Blackwater lawsuit dismissed (once again)

[Thanas]

Protecting our thugs from lawsuit, vigorously.

WASHINGTON — 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."
Story continues below

"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.
*snip*
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.

PDF text of the full opinion.

The ineptness of the US Justice System never ceases to amaze me.

[Shroom Man 777]

Why can't they just let those guys take the fall, which is what fallguys are for, and save the US' face internationally?

[Axis Kast]

Is there compelling evidence to substantiate guilt? The State Department gained admission that the Xe guards fired first -- but what about whether they were firing at targets which appeared to pose an imminent threat? I wasn't aware that the case was so open-and-shut. Unless we're strictly hunting for "fall-guys," as Shroom says -- in which case, morality doesn't come into it.

[Surlethe]

The ineptness of the US Justice System never ceases to amaze me.

Justice system or Justice Department? It was the Justice Department that fucked up the case.

[SirNitram]

Either the DOJ is filled with retards, or filled with right-wing loyalists more interested in some Bush-era agenda than doing their jobs. I cannot otherwise comprehend the level of fail here.

Given the evidence turned up of the Bush Admin's politicizing and burrowing the chosen into careers that would last, here's me unsurprised if either of the above is true.

[AMT]

Why can't they just let those guys take the fall, which is what fallguys are for, and save the US' face internationally?

Most likely because they know where the bodies are buried. Perhaps even literally.

[Thanas]

So...we got the commander of all US forces saying that he himself is of the opinion innocent people were killed.


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.

Now, on to the retards not doing their jobs:

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.

WTF? These are limited deals. You do not simply go to all suspects and tell them all "Hey, immunity for all if you tell us what happens." This is akin like the cops going to murder suspects and say "Hey, we're gonna let you off the hook if you tell us just whether you killed the guy or not."

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.

....so prosecutors were too inept to follow a simple "Do NOT use the statements?" Heads should roll over this.

[Beowulf]

Yes, heads should roll, but this case was decided correctly. The prosecution fucked up, and our system is supposed to protect the innocent, even if it sometimes ends up protecting the guilty. This is also why the verdicts are guilty and not guilty, not innocent and guilty.

[Axiomatic]

our system is supposed to protect the innocent, even if it sometimes ends up protecting the guilty

...he said, as the US continued to jail people without trial for another decade.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Is there compelling evidence to substantiate guilt? The State Department gained admission that the Xe guards fired first -- but what about whether they were firing at targets which appeared to pose an imminent threat? I wasn't aware that the case was so open-and-shut. Unless we're strictly hunting for "fall-guys," as Shroom says -- in which case, morality doesn't come into it.

According to reports filed by the US military, and FBI only 3 of the 17 killed may have been justified. Beyond that all reports by the Iraqi government, US military, and FBI conclude that the shooting was unprovoked and not a single Blackwater operator was even injured.

[Axis Kast]

According to reports filed by the US military, and FBI only 3 of the 17 killed may have been justified. Beyond that all reports by the Iraqi government, US military, and FBI conclude that the shooting was unprovoked and not a single Blackwater operator was even injured.

That's a generous helping of conclusive opinions from at least two credible sources, although I'd feel more comfortable had a criminal trial taken place.

I've heard mixed opinions on private security operators from Iraq War veterans. These opinions range from, "Those I worked with were just trigger-happy show-offs," to, "Those I worked with were extraordinary professionals who continue to embody the best of the military tradition from which they emerged."

[Kamakazie Sith]

According to reports filed by the US military, and FBI only 3 of the 17 killed may have been justified. Beyond that all reports by the Iraqi government, US military, and FBI conclude that the shooting was unprovoked and not a single Blackwater operator was even injured.

That's a generous helping of conclusive opinions from at least two credible sources, although I'd feel more comfortable had a criminal trial taken place.

I've heard mixed opinions on private security operators from Iraq War veterans. These opinions range from, "Those I worked with were just trigger-happy show-offs," to, "Those I worked with were extraordinary professionals who continue to embody the best of the military tradition from which they emerged."

I don't know if I'd call them opinions since they're based off the findings of an investigation, but there's really no point in playing semantics. Those opinions you've heard on Blackwater could be said, in a manner of speaking, about any organization or profession. Personally, I've never liked the idea of Blackwater. I think it introduces another element of chaos into a warzone which is already chaotic even when you're operating under one chain of command.

[Mr Bean]

According to reports filed by the US military, and FBI only 3 of the 17 killed may have been justified. Beyond that all reports by the Iraqi government, US military, and FBI conclude that the shooting was unprovoked and not a single Blackwater operator was even injured.

That's a generous helping of conclusive opinions from at least two credible sources, although I'd feel more comfortable had a criminal trial taken place.

I've heard mixed opinions on private security operators from Iraq War veterans. These opinions range from, "Those I worked with were just trigger-happy show-offs," to, "Those I worked with were extraordinary professionals who continue to embody the best of the military tradition from which they emerged."

That's easy to know why there's a huge amount of difference. Some Private Military Contractor's hire former SEAL's, SWCC 's Rangers, and other special forces folks from various branches. Others are rent-a soldier units. And during the first few years of Iraq there was a lot of very sketchy company running with their own equipment, their own rules and sometimes very unequal forces like a friend of the family relayed to me that their base guards consisted of current marines plus contractor's and some of the company's had units made up of rent a mall cops who last seen action in Nam in charge of un-designated Seaman who had pulled a tour as part of a boarding party and were now getting 120k for six month stint to ride shotgun with another contractor delivering baby formula in Iraq. Or providing checkpoint security at a base in a "safe" zone.

[Surlethe]

I wouldn't put too much stock in anecdotes anyway, especially when they're not likely to shed any direct light on the incident in question. Comprehensive investigation reports are IMO the way to go.
[line 2]

[Axis Kast]

I don't know if I'd call them opinions since they're based off the findings of an investigation, but there's really no point in playing semantics.

Unless those investigations are automatic grounds for conviction, they do not constitute proven guilt, making all this talk of justice derailed a bit premature, at best. I'm not saying that the Blackwater guards didn't open fire unprovoked. However, it seems unlikely to me that an investigation after the fact could turn up very compelling evidence of a negative anyway.

Those opinions you've heard on Blackwater could be said, in a manner of speaking, about any organization or profession.

Correct. I do think that the praise they have sometimes garnered is significant, however, because one is more often than not exposed to horror stories.

Personally, I've never liked the idea of Blackwater. I think it introduces another element of chaos into a warzone which is already chaotic even when you're operating under one chain of command.

The privatization of force may be necessary and economical, but I agree that it is, for the most part, regrettable.

That's easy to know why there's a huge amount of difference. Some Private Military Contractor's hire former SEAL's, SWCC 's Rangers, and other special forces folks from various branches. Others are rent-a soldier units. And during the first few years of Iraq there was a lot of very sketchy company running with their own equipment, their own rules and sometimes very unequal forces like a friend of the family relayed to me that their base guards consisted of current marines plus contractor's and some of the company's had units made up of rent a mall cops who last seen action in Nam in charge of un-designated Seaman who had pulled a tour as part of a boarding party and were now getting 120k for six month stint to ride shotgun with another contractor delivering baby formula in Iraq. Or providing checkpoint security at a base in a "safe" zone.

That's a given, yes. The outfits which take care to hire only soldiers with honorable discharges and many years' experience are often going to outperform those organizations that are simply filling, or rounding out, their rosters with personnel that do not have meaningful qualification, either morally or professionally.

My comments here stem from general interest in mercenarism and the privatization of conflict. I think that private military corporations do have a place on the battlefield, all things considered. However, the U.S. has yet to develop appropriate tools for making good use of them.

[Simon_Jester]

Axis Kast, I would like to know why you think PMCs have a place on the battlefield, in light of the numerous historical problems with private military contractors, including:

-Political unreliability when mercenaries decide that they have an incentive to screw with the state to secure their pay,
-Poor discipline stemming from the nonuniform quality of the mercenaries and the difficulty of policing them compared to the task of enforcing a uniform code of law on a regular military,
-Atrocities committed by the mercenaries that get blamed on the state employing them, as a product of the above poor discipline
-Resentment of the mercenaries by regular soldiers who, despite their superior loyalty, professionalism* and willingness to go into high-intensity combat, aren't getting paid as well as the mercenaries.

*Usually, in this day and age

[Kamakazie Sith]

Unless those investigations are automatic grounds for conviction, they do not constitute proven guilt, making all this talk of justice derailed a bit premature, at best. I'm not saying that the Blackwater guards didn't open fire unprovoked. However, it seems unlikely to me that an investigation after the fact could turn up very compelling evidence of a negative anyway.

They aren't automatic grounds, but you need to have a trial first and the judge dismissed it because the state department promised them immunity. Unfortunately, while you can blame the state department for incompetence it isn't like they would have obtained a confession even if they never had promised immunity.

The privatization of force may be necessary and economical, but I agree that it is, for the most part, regrettable.

I doubt it is necessary or economical. We already have a military, and a lot of them could stand to make more money. You might say it is a man power issue. Well, if you gave certain QUALIFIED military personnel that benefit then you might not have a man power problem because your people would be earning what they deserve for the role they're in.

My comments here stem from general interest in mercenarism and the privatization of conflict. I think that private military corporations do have a place on the battlefield, all things considered. However, the U.S. has yet to develop appropriate tools for making good use of them.

They've made fine use of them. The problem is their lack of accountability. They aren't held to the UCMJ so then it becomes a problem of jurisdiction and from the most part the US will not allow its soldiers to be prosecutor by another country. On top of all that the prosecution when it is formed a long ways down the road is left holding a rather empty bag.

This ruling makes some sense from a strictly legal point of view because they were promised immunity, but I disagree with throwing out the entire case after so much had been presented. Now, the prosecutions case has been devastated beyond any hope of a decent trial, which I think would have gone a long way to appeasing the Iraqi people even if they would have still been found not guilty by the existence of reasonable doubt. Now there won't even be a trial.

[Axis Kast]

Political unreliability when mercenaries decide that they have an incentive to screw with the state to secure their pay,

So, too, do the professional soldiers of more than a few nations. You are presenting a false dichotomy.

The political unreliability of the mercenary soldier can only be measured relative to the political reliability of the unit of force which he replaces, actually or theoretically. When force is needed on short notice, foreign contractors may in fact be less susceptible to the temptation of political tampering than troops recruited locally. See, for example, Liberia during the 1990's.

Poor discipline stemming from the nonuniform quality of the mercenaries and the difficulty of policing them compared to the task of enforcing a uniform code of law on a regular military,

Again, a false dichotomy not always applicable in the developing world.

Atrocities committed by the mercenaries that get blamed on the state employing them, as a product of the above poor discipline

National armies frequently commit atrocities themselves, and may be especially prone to this kind of activity as compared to men fighting only for money. See my remarks in the first instance.

Resentment of the mercenaries by regular soldiers who, despite their superior loyalty, professionalism* and willingness to go into high-intensity combat, aren't getting paid as well as the mercenaries.

In the developed world, national militaries lack the organic expertise to carry out certain missions, including maintenance of high-technology items, because the government would rather pay an established expert than train somebody from scratch. In the developing world, some specialties -- mechanics and pilots especially -- are not available locally.

I doubt it is necessary or economical. We already have a military, and a lot of them could stand to make more money. You might say it is a man power issue. Well, if you gave certain QUALIFIED military personnel that benefit then you might not have a man power problem because your people would be earning what they deserve for the role they're in.

A mercenary is often an additional soldier, so the question is whether the money spent to secure the services of outfits like Blackwater (now Xe) and other, similar companies (Triple Canopy, Armor Group) is going to add "one more technician," "one more armed guard," and so on. In those cases where it is strictly a matter of raising compensation to keep personnel in uniform, I support increases in salary, but doubt that the government, which would have to change pay scales for more than a million men and women, could afford to compete with private entities that only need to accomplish that feat for dozens or hundreds at any one time. Private military companies generally have low overhead: they can offer greater compensation because less of their capital is spent on actually developing talent. Because the United States does not employ private contractors in open combat to replace or augment the Army and Marines -- although they may be exposed to hostile fire during the course of their own operations -- contractors are generally taking fewer risks, which will undoubtedly appeal to those with families, for instance.

In an ideal world, Congress would provide funding enough to (re)absorb all necessary skill-sets into the national military. Rather than let contracts, Uncle Sam would increase the incentives for enlistment and put more young men in combat boots. At this point, however -- and it could be based on flawed information or insufficient experience, because the practice is still relatively "young" -- it appears that private military companies get the job done more cheaply, which is what matters to politicians.

Historically, mercenary troops and private contractors have served in a range of useful roles, expanding on what is otherwise available. Furthermore, they do not always take work only for pay.

So long as the French maintained both a conscript army and aspirations of global reach, the French Foreign Legion provided a valuable means of applying firepower without courting public outrage.

During the Revolutionary War, both British and colonial commanders engaged Native American war bands as scouts and auxiliaries, in return for which they received the right of plunder. Interested natives provided a source of manpower above and beyond regulars (which took years to train) and militia (which were not always available for any number of reasons).

Mercenary forces frequently engage in combat on behalf of particular ideologies. White mercenaries were a fixture in post-independence sub-Saharan Africa from 1945 through the collapse of the white settler regimes, and fought as much to stop a perceived Communist onslaught as for the money.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, private contractors carry out many duties which the U.S. Army can no longer afford to discharge. Theoretically, their presence allows the conversion of "tail" into "tooth." That isn't necessarily a benefit in the broader scheme of things -- unless there literally isn't enough money to go around. Contractors also reduce the political cost of overseas deployments: we hear much of military deaths, but very little about those of contractors.

A firm based in the developing world which is susceptible to shareholder opinion would also presumably be a better "pick" in some circumstances than the ill-trained, badly-equipped, poorly-motivated troops of certain nations which frequently "farm" battalions to the United Nations as a means of paying the bills back home.

They've made fine use of them. The problem is their lack of accountability. They aren't held to the UCMJ so then it becomes a problem of jurisdiction and from the most part the US will not allow its soldiers to be prosecutor by another country. On top of all that the prosecution when it is formed a long ways down the road is left holding a rather empty bag.

I would contend that "use" includes making them accountable. In point of fact, they are now held to the UCMJ. That's a step in the right direction, even if the creation of a Corps of Auditors -- personnel trained to accompany mercenaries in the battle-space -- is still appealing. However, there needs to be greater attention paid to coordination in the battle-space.