do whatever benefits the United States of America. Whatever, and at any cost. And to answer any forethcoming comments, yes I have served in the military in war." Posted by infe5

You are still suffering shell shock. Halliburton, Bechtel, and the oil companies are not the US of A, they are simply multinational corporations.

They are the only entities that benefit from this idiocy, and unless you are in upper management with one of these companies, you are just another sucker who swallowed the same thing that the two girls swallowed from one cup.

[rowdytexan2]

"You would rather stay over there a fight a cause that supports corruption and exploitation. It''''''''s typical of ignorance."

I would rather do whatever benefits the United States of America. Whatever, and at any cost. And to answer any forethcoming comments, yes I have served in the military in war.



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

Posted by infe5 at 02:02 AM : Mar 14, 2008

What benefits the United States of America in Iraq is nil except for a few of the elite. There''s no benefit there for bankrupting this country or sacrificing our young for the incorporation of Iraq.

[infe5]

"You would rather stay over there a fight a cause that supports corruption and exploitation. It''''s typical of ignorance."

I would rather do whatever benefits the United States of America. Whatever, and at any cost. And to answer any forethcoming comments, yes I have served in the military in war.

[infe5]

"There was very little jihad in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. He hated Islamic extremism, and wouldn''''t tolerate it. We brought the jihadists with us to Iraq."

You are clueless. The sunnis and shiites have been slaughtering each other ever since the death of Ali in 632. There have been jihadists in Iraq for over 1000 years. Saddam was just brutal and murderous enough to keep the shiites scared and under control.

[rowdytexan2]

"As far as rebuilding the country, the no-bid contractors rebuilding (snort) the Iraqi infrastructure are bringing in Indonesian labor and refusing to hire the Iraqi people. The Iraqi unemployment rate is 70%. Now why won''''''''t they allow Iraqi workers to work."

No kidding?!? So the US contractors are hiring cheap labor and making more profit? Sounds great to me!! Why is it our responsibility to make sure Iraqi worker''''s unions are satisfied?!?!?



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

Posted by infe5 at 01:52 AM : Mar 14, 2008

To rebuilt Iraq, we must also rebuild the people and allow them to support themselves. I realize you do not have the capacity to understand. You would rather stay over there a fight a cause that supports corruption and exploitation. It''s typical of ignorance.

[infe5]

"As far as rebuilding the country, the no-bid contractors rebuilding (snort) the Iraqi infrastructure are bringing in Indonesian labor and refusing to hire the Iraqi people. The Iraqi unemployment rate is 70%. Now why won''''t they allow Iraqi workers to work."

No kidding?!? So the US contractors are hiring cheap labor and making more profit? Sounds great to me!! Why is it our responsibility to make sure Iraqi worker''s unions are satisfied?!?!?

[rowdytexan2]

And Nazi Germany had a brain drain after WWII; what''''s your point? Spoils of war. Oh, is that not just? Neither is war. Even if those companies were making outrageous demands, the Iraqis would be better off than under a theocratic, self-serving jihad state.


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

Posted by infe5 at 01:45 AM : Mar 14, 2008

There was very little jihad in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. He hated Islamic extremism, and wouldn''t tolerate it. We brought the jihadists with us to Iraq.

[rowdytexan2]

brianbwb,
S C R E W the other country! We attacked out of self-interest (for whatever reason), and once done, offered help to rebuild. The people are now too stupid or unwilling to work with us.


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

Posted by infe5 at 01:38 AM : Mar 14, 2008

As far as rebuilding the country, the no-bid contractors rebuilding (snort) the Iraqi infrastructure are bringing in Indonesian labor and refusing to hire the Iraqi people. The Iraqi unemployment rate is 70%. Now why won''t they allow Iraqi workers to work.

Also in this new incorporated democracy that our administration has built, they have rounded up and imprisoned all of the heads of the labor unions. It is clear that they have no intention of allowing collective bargaining in their new world order.

The Iraqi''s are very smart it''s just that this administration intention is to rip them off, and they''re resisting.

[infe5]

"Actually, what the Iraqi''''s are not doing is agreeing to sign the PSA agreements with US oil companies that would allow those companies to steal their oil revenues for the next 25 to 40 years.
"

And Nazi Germany had a brain drain after WWII; what''s your point? Spoils of war. Oh, is that not just? Neither is war. Even if those companies were making outrageous demands, the Iraqis would be better off than under a theocratic, self-serving jihad state.

[infe5]

brianbwb,
S C R E W the other country! We attacked out of self-interest (for whatever reason), and once done, offered help to rebuild. The people are now too stupid or unwilling to work with us.

[rowdytexan2]

I could give a d a m n whether Bush had alterior motives for invading Iraq or not. Fact is, I''''m absolutely fine with destroying Saddam and his murderous regime for whatever reason. As for the current mess, that is the sole responsibility of the Iraqi people. They allow (or want) themselves to be run by jihadist nuts, and will not work towards a unified Iraq.

To those who want to blame the US... YOU KNOW that if the Iraqis simply complied with our guidance and suggestions, the whole place would be fixed in MONTHS. The only thing preventing peace is their own stupidity.


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

Posted by infe5 at 01:26 AM : Mar 14, 2008

Actually, what the Iraqi''s are not doing is agreeing to sign the PSA agreements with US oil companies that would allow those companies to steal their oil revenues for the next 25 to 40 years.

Until they sign those agreements, Al Queda will continue to raid Iraq. It''s that simple.

As we speak, US oil companies are pressuring their oil minister to privitize their oil.

[brianbwb-2009]

"To those who want to blame the US... YOU KNOW that if the Iraqis simply complied with our guidance and suggestions, the whole place would be fixed in MONTHS. The only thing preventing peace is their own stupidity."
Posted by infe5

So who made you the arbiter of whether other countries should kowtow to the whims and greed of Bush and his idiotic supporters? So what if your "fine with" Saddam''s lynching, since you are obviously not qualified to make that judgment, the fact that we created a nation in which no one is supposed to be above the law, But Bush and his supporters are "fine with" violating the law makes Bush and his supporters no better, in fact worse, than Saddam and his.

[infe5]

I could give a d a m n whether Bush had alterior motives for invading Iraq or not. Fact is, I''m absolutely fine with destroying Saddam and his murderous regime for whatever reason. As for the current mess, that is the sole responsibility of the Iraqi people. They allow (or want) themselves to be run by jihadist nuts, and will not work towards a unified Iraq.

To those who want to blame the US... YOU KNOW that if the Iraqis simply complied with our guidance and suggestions, the whole place would be fixed in MONTHS. The only thing preventing peace is their own stupidity.

[brianbwb-2009]

brianbwb

Should we-who abohr the meting,approving,and/or condoning ''''torture'''' in our country -find an ''''excuse'''' for the BARBARIANS Al Qaida and their fellow Jihadis? DISGUSTING!" Posted by dumbshun

No we should not. But by the same token, we have no right to dictate our moral views upon others, especially since the CIA created and runs Al Qaeda. If a country tortures and murders its own, it is their business, if the people object, they will make revolution when they have had enough, and that is their business, not ours.

By the way, Bush and Cheney have decided that we will indeed mete out torture, congressional failure to override the veto is passive approval, and Bush''s supporters condone it.

Our business should be to use our treasury to provide for Americans, not anyone else, and our military should defend our country, not anyone else''s, and certainly not a few greedy multinational corporations.

[blondmadison]

I don''t understand why and how a small group, without weapons on them, can take over an entire country - doing things the majority of citizens don''t want done...and the masses can''t get together nonviolently to make it stop? so many of the masses versus such small groups?
www.myspace.com/worldpeacerally2008
Be there.