This Blackwater crime just isn't going away

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: teclis1023
Any time you begin weighting the value of life based on nationality or religion, you're blinding yourself to the reality that every country across the globe hosts a wide variety of people. It's the simpleton's approach toward international policy and affairs.

It has nothing to do with nationality or religion. It has to do with someone willing to give their life in order to take mine. There's a difference.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

blackangst, what do you call a private army for hire? MERCENARIES.

Private security != Mercenaries.

If you have some evidence that BW et al are running ops other than security I might be inclined to agree with you. Otherwise, they are no more mercenaries than other armed security guards one can see in the USA.

Fern

So to be a mercenary you have to run operations other than security? That's a dumb statement comsidering all private military contractors (and the military) is about security. That's all they do. Trying to stretch things a bit too far huh?

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: teclis1023
Any time you begin weighting the value of life based on nationality or religion, you're blinding yourself to the reality that every country across the globe hosts a wide variety of people. It's the simpleton's approach toward international policy and affairs.

It has nothing to do with nationality or religion. It has to do with someone willing to give their life in order to take mine. There's a difference.

lol. Iraqis aren't fighting Americans on their soil in order to convert them to Islam. Your wild assumption is that all the Iraqis are hardcore Islamic fanatics like Al Qaeda. That's simply a convenient lie. They are fighting because we are on their soil. How the fuck would you feel if some nation invaded our country, would you call the resistence religious nuts? These people don't want us there for the exact same reason you wouldn't want foreigners in your own country telling you what to do and killing your people.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: syzygy
we should first try to ascertain what happened.

So, take the suspects in custody and try to ascertain what happened.

Like the US is leaving suspects free while it investigates them?

I know some enhanced interrogation techniques the Iraqis can use. Almost guaranteed, no killing or failure of major organs will occur. Any problem with that, righties?

Wow, this post demostrates some seriously confused thinking and a complete and utter lack of comprehension of the legal framework employed by the USA.

First is wholesale mixing on your part of apples and oranges - terrorism and potential alleged crimes of BW.

BW, AFAIK, is not accused of terorism; rather, a crime.

Taking suspects in custody and trying to acertain what happened is acceptable if you fall into the war/terrorism category. It's only been disputed in US courts when the alleged perp was a US citizen and first caputured by civilian law enforcement (Padilla case, the dispute is between the 4th and the 2nd curciut IIRC).

Otherwise when criminal law violations are asserted/suspected, we here in the US have an accusatory process as contrasted with a investigative process. According, we are quite limited in our ability to retain accussed during any investigative process. We need charges filed, an indictment etc. THen there's the whole habeaus corpor and bail stuff that applies in the criminal law domain, but not war/terrorism (again as affirmed by the courts).

In an investigatory system people are allowed to be held during the investigation phase (e.g., Aruba legal system). That's not applicable here.

Then you demonstrate confusion with interrogations techniques legally employed in the criminal law area, and those in the war/terrorism area.

In criminal law, innocent until proven guilty is the applicable standard many us you seem inclined to throw under the bus here. Bad form, IMO.

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

I'm not sure what is motivating the Iraqi government here. Some might say civilain deaths, but that's nothing new. Order #7 (or whatver it is) seems to give them the right to receind the amnesty provision, but they haven't done that yet still wanna try these people in Iraqi court? Odd. Then they want some huge payment for the deaths, the amount is atronomical and seems unwarrented by any standards that I'm familiar with (notwithstanding Alabama courts & juries).

Unless the Iraqi goverment's objective is to get us to leave (which they could do by requesting such), I fail to see hwat they hope to achive unless some home country politics. If they bar BW from Iraq, which is possible, I would guess the individual emplyees would just be hired by a new company. Not much would change other the BW owners would lose money (unless they reformed a new company and continued their participation ubder a new entity etc).

They could be trying to get the Admin to stop suporting the Sunni side? Maliki is Shia etc.

IMO, if they are going to be on trial it needs to be here. But that's likely to be a debacle, chain of custody and standards of evidence etc.

Fern

 

[Queasy]

After the Haditha massacre that wasn't, you'll have to forgive me if I want to wait before I'm ready to string up everyone involved.

 

[Narmer]

Edited.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Queasy
After the Haditha massacre that wasn't, you'll have to forgive me if I want to wait before I'm ready to string up everyone involved.

I doubt the Haditha incident changed your mind...It was made up long ago.

Let's see....charges in the Haditha case were being dropped earlier this year with many questions about the veracity of the charges long before that. Blackwater incident just happened within the last couple of months.

Yep, Haditha massacre that wasn't definitely happened long before the alleged Blackwater incident(s).

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Queasy
After the Haditha massacre that wasn't, you'll have to forgive me if I want to wait before I'm ready to string up everyone involved.

I doubt the Haditha incident changed your mind...It was made up long ago.

Let's see....charges in the Haditha case were being dropped earlier this year with many questions about the veracity of the charges long before that. Blackwater incident just happened within the last couple of months.

Yep, Haditha massacre that wasn't definitely happened long before the alleged Blackwater incident(s).

I'll give you a simple example of the brutality of American soldiers in iraq. About a month ago ABC News was showing what Americans saw regarding the Iraq war and what Arabs. For America, it showed brave Americans feeding hungry children and caring for the poor. For international audience it showed Americans walking through a house full of bodies. There was an Iraqi man lying on the ground breathing a little but his face was not moving. An American soldier sees him and says "He's pretending he's dead, Sarge." "He's pretending he's dead." He then points his M16 towards the head of the Iraqi and shoot him and says "He's dead now." That's what Americans don't see about this war.

 

[Kntx]

They should just give up these blackwater guys to the iraqis, let them hang them or whatever and be done with it.

 

[teclis1023]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
It has nothing to do with nationality or religion. It has to do with someone willing to give their life in order to take mine. There's a difference.

Then the correct statement is "I would gladly trade 1000 lives of people who want to kill me for my own"

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Did you know that not a single one of the bodies was autopsied, and that the only evidence against them is a hodge-podge of "eye-witness accounts"?

Remember, these are American veterans you're sending to the guillotines without proper investigative and forensic techniques, or a fair trial.

So try not to gloat so much you sick F$#%...

They'd rather take the word of goat herders obviously.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Did you know that not a single one of the bodies was autopsied, and that the only evidence against them is a hodge-podge of "eye-witness accounts"?

Remember, these are American veterans you're sending to the guillotines without proper investigative and forensic techniques, or a fair trial.

So try not to gloat so much you sick F$#%...

Hmm. How come not a single body was autopsied?
And to the rest of you,,,
If a soverign nation, Iraq, wants a private army out of their country, who are we to say anything except, How soon?

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Did you know that not a single one of the bodies was autopsied, and that the only evidence against them is a hodge-podge of "eye-witness accounts"?

Remember, these are American veterans you're sending to the guillotines without proper investigative and forensic techniques, or a fair trial.

So try not to gloat so much you sick F$#%...

Americans bleed like other human beings. They're not special. Besides, justice is blind, right? I will be glued to my television the day they are about to be hanged and yell "Moqtada" like they did at Hussein's death march. TBH, I care about Hussein as much as I care about these mercernaries, which is less than I worry about the cyst in Rush's asshole.

:music:The Executioner's Song:music:.

Americans are special. Our lives are worth more than those of a few Iraquis. The fact that you would cheer the death of American soldiers is chilling.

It is very refreshing seeing some one call the US Über Alles faction for what it is. In fact I think you are a parody poster of the position people like Palehorse, Tasteslikechicken etc have. Except of course the latter ones don't have the guts to admit it straight out.

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: Aimster
we are not in the M.E for the spread of democracy

Nope; this is our modern day crusades. The War on Islam.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: syzygy
we should first try to ascertain what happened.

So, take the suspects in custody and try to ascertain what happened.

Like the US is leaving suspects free while it investigates them?

I know some enhanced interrogation techniques the Iraqis can use. Almost guaranteed, no killing or failure of major organs will occur. Any problem with that, righties?

Wow, this post demostrates some seriously confused thinking and a complete and utter lack of comprehension of the legal framework employed by the USA.

First is wholesale mixing on your part of apples and oranges - terrorism and potential alleged crimes of BW.

BW, AFAIK, is not accused of terorism; rather, a crime.

Taking suspects in custody and trying to acertain what happened is acceptable if you fall into the war/terrorism category. It's only been disputed in US courts when the alleged perp was a US citizen and first caputured by civilian law enforcement (Padilla case, the dispute is between the 4th and the 2nd curciut IIRC).

Otherwise when criminal law violations are asserted/suspected, we here in the US have an accusatory process as contrasted with a investigative process. According, we are quite limited in our ability to retain accussed during any investigative process. We need charges filed, an indictment etc. THen there's the whole habeaus corpor and bail stuff that applies in the criminal law domain, but not war/terrorism (again as affirmed by the courts).

In an investigatory system people are allowed to be held during the investigation phase (e.g., Aruba legal system). That's not applicable here.

Then you demonstrate confusion with interrogations techniques legally employed in the criminal law area, and those in the war/terrorism area.

In criminal law, innocent until proven guilty is the applicable standard many us you seem inclined to throw under the bus here. Bad form, IMO.

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

I'm not sure what is motivating the Iraqi government here. Some might say civilain deaths, but that's nothing new. Order #7 (or whatver it is) seems to give them the right to receind the amnesty provision, but they haven't done that yet still wanna try these people in Iraqi court? Odd. Then they want some huge payment for the deaths, the amount is atronomical and seems unwarrented by any standards that I'm familiar with (notwithstanding Alabama courts & juries).

Unless the Iraqi goverment's objective is to get us to leave (which they could do by requesting such), I fail to see hwat they hope to achive unless some home country politics. If they bar BW from Iraq, which is possible, I would guess the individual emplyees would just be hired by a new company. Not much would change other the BW owners would lose money (unless they reformed a new company and continued their participation ubder a new entity etc).

They could be trying to get the Admin to stop suporting the Sunni side? Maliki is Shia etc.

IMO, if they are going to be on trial it needs to be here. But that's likely to be a debacle, chain of custody and standards of evidence etc.

Fern

The only confused thinking here is yours.

For just a couple examples, you imply that every person in US custody is a terrorist, while the BW suspects are merely suspects in a crime. Basis for distinction? None.

You further imply that the crimes BW is accused of - shooting first and killing a bunch of civilians - has nothing in common with what the people in US custody, 'terrorists', do, such that the process for dealing with the two groups can be completely different. Funny, even if they were that different, we use the same basic processes in the US for relatively minor and the most serious crimes.

You then say my post confuses the interrogation techniques appropriate for 'war' (torture the Iraqis) and 'criminal investigations' (ask the BW people questions nicely). You fail to realize the point of my comments about how that double standard blinds people to how wrong a lot of what is done is, when our side isn't subject to the same treatment. We have so many righties who are apologists for 'enhanced interrogation' as no big deal at all, that I was pointing out how much they'd object were the BW people subjected to it.

The point wasn't the finer points of whether they should get the same treatment, but to help the apologists see how the 'enhanced interrogation' is more objectionable than they admit.

I think having a few Americans who are suspected for serious crimes for a lot better reason than many of the people in US detention telling stories about being interrogated with 'enhanced interrogation' could help the debate on the topic of whether the US should be condoning that torture hidden by a new name.

Fern, I'm *removing* the phony distinctions that allow the double standards in how we treat others and how we want to be treated, and you are pointing to and hiding behind those phony distinctions as evidence that my post is wrong, missing the larger issue. You're missing the point I'm making that the actions at issue by us against others are wrong. I'm happy for BW to get nice trials; what I'm against is our not giving others trials, too. I want neither side being tortured.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: Aimster
we are not in the M.E for the spread of democracy

Nope; this is our modern day crusades. The War on Islam.

Yup. We have basically been thrown back one thousand years and just like then the Muslims are cast in the role as Satan's spawn.

 

[Aimster]

Anyone who thinks we are in the M.E for democracy does not have the ability to think for themselves.

My ass we are in the M.E for democracy. That is complete B.S.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

blackangst, what do you call a private army for hire? MERCENARIES.

Private security != Mercenaries.

If you have some evidence that BW et al are running ops other than security I might be inclined to agree with you. Otherwise, they are no more mercenaries than other armed security guards one can see in the USA.

Fern

So to be a mercenary you have to run operations other than security? That's a dumb statement comsidering all private military contractors (and the military) is about security. That's all they do. Trying to stretch things a bit too far huh?

Nope, the miliary's job is to kill people and blow sh!t up. Fight & attack. Security is different matter with different objectives etc.

Fern

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Queasy
After the Haditha massacre that wasn't, you'll have to forgive me if I want to wait before I'm ready to string up everyone involved.

I doubt the Haditha incident changed your mind...It was made up long ago.

Let's see....charges in the Haditha case were being dropped earlier this year with many questions about the veracity of the charges long before that. Blackwater incident just happened within the last couple of months.

Yep, Haditha massacre that wasn't definitely happened long before the alleged Blackwater incident(s).

I'll give you a simple example of the brutality of American soldiers in iraq. About a month ago ABC News was showing what Americans saw regarding the Iraq war and what Arabs. For America, it showed brave Americans feeding hungry children and caring for the poor. For international audience it showed Americans walking through a house full of bodies. There was an Iraqi man lying on the ground breathing a little but his face was not moving. An American soldier sees him and says "He's pretending he's dead, Sarge." "He's pretending he's dead." He then points his M16 towards the head of the Iraqi and shoot him and says "He's dead now." That's what Americans don't see about this war.

If I remember that incident correctly, this was during a fairly intense battle around Fallujah. The man in question was found in a building/mosque that they had been taking fire from. This group of soldiers had lost a fellow soldier just a day or so before because an insurgent/terrorist/whatever pretended he was dead and then killed a soldier and wounders others who came to inspect the body. Brutality? No. It's called surviving the horrors of war and the tactics of the enemy.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Queasy
After the Haditha massacre that wasn't, you'll have to forgive me if I want to wait before I'm ready to string up everyone involved.

I doubt the Haditha incident changed your mind...It was made up long ago.

Let's see....charges in the Haditha case were being dropped earlier this year with many questions about the veracity of the charges long before that. Blackwater incident just happened within the last couple of months.

Yep, Haditha massacre that wasn't definitely happened long before the alleged Blackwater incident(s).

I'll give you a simple example of the brutality of American soldiers in iraq. About a month ago ABC News was showing what Americans saw regarding the Iraq war and what Arabs. For America, it showed brave Americans feeding hungry children and caring for the poor. For international audience it showed Americans walking through a house full of bodies. There was an Iraqi man lying on the ground breathing a little but his face was not moving. An American soldier sees him and says "He's pretending he's dead, Sarge." "He's pretending he's dead." He then points his M16 towards the head of the Iraqi and shoot him and says "He's dead now." That's what Americans don't see about this war.

If I remember that incident correctly, this was during a fairly intense battle around Fallujah. The man in question was found in a building/mosque that they had been taking fire from. This group of soldiers had lost a fellow soldier just a day or so before because an insurgent/terrorist/whatever pretended he was dead and then killed a soldier and wounders others who came to inspect the body. Brutality? No. It's called surviving the horrors of war and the tactics of the enemy.

As long as we are clear. Blackwater is not fighting a war. They are rent-a-cops, or at best bodyguards. Do not compare them with soldiers in any way, shape or form.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: syzygy
we should first try to ascertain what happened.

So, take the suspects in custody and try to ascertain what happened.

Like the US is leaving suspects free while it investigates them?

I know some enhanced interrogation techniques the Iraqis can use. Almost guaranteed, no killing or failure of major organs will occur. Any problem with that, righties?

Wow, this post demostrates some seriously confused thinking and a complete and utter lack of comprehension of the legal framework employed by the USA.

First is wholesale mixing on your part of apples and oranges - terrorism and potential alleged crimes of BW.

BW, AFAIK, is not accused of terorism; rather, a crime.

Taking suspects in custody and trying to acertain what happened is acceptable if you fall into the war/terrorism category. It's only been disputed in US courts when the alleged perp was a US citizen and first caputured by civilian law enforcement (Padilla case, the dispute is between the 4th and the 2nd curciut IIRC).

Otherwise when criminal law violations are asserted/suspected, we here in the US have an accusatory process as contrasted with a investigative process. According, we are quite limited in our ability to retain accussed during any investigative process. We need charges filed, an indictment etc. THen there's the whole habeaus corpor and bail stuff that applies in the criminal law domain, but not war/terrorism (again as affirmed by the courts).

In an investigatory system people are allowed to be held during the investigation phase (e.g., Aruba legal system). That's not applicable here.

Then you demonstrate confusion with interrogations techniques legally employed in the criminal law area, and those in the war/terrorism area.

In criminal law, innocent until proven guilty is the applicable standard many us you seem inclined to throw under the bus here. Bad form, IMO.

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

I'm not sure what is motivating the Iraqi government here. Some might say civilain deaths, but that's nothing new. Order #7 (or whatver it is) seems to give them the right to receind the amnesty provision, but they haven't done that yet still wanna try these people in Iraqi court? Odd. Then they want some huge payment for the deaths, the amount is atronomical and seems unwarrented by any standards that I'm familiar with (notwithstanding Alabama courts & juries).

Unless the Iraqi goverment's objective is to get us to leave (which they could do by requesting such), I fail to see hwat they hope to achive unless some home country politics. If they bar BW from Iraq, which is possible, I would guess the individual emplyees would just be hired by a new company. Not much would change other the BW owners would lose money (unless they reformed a new company and continued their participation ubder a new entity etc).

They could be trying to get the Admin to stop suporting the Sunni side? Maliki is Shia etc.

IMO, if they are going to be on trial it needs to be here. But that's likely to be a debacle, chain of custody and standards of evidence etc.

Fern

The only confused thinking here is yours.

For just a couple examples, you imply that every person in US custody is a terrorist, while the BW suspects are merely suspects in a crime. Basis for distinction? None.

If you're referringf to those in GITMO - YES they are accussed of being enemy combatants/terorists etc..

There's a HUGE basois for distinction, and the courts disagree with you

You further imply that the crimes BW is accused of - shooting first and killing a bunch of civilians - has nothing in common with what the people in US custody, 'terrorists', do, such that the process for dealing with the two groups can be completely different. Funny, even if they were that different, we use the same basic processes in the US for relatively minor and the most serious crimes.

Yes, the processes are vastly different. These huge differences are provided for under the Constitution and numerous court precidents. I do not understand your last sentance?

You then say my post confuses the interrogation techniques appropriate for 'war' (torture the Iraqis) and 'criminal investigations' (ask the BW people questions nicely). You fail to realize the point of my comments about how that double standard blinds people to how wrong a lot of what is done is, when our side isn't subject to the same treatment. We have so many righties who are apologists for 'enhanced interrogation' as no big deal at all, that I was pointing out how much they'd object were the BW people subjected to it.

They are not double standards, They are two completely different standards - one for war/terrorism the other for civilian cimes/courts. People like you don't seem to like, or accepet that these (war v civ crime) are treated differnetly. Again, neither the Constitution nor precident is on your side. I personally don't believe common sense is either.

Yes, I would object to applying war-type standards to the BW case. I would object to doing so in any criminal case. Unlike you (if I understand you correctly), I understand the reason for difference in war type matters and criminal type matters, and I agree with it.

The point wasn't the finer points of whether they should get the same treatment, but to help the apologists see how the 'enhanced interrogation' is more objectionable than they admit.

See above.

I think having a few Americans who are suspected for serious crimes for a lot better reason than many of the people in US detention telling stories about being interrogated with 'enhanced interrogation' could help the debate on the topic of whether the US should be condoning that torture hidden by a new name.

Same as above. I simply don't agree that civ criminal standards should apply to war type situations.

Fern, I'm *removing* the phony distinctions that allow the double standards in how we treat others and how we want to be treated, and you are pointing to and hiding behind those phony distinctions as evidence that my post is wrong, missing the larger issue. You're missing the point I'm making that the actions at issue by us against others are wrong. I'm happy for BW to get nice trials; what I'm against is our not giving others trials, too. I want neither side being tortured.

War/terrorism != civ crimes not matter how much you'd like to. History, the Constitution etc are all in disagreement with you.

See above,

Fern

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: techs
As long as we are clear. Blackwater is not fighting a war. They are rent-a-cops, or at best bodyguards. Do not compare them with soldiers in any way, shape or form.

I understand that. I don't know if Narmer does. You do understand though that Blackwater employees are ex-soldiers more often than not though, right?

Additionally, Blackwater is working in the same battlespace as the soldiers where they come under attack from an enemy that wears the same clothes as civilians and fires on people indiscriminately without concern for the innocents around them....sometimes targeting the innocents around them.

For that reason, I'll wait to hear more.

 

[toolboxolio]

This thread is getting way off topic.

These mercenaries / contractors should be held to trial to prove their innocence. There is enough evidence to bring them to trial, based on OUR judicial system.

If they are innocent, the evidence and argument (or lack there of) will set them free, same for all US citizens.

I want this country (USA) to prevail justly in all ventures it pursues. We must be able to police ourselves and shutdown ill practices taken by US citizens that are paid to make PROGRESS in Iraq. A crime is a crime in my mind. 17 dead, 20 wounded? Sounds like something that would get international attention if it occurred in a country that the world considered civilized.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: techs
Hmm. How come not a single body was autopsied?

The U.S. had nothing to do with that decision. The Iraqi locals and authorities disposed of the bodies just as they do with every other violent incident in Iraq.

The Iraqis rarely, if ever, conduct proper crime-scene forensic investigations. Our folks are the only ones who ever do, and we're usually focused on the origins of the IED's and weapons used by the enemy.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: toolboxolio
This thread is getting way off topic.

These mercenaries / contractors should be held to trial to prove their innocence. There is enough evidence to bring them to trial, based on OUR judicial system.

In "OUR judicial system," we have trials wherein a prosecutor must prove someone's guilt, not their innocence...

Freudian slip perhaps?

If they are innocent, the evidence and argument (or lack there of) will set them free, same for all US citizens.

You're assuming 1) the Iraqis performed a proper forensic investigation, and 2) the BW employees would receive a fair trial.

Neither of those being the case, what would you suggest?