Case Agaisnt Blackwater Dropped

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
The New York Times said:
BAGHDAD — Iraqis on Friday reacted with disbelief, anger and bitter resignation to news that criminal charges in the United States had been dismissed against Blackwater Worldwide security guards who opened fire on unarmed Iraqi civilians in 2007.

Though the shooting, which took place on Sept. 16, 2007, in a crowded central Baghdad traffic circle, is regarded here as a signal event of the war, many victims had not been aware of the decision of a Federal District Court judge in Washington because the ruling was made public in Baghdad a few hours after the start of the new year.

The attack, at Nisour Square, left 17 Iraqis dead and 27 wounded. Many of the victims were riding inside cars or buses at a busy traffic circle when a Blackwater convoy escorting American diplomats rolled through and began firing machine guns, grenade launchers and a sniper rifle.

The Blackwater guards said they believed they had come under small-arms fire from insurgents. But investigators concluded that the guards had indiscriminately fired on unarmed civilians in an unprovoked and unjustified assault.

The incident calcified anti-American sentiment in Iraq and elsewhere, raised Iraqi concerns about the extent of its sovereignty because Blackwater guards had immunity from local prosecutors and reopened a debate about American dependence on private security contractors in the Iraq war.

Many Iraqis also viewed the prosecution of the guards as a test case of American democratic principles, which have not been wholeheartedly embraced, and in particular of the fairness of the American judicial system.

On Thursday, Judge Ricardo M. Urbina threw out manslaughter and weapons charges against five Blackwater guards because he said prosecutors had violated the men’s rights by building the case based on sworn statements that had been given by the guards under the promise of immunity.

Prosecutors have not said whether they will appeal the decision.

I remember reading about this incident a while back, really horrible and just shows all the kind of stuff that does and can go wrong when you're occupying another country. Not to mention I am kind of shocked that the Justice Department fucked this up however one of the men in the incident plead guilty for a lesser sentence, but the others are let off?
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
And you wonder why those of us on the right don't want our terrorist suspects brought into the civilian criminal justice system.

I can just imagine some judge throwing out the case against the 9-11 mastermind because he was kept in a cold cell for a few days and was not allowed to talk to a lawyer.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
And you wonder why those of us on the right don't want our terrorist suspects brought into the civilian criminal justice system.

I can just imagine some judge throwing out the case against the 9-11 mastermind because he was kept in a cold cell for a few days and was not allowed to talk to a lawyer.

Go thread shit somewhere else, thanks.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
Go thread shit somewhere else, thanks.

For once I have to agree with non ProfJohn!!

That is exactly why we need to not allow this to get into the civilian criminal justice system!!
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
And you wonder why those of us on the right don't want our terrorist suspects brought into the civilian criminal justice system.

I can just imagine some judge throwing out the case against the 9-11 mastermind because he was kept in a cold cell for a few days and was not allowed to talk to a lawyer.

actually you make a very sound argument to keep it out of the civilian justice system!!
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
I have to wonder if the prosecutors deliberately did this to get it thrown out.

Federal prosecutors "repeatedly disregarded the warnings of experienced, senior prosecutors assigned to the case," the judge said.

Hmmm....so they were warned, and they went ahead and did it anyone. Nice way to get out of murder charges. And you wonder why Iraqi's get mad at us.

Also, all the resident trolls here that demand US justice for actions elsewhere in the world, why aren't you demanding that Iraqi courts handle this? You all would be outraged if Yemen demanded the right to try the recent plane bomber, but you have no problem flip-flopping if it favors you.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
Also, all the resident trolls here that demand US justice for actions elsewhere in the world, why aren't you demanding that Iraqi courts handle this? You all would be outraged if Yemen demanded the right to try the recent plane bomber, but you have no problem flip-flopping if it favors you.

The only problem I would have with the Iraqi courts is the way their rule of law is designed, this country isn't exactly in the 21st century now is it?
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
The only problem I would have with the Iraqi courts is the way their rule of law is designed, this country isn't exactly in the 21st century now is it?

But does that matter? It's still their country. So many people went crazy when Amanda Knox was convicted according to the Italians law, saying it was not fair. But so what? There is no law saying that all countries must meet X, Y, or Z standards before they are "fair". She was tried like any other citizen in Italy. According to their laws, she got a fair trial.

Now these guards killed those people, and get off on a technicality, which again, you have to wonder was done on purpose. Why can't Iraq try them? The alleged crimes happened in Iraq.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
But does that matter? It's still their country. So many people went crazy when Amanda Knox was convicted according to the Italians law, saying it was not fair. But so what? There is no law saying that all countries must meet X, Y, or Z standards before they are "fair". She was tried like any other citizen in Italy. According to their laws, she got a fair trial.

Now these guards killed those people, and get off on a technicality, which again, you have to wonder was done on purpose. Why can't Iraq try them? The alleged crimes happened in Iraq.
Typically members of the military who commit a crime in a foreign country are tried by us in our own courts. I would assume that since these guards were working along side our military that is why they were brought home to the US court system.

The Amanda Knox case is different because she was a civilian in a foreign country and was thus operating under their laws at the time of that murder.

BTW I am not saying such a system is fair, but it at least explains why these guys were brought into the US justice system.
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
Typically members of the military who commit a crime in a foreign country are tried by us in our own courts. I would assume that since these guards were working along side our military that is why they were brought home to the US court system.

The Amanda Knox case is different because she was a civilian in a foreign country and was thus operating under their laws at the time of that murder.

BTW I am not saying such a system is fair, but it at least explains why these guys were brought into the US justice system.

But there were civilians (you could even say mercenaries).
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
But there were civilians (you could even say mercenaries).
Yes, but they were operating under contract with the US government and I am pretty sure that our government stepped in and took them into custody similar to how they would if they were 'real' soldiers.

Read the story below since it gives a lot more details into what happened and explains how and why the guards got off.

Basically the only evidence we have about what happened on that day is based on what the guards said themselves during a period of immunity. If the guards weren't granted such immunity then there would be no case at all. So while the ruling may suck it certainly seems in keeping with our laws and constitutional right against self incrimination.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100101...zZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNqdWRnZWNpdGVzZ28-
A federal judge cited repeated government missteps in dismissing all charges against five Blackwater Worldwide security guards accused of killing unarmed Iraqi civilians in a case that inflamed anti-American sentiment abroad.
U.S. District Judge Ricardo Urbina dismissed the case against the guards accused of the shooting in a crowded Baghdad intersection in 2007.
The shooting in busy Nisoor Square left 17 Iraqis dead. The Iraqi government wanted the guards to face trial in Iraq and officials there said they would closely watch how the U.S. judicial system handled the case.
Urbina said the prosecutors ignored the advice of senior Justice Department officials and built their case on sworn statements that had been given under a promise of immunity. Urbina said that violated the guards' constitutional rights. He dismissed the government's explanations as "contradictory, unbelievable and lacking in credibility."
"We're obviously disappointed by the decision," Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said. "We're still in the process of reviewing the opinion and considering our options."
Prosecutors can appeal the ruling.
Ali al-Dabbagh, the Iraqi government spokesman, said in a statement Friday that the government was dismayed by the court's dismissal of the case.
"The Iraqi government regrets the decision," he said. "Investigations conducted by specialized Iraqi authorities confirmed unequivocally that the guards of Blackwater committed the crime of murder and broke the rules by using arms without the existence of any threat obliging them to use force."
"The Iraqi government will follow up its procedures strictly and firmly to pursue the criminals of the above named company and to preserve the rights of the Iraqi citizens who were victims or the families who suffered losses from this crime."
Dr. Haitham Ahmed, whose wife and son were killed in the shooting, said the decision casts doubt on the integrity of the entire U.S. justice system.
"If a judge ... dismissed the trial, that is ridiculous and the whole thing has been but a farce," Ahmed said. "The rights of our victims and the rights of the innocent people should not be wasted."
Dozens of Iraqis, including the estates of some of the victims allegedly killed by Blackwater employees, filed a separate lawsuit last year alleging that Blackwater employees engaged in indiscriminate killings and beatings. The civil case is still before a Virginia court.
Blackwater contractors had been hired to guard U.S. diplomats in Iraq. The guards said insurgents ambushed them in a traffic circle. Prosecutors said the men unleashed an unprovoked attack on civilians using machine guns and grenades.
The shooting led to the unraveling of the North Carolina-based company, which since has replaced its management and changed its name to Xe Services.
The five guards are Donald Ball, a former Marine from West Valley City, Utah; Dustin Heard, a former Marine from Knoxville, Tenn.; Evan Liberty, a former Marine from Rochester, N.H.; Nick Slatten, a former Army sergeant from Sparta, Tenn., and Paul Slough, an Army veteran from Keller, Texas.
Defense attorneys said the guards were thrilled by the ruling after more than two years of scrutiny.
"It's tremendously gratifying to see the court allow us to celebrate the new year the way it has," said attorney Bill Coffield, who represents Liberty. "It really invigorates your belief in our court system."
"It's indescribable," said Ball's attorney, Steven McCool. "It feels like the weight of the world has been lifted off his shoulders. Here's a guy that's a decorated war hero who we maintain should never have been charged in the first place."
The five guards had been charged with manslaughter and weapons violations. The charges carried mandatory 30-year prison terms.
Urbina's ruling does not resolve whether the shooting was proper. Rather, the 90-page opinion underscores some of the conflicting evidence in the case. Some Blackwater guards told prosecutors they were concerned about the shooting and offered to cooperate. Others said the convoy had been attacked. By the time the FBI began investigating, Nisoor Square had been picked clean of bullets that might have proven whether there had been a firefight or a massacre.
The Iraqi government has refused to grant Blackwater a license to continue operating in the country, prompting the State Department to refuse to renew its contracts with the company.
In a statement released by its president, Joseph Yorio, the company said it was happy to have the shooting behind it.
"Like the people they were protecting, our Xe professionals were working for a free, safe and democratic Iraq for the Iraqi people," Yorio said. "With this decision, we feel we can move forward and continue to assist the United States in its mission to help the people of Iraq and Afghanistan find a peaceful, democratic future."
The top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. Raymond Odierno, declined to comment on the specifics of the case, but said, "I do worry about it, because clearly there were innocent people killed in that attack ... it is heart-wrenching."
The case against the five men fell apart because, after the shooting, the State Department ordered the guards to explain what happened. In exchange for those statements, the State Department promised the statements would not be used in a criminal case. Such limited immunity deals are common in police departments so officers involved in shootings cannot hold up internal investigations by refusing to cooperate.
The five guards told investigators they fired their weapons, an admission that was crucial because forensic evidence could not determine who had fired.
Because of the immunity deal, prosecutors had to build their case without those statements, a high legal hurdle that Urbina said the Justice Department failed to clear. Prosecutors read those statements, reviewed them in the investigation and used them to question witnesses and get search warrants, Urbina said. Key witnesses also reviewed the statements and the grand jury heard evidence that had been tainted by those statements, the judge said.
The Justice Department set up a process to avoid those problems, but Urbina said lead prosecutor Ken Kohl and others "purposefully flouted the advice" of senior Justice Department officials telling them not to use the statements.
It was unclear what the ruling means for a sixth Blackwater guard, Jeremy Ridgeway, who turned on his former colleagues and pleaded guilty to killing one Iraqi and wounding another. Had he gone to trial, the case against him would likely have fallen apart, but it's unclear whether Urbina will let him out of his plea deal.
 

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
17,788
6,041
136
Blackwater members ARE civilians, whether they're mostly ex-military or not, they were not fighting as U.S. military, they were nothing more than hired bodyguards (who are subject to the laws of the country where they are working). Doesn't matter what you think, the law should apply fairly to all, or do you disagree with the Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc.?
 
Last edited:

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
Blackwater members ARE civilians, whether they're mostly ex-military or not, they were not fighting as U.S. military. Doesn't matter what you think, the law should apply fairly to all, or do you disagree with the Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc.?

problem is they were contracted mcivilians by our government thus it is not the nsame as if they were working in Iraq as independant contractors!!
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
As I understand the legal and constitutional argument which may (or may not) be pursued is that the State Department has no law enforcement function and cannot promise immunity.

The case against the five men fell apart because, after the shooting, the State Department ordered the guards to explain what happened.

In exchange for those statements, the State Department promised the statements would not be used in a criminal case.

Such limited immunity deals are common in police departments so officers involved in shootings cannot hold up internal investigations by refusing to cooperate.

The five guards told investigators they fired their weapons ...


Just because someone is 'promised' immunity does not mean there is a legal basis for it.





--
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Booboo I don't think your argument would stand up in a court of law.

The State Department is part of the government so rules about immunity and the right against self incrimination would apply to them as well.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,592
6,715
126
The only problem I would have with the Iraqi courts is the way their rule of law is designed, this country isn't exactly in the 21st century now is it?

I don't know about you but I think I would rather live in a country where if you killed somebody in my family I could kill you rather than it go to a legal system where you walk because somebody gave you immunity to testify, no?

I remember hearing that justice delayed is justice denied and I see nothing in our complex legal system but gaming the system by those with the resources and political power to do it.
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
Yes, but they were operating under contract with the US government and I am pretty sure that our government stepped in and took them into custody similar to how they would if they were 'real' soldiers.

Read the story below since it gives a lot more details into what happened and explains how and why the guards got off.

Basically the only evidence we have about what happened on that day is based on what the guards said themselves during a period of immunity. If the guards weren't granted such immunity then there would be no case at all. So while the ruling may suck it certainly seems in keeping with our laws and constitutional right against self incrimination.

I agree, they have the right to not self-incriminate. But the fact remains they are civilians, so why are they not being tried in Iraq? They allegedly killed iraqi's in Iraq. Why not let their justice system prosecute?

And again, I think that it is entirely possible, and even likely, that prosecutors did this on purpose to taint the case to ensure it got thrown out. Did they even try to get other evidence to build a case against them? It doesn't seem so. No physicial evidence? No Iraqi eyewitnesses? Nothing?
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
I agree, they have the right to not self-incriminate. But the fact remains they are civilians, so why are they not being tried in Iraq? They allegedly killed iraqi's in Iraq. Why not let their justice system prosecute?

And again, I think that it is entirely possible, and even likely, that prosecutors did this on purpose to taint the case to ensure it got thrown out. Did they even try to get other evidence to build a case against them? It doesn't seem so. No physicial evidence? No Iraqi eyewitnesses? Nothing?
I believe that the Iraqi government may still try to have these guys put on trail in their court system, but that will most likely never happen.

Unlikely that our government turns them over to the Iraqi's but you never know.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
Blackwater members ARE civilians, whether they're mostly ex-military or not, they were not fighting as U.S. military, they were nothing more than hired bodyguards (who are subject to the laws of the country where they are working). Doesn't matter what you think, the law should apply fairly to all, or do you disagree with the Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc.?

They're civilians but their acting as military agent for the state.

Right?
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
I believe that the Iraqi government may still try to have these guys put on trail in their court system, but that will most likely never happen.

Unlikely that our government turns them over to the Iraqi's but you never know.

I don't think the United States has ever extradited anyone, at least not in recent history.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
And you wonder why those of us on the right don't want our terrorist suspects brought into the civilian criminal justice system.

I can just imagine some judge throwing out the case against the 9-11 mastermind because he was kept in a cold cell for a few days and was not allowed to talk to a lawyer.

The real world can't work that way...either we trust our justice system or we don't. Ignoring the system because we don't like a possible outcome is just as bad as having no justice system at all. If we have exceptions for certain things, it's not really "justice" at all, just a cheap prop we use when it's not too inconvenient...like we're China or Russia. After all, if terrorists are an exception, what about regular murders? Or child molesters? Or drug dealers? Or people who don't support the government during wartime?

I don't like the outcome of this case...I think Blackwater's actions did irreparable harm to our effort to win the popular support of the people in the Middle East. But the fact that I don't like the outcome doesn't mean I think we should have just locked them all up without a trial. Ultimately the integrity of the system is way more important than any one particular trial. And if we're being honest, that's true of terrorist trials as well. Spitting in the face of our legal system threatens our freedom WAY more than any terrorist could ever hope to, 9/11 mastermind or not.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
As I understand the legal and constitutional argument which may (or may not) be pursued is that the State Department has no law enforcement function and cannot promise immunity.




Just because someone is 'promised' immunity does not mean there is a legal basis for it.





--


You don't have to be guilty of a crime to be arrested, nor if you are arrested is it mandatory that you are prosecuted. There is no law that says the Just Dept. MUST prosecute someone. Since there is no rule compelling them to do so, they can make deals. Now it's stupid as fuck to give someone immunity when it's likely that their statements are going to be the major basis for prosecution.

I'm inclined to think that was done on purpose to protect Blackwater, which is something both parties want.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
Booboo I don't think your argument would stand up in a court of law.

The State Department is part of the government so rules about immunity and the right against self incrimination would apply to them as well.

I'm not making the argument, Johnnie .... a former member of the Justice Dept made the argument on the News Hour last night.

Once again .... the State Department has no law enforcement function and cannot promise immunity.

Blackwater employees have no law enforcement function; nor do they have any status under the MCOJ as they are not soldiers.

They are civilian contractors (or in this case, sub- contractors of Blackwater) hired as private bodyguards.

If I hire you as a sub-contractor to guard my veggie garden and you go 'rogue' while shooting rabbits and accidentally kill 3 of my neighbors I can promise you immunity from prosecution.

It doesn't mean there is a legal basis for my promise of immunity, however.


~~snip~~

I'm inclined to think that was done on purpose to protect Blackwater, which is something both parties want.

I'd be inclined to agree. The intention was to introduce, or actually create, a murky legal area under US, international and Iraqi law that is not addressed under current case law.





--
 
Last edited: