Blackwater Murderers Go Free On Technicality

[GenMarshall]

Except there is this thing called the 'Constitution' in the way. Darn it all.

So wait a sec, how (and what section within it), does the Constitution have to do with the Backwater Murderers?

 

[MobBoss]

So wait a sec, how (and what section within it), does the Constitution have to do with the Backwater Murderers?

Try reading the thread.

 

[GenMarshall]

Try reading the thread.

I read the thread, thank you very much. Long before you mockingly told me to "read the thread" . And no, I did not see anything how the constitution has to deal with the Backwater Murderers. They've murdered and killed innocent bystanders, thus are murderers and should be subjected to the fullest extent of the law, not hidden away by the consitution.

If that were the case, why not let pedos, rapists, and other murderers hide behind the constitution as well?

 

[Formaldehyde]

I dont think anyone arguing against ever alledged something bad didnt take place. Of course it did. The argument is rather was it criminal.

Once again, the official US Army and FBI investigations claim it was indeed criminal. Yet you continue to try to defend those acts.

And you of all people should know people plead guilty to crimes they dont commit.

Yes, they do. People are frequently intimidated by the police into confessing to crimes which they haven't committed. Are you actually trying to insinuate that is what happened here? That the FBI browbeat a confession out of him?

I have highlighted the problem word in your comment. 'May' is not 'did in fact'. If a guy gets up on the stand in court and says 'they may have' do you think thats very strong proof? Absolutely not.

Once again, this isn't a court of law. Once again, we don't have access to all the facts. Yet you continue to try to claim that is what is necessary in a gaming forum. What "proof" like that have you ever provided to rationalize your continuing defense of these mercenaries?

 

[GenMarshall]

Once again, the official US Army and FBI investigations claim it was indeed criminal. Yet you continue to try to defend those acts.

Indeed, the individuals have committed a criminal act.

Murder is murder, It's a crime that should be punished by the full extent of the law. Not hidden behind the ropes of Constitution.

What's next rapists and pedos hiding behind the Consitution? Give me a freeking break!

Once again, this isn't a court of law. Once again, we don't have access to all the facts. Yet you continue to try to claim that is what is necessary in a gaming forum. What "proof" like that have you ever provided to rationalize your defense of these mercenaries? Or are you held to different set of standard than everybody else?

Believe me, MobBoss, like any other conservative on this board demands proof. Yet they still defend the infamous Blackwater Mercs and stated they have not comitted any crimes. Despite the contrary.

 

[MobBoss]

Once again, the official US Army and FBI investigations claim it was indeed criminal. Yet you continue to try to defend those acts.

Nope. Btw, have you linked to either of these 'official' investigations in this thread? I know you talk about them a lot, but I havent seen much else.

Yes, they do. People are frequently intimidated by the police into confessing to crimes which they haven't committed. Are you actually trying to insinuate that is what happened here? That the FBI browbeat a confession out of him?

They also confess in order to receive a much lesser sentence. I dont know if he were 'browbeat' or not, I dont have any information on that either way. I do know he confessed and it was said that as part of that confession he was now going to work with the authorities. That usually only happens if a deal is in the offing.

Once again, this isn't a court of law.

Absolutely correct...its a court of opinion. You havent done much to support yours.

Once again, we don't have access to all the facts.

That helps me more than it helps you.

Yet you continue to try to claim that is what is necessary in a gaming forum. What "proof" like that have you ever provided to rationalize your continuing defense of these mercenaries?

My 'proof' was simply that there is an absence of your 'proof' available. Thanks for playing.

 

[JollyRoger]

My 'proof' was simply that there is an absence of your 'proof' available.

So you actually have no proof on your own side of the argument if we take your admission of a simpleton's level of proof at face value. If someone were to play the game by your rules, they would say that their proof was simply the absence of your proof available and the masterdebating circle jerking is complete.

Thanks for playing.

Yep - now go wash your face.

 

[GenMarshall]

My 'proof' was simply that there is an absence of your 'proof' available. Thanks for playing.

Proof, What Proof?

My 'proof' was simply that there is an absence of your 'proof' available.
So you actually have no proof on your own side of the argument if we take your admission of a simpleton's level of proof at face value. If someone were to play the game by your rules, they would say that their proof was simply the absence of your proof available and the masterdebating circle jerking is complete.

For once, I agree with the JollyRoger.

 

[El_Machinae]

Mobboss, Formaldehyde, you've taken many, many posts arguing with each other, and the conversation hasn't moved forward at all. I'm pretty sure you both know the standards that each person is setting in this debate. At some point, you should realise that each post you get from each other will be the equivalent of a "nuh uh" from your perspective. It's hardly even a conversation.

 

[MobBoss]

Mobboss, Formaldehyde, you've taken many, many posts arguing with each other, and the conversation hasn't moved forward at all. I'm pretty sure you both know the standards that each person is setting in this debate. At some point, you should realise that each post you get from each other will be the equivalent of a "nuh uh" from your perspective. It's hardly even a conversation.

I dont disagree. But I think my points in regards to some decent proof of allegations made in this thread quite valid. Not sure how the conversation is supposed to go forward if its allowed to go forward based on unsubstantiated claims.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Blackwater's youngest victim.

This is the eyewitness account of one of the survivors of of Nisoor Square. It is the story of an Iraqi man who loves the US Army for liberating him from Saddam Hussein. Who has already given half the money Blackwater gave him to the US Army to help the family of any soldier who has been killed in Iraq. A man who only wanted a public apology from the head of Blackwater for the death of his son, and who was willing to waive all his rights in this incident for that apology. A man who was horrified to find that Blackwater was still trying to blame the US Army for the death of his son. A man who represents the last existing legal case against Blackwater in the US.

Nine-year-old Ali Kinani became Blackwater's youngest victim in September 2007 when Blackwater mercenaries at Baghdad's Nissour Square opened fire on unarmed civilians, killing 17. Ali Kinani's family are the only victims to turn down Blackwater's settlement offer, reportedly $100,000 per victim, and they have sued Blackwater. The Nation's Jeremy Scahill tells their story in a detailed article, which he and filmmaker Richard Rowley have adapted into a short documentary:

Link to video.

Spoiler :

The first day the Amercian Army entered Baghdad, I handed out juice and candy in the street. To celebrate our liberation from Saddam.

There was absolutely no shooting or any sign of danger for us or Blackwater. No one was in the slightest danger. Suddenly, in the flash of a second, they started shooting in all directions. And it wasn't warning shots, they were shooting as if they were fighting in the field. By the time they stopped shooting, the car looked like a sieve. This is the only way to describe it, because it was truly riddled with bullets. They finished with the first car and turned their guns on us. It turned into the apocalypse.

They shot like they were trying to kill everyone they could see.

The struggles of the Kinanis, who hate Blackwater but retain surprisingly sunny faith in the American legal system, bring a human chapter to the long book of charges against Blackwater. The shadowy private security company has drawn fire for its closeness to the CIA, its secret operations in Pakistan, and its alleged bribes to Iraqi officials. Could the tragedy of the Kinanis' loss, or perhaps their lawsuit in North Carolina, push Blackwater past the tipping point?

More information on the bribery case:

Spoiler :

U.S. Examines Whether Blackwater Tried Bribery
By MARK MAZZETTI and JAMES RISEN

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department is investigating whether officials of Blackwater Worldwide tried to bribe Iraqi government officials in hopes of retaining the firm’s security work in Iraq after a deadly shooting episode in 2007, according to current and former government officials.

The officials said that the Justice Department’s fraud section opened the inquiry late last year to determine whether Blackwater employees violated a federal law banning American corporations from paying bribes to foreign officials.

The inquiry is the latest fallout from the shooting in Nisour Square in Baghdad, which left 17 Iraqis dead and stoked bitter resentment against the United States.

A federal judge in December dismissed criminal charges against five former Blackwater guards implicated in the episode, but Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. recently announced that the Obama administration would appeal that decision.

The investigation, which was confirmed by three current and former officials speaking on condition of anonymity, follows a report in The New York Times in November that top executives at Blackwater had authorized secret payments of about $1 million to Iraqi officials to buy their support after the shooting. The newspaper account said it could not determine whether any bribes were actually paid or identify Iraqi officials who might have received the money.

The Justice Department has obtained two documents from the State Department, which had security contracts with the company, that have raised questions about Blackwater’s efforts to influence Iraqi government officials after the Nisour Square shootings, according to two American officials familiar with the inquiry.

One document, a handwritten note, shows that a Blackwater representative told a senior official at the American Embassy in Baghdad that the company had hired a prominent Iraqi lawyer to help the firm make compensation payments to Iraqi victims of the shootings, a practice encouraged by the State Department.

According to the document, as described by the two government officials, the Blackwater official said the firm had hired the lawyer hoping that the lawyer’s close ties to top Iraqi officials, including Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, would help Blackwater obtain a license to continue operating in Iraq.

Several officials identified the Iraqi lawyer as Jaafar al-Mousawi, who had earlier served as the chief prosecutor in the trial of Saddam Hussein.

The second document is a response from a senior Embassy official, an e-mail message warning Blackwater officials not to bribe the Iraqi government, the officials said. In an interview in Baghdad on Friday, Mr. Mousawi said that in February 2008 he worked with top Blackwater officials to spend up to $1 million to compensate the families of the Nisour Square victims. He said he consulted with Mr. Maliki about the payments.

“He said, ‘Go ahead and help because these are poor people,’ ” Mr. Mousawi said.

Saying that 40 families received a total of about $800,000, he added that he believed that Blackwater hoped the compensation would help “moisten the situation with the Iraqi government to get the license.”

But he said that he was unaware of any efforts by Blackwater executives to bribe Iraqi officials, and that news reports misinterpreted the purpose of the victims’ fund as intended bribes.

Several former Blackwater employees, however, had told The Times that Blackwater’s president at the time, Gary Jackson, authorized about $1 million for payments to Iraqi officials, with only a small portion intended for victims. While the documents apparently do not offer proof that Blackwater paid off any Iraqi officials, the American officials who have reviewed them say they suggest that officials at the United States Embassy in Baghdad were concerned enough about Blackwater’s plans to issue the warning to the company.

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment. Stacey DeLuke, a spokeswoman for Blackwater, now called Xe Services, which is based in Moyock, N.C., did not respond to a request for comment.

The bribery investigation is still in its early stages, according to officials familiar with the inquiry. They said that lawyers in the fraud section at the Justice Department’s Washington headquarters were working with federal prosecutors in North Carolina, where a federal grand jury has been examining Blackwater’s activities for several years. The State Department is also cooperating with the bribery investigation, several officials said.

Securing convictions under the federal antibribery statute, called the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, is often difficult. Steven Tyrrell, who until December ran the Justice Department’s fraud section, said that there was seldom a paper trail of the illegal transactions and that prosecutors usually had to rely on whistle-blowers inside a company to testify about bribery payments.

Under the statute, the prosecutors must prove the “corrupt intent” of those making payments to the foreign officials, and the payment “must be intended to induce the recipient to misuse his official position” according to a statement on the Justice Department Web site. The statement notes that the mere offer or promise of a bribe can violate the statute.

Over the past year, the Justice Department has dramatically expanded its bribery investigations, placing a new emphasis on prosecuting individual executives rather than merely getting companies to pay large fines for paying off foreign officials.

“The fear of jail is more of a deterrent than the fear of having to pay a monetary fine, which many companies might see as the cost of doing business,” Mr. Tyrrell said. He declined to speak about the Justice Department’s inquiry into Blackwater or confirm its existence.

The Nisour Square shooting incited intense anger among Iraqis, and officials in Baghdad threatened to kick Blackwater out of the country. At the time, the security company had contracts in Iraq with the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency worth hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

Families of the Nisour Square victims have said in interviews that Mr. Mousawi met with them and arranged compensation payments on behalf of Blackwater. The Iraqis said an American described as “Mr. Rich” sometimes joined Mr. Mousawi.

Several American officials have identified the man as Rich Garner, then Blackwater’s Iraq country manager. Former employees have previously said the money authorized for secret payments of Iraqi officials was sent to Mr. Garner in Baghdad from the firm’s office in Amman, Jordan.

Blackwater was able to keep its State Department contract in Iraq for nearly two years without obtaining the operating license Iraqi officials had said would be required.

In May 2009, Blackwater finally lost the deal. The firm still provides diplomatic security for the State Department in Afghanistan.

While the Justice Department’s investigation appears to focus on specific allegations of bribery after the Nisour Square shooting, several former Blackwater officials have said that questionable transfers of cash were frequent at Blackwater.

In interviews, former Blackwater officials described how the company over the years sent millions of dollars in cash into Iraq, usually carried by hand in paper bags, and kept few records of the transfers.

Some of the former employees told the prosecutors that they could not identify the recipients of the money, while others have said the money went to bribe Iraqi officials, according to current and former government officials and outside lawyers familiar with the matter.

The Justice Department’s decision to open an investigation of Blackwater came weeks before the judge in Washington dismissed criminal charges against five Blackwater guards.

They had been charged with manslaughter and related weapons violations in the Nisour Square shootings, but United States District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina threw out the case and harshly criticized prosecutors for relying on statements made by the guards under grants of immunity.

Separately, some Nisour Square victims have dropped a civil lawsuit against Blackwater after reaching a financial settlement with the company.

But the company’s legal troubles persist. Two former guards for a Blackwater subsidiary were charged in January in the deaths of two Afghans and the wounding of another in Afghanistan last year.

 

[JollyRoger]

Settlement offers? Why settle if they haven't done anything wrong?

 

[MobBoss]

Settlement offers? Why settle if they haven't done anything wrong?

Well, you know why. Would you tell your fat cat employer to go to court when he could settle out of court for a fraction of the cost?

Who has already given half the money Blackwater gave him to the US Army to help the family of any soldier who has been killed in Iraq.

And yet your quote of the story even says:

Ali Kinani's family are the only victims to turn down Blackwater's settlement offer, reportedly $100,000 per victim, and they have sued Blackwater.

So, which is it? Did he take the money and help out a soldier, or refuse it to sue?

 

[JollyRoger]

Well, you know why. Would you tell your fat cat employer to go to court when he could settle out of court for a fraction of the cost?

What fat cat employer?

Anyway, most clients in my experience are not eager to settle unless they felt there is some wrongdoing on their side. It's like putting a sign on your back saying "sue me"

 

[MobBoss]

What fat cat employer?

The one client you always talk about. The one you have said previously you pretty much work exclusively for.

At least that was my impression of how you referred to it. If I misunderstood then fuggetaboutit.

Anyway, most clients in my experience are not eager to settle unless they felt there is some wrongdoing on their side. It's like putting a sign on your back saying "sue me"

What if they felt they were innocent, but because of circumstances, a win in court wasnt a sure thing? Pay them off or take the risk of losing it all in court?

 

[JollyRoger]

The one client you always talk about.

Oh, that would be my ex-employer who is now my biggest client, but certainly not my only client. And not really fat-cats. They clawed their way up from a garage to a near-monopoly position in their niche.

What if they felt they were innocent, but because of circumstances, a win in court wasnt a sure thing? Pay them off or take the risk of losing it all in court?

In my experience most corporate players who are not convinced they or their employees have done anything wrong will fight it at least through the pretrial stages to see if they could get a dismissal prior to trial. If they initially think there is some wrongdoing, then they may throw some money out there to cure the problem quickly and relatively cheaply.

 

[MobBoss]

In my experience most corporate players who are not convinced they or their employees have done anything wrong will fight it at least through the pretrial stages to see if they could get a dismissal prior to trial. If they initially think there is some wrongdoing, then they may throw some money out there to cure the problem quickly and relatively cheaply.

Kinda like Michael Jackson then?

But thats a fair enough answer.

 

[JollyRoger]

Kinda like Michael Jackson then?

But thats a fair enough answer.

Well, Michael Jackson does bring up a good point for you though. Blackwater in this situation has more reputational issues that the average corporation in the average lawsuit, just as a celebrity has to more heavily weigh damage to reputation. Such concerns might either cause a defendant to settle quickly (to get the hit done away with either quickly or quietly or both) or prolong it out to the bitter end because being vindicated is better in the long-term than intermediate legal costs. I could see why Blackwater would settle the civil issues quickly with $100,000 drops in the bucket and hope that the longer fight (by necessity) on the criminal side would vindicate them. I may have to reconsider my initial one liner in terms of legal strategery/tactics for a hypothetically innocent company in Blackwater's situation, though I am still of the opinion that there was some wrongdoing by Blackwater agents here.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Blackwater is finally being booted from Iraq as a direct result of the mishandled case in the OP. I guess you can't bribe everybody in Iraq...

Spoiler :

Iraq 'expels Blackwater guards'

Iraq has ordered 250 former and current staff of US security firm Blackwater to leave within a week, a minister says.

Interior Minister Jawad al-Bolani told the Associated Press news agency that all "concerned parties" were notified of the order three days ago.

It comes after a US judge last December threw out manslaughter charges against five Blackwater guards over the 2007 killing of 17 Iraqis in Baghdad.

The incident stoked anti-American sentiment in Iraq.

The activities of foreign security firms in Iraq have been curbed since then.

US Vice-President Joe Biden has said the US government will appeal against the court ruling.

Mishandled evidence

"We want to turn the page. It was a painful experience, and we would like to go forward," Mr Bolani said.

Seventeen Iraqis were killed in the shooting in Baghdad's Nisoor Square in September 2007.

Iraq maintains the Blackwater guards fired without provocation. Blackwater said the firing followed an ambush on one of its convoys.

The US had rejected attempts for a trial in Iraq but charges in the US were thrown out when a judge ruled in December that the guards' constitutional rights had been violated and that the justice department had mishandled evidence.

Last month, Mr Biden said during a visit to Iraq that the dismissal of the Blackwater charges was just that and "not an acquittal".

Expressing "personal regret" over the incident, he said the US justice department would file its appeal against the court's decision next week.

In 2007, Blackwater - now known as Xe Services - was the largest of the US State Department's private security contractors working in Iraq.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It ain't over until the fat lady sings.

Charges revived against guards in Blackwater case

Reporting from Washington— A federal appeals court in Washington revived manslaughter and weapons charges against four Blackwater Worldwide security guards in a fatal 2007 shooting in Baghdad that outraged Iraqis.

The decision by three members of the U.S. Court of Appeals here Friday said that U.S. District Judge Ricardo Urbina "made a number of systemic errors based on an erroneous legal analysis." They reversed Urbina's ruling and sent it back to him for further proceedings.

"We are pleased with the ruling," said Dean Boyd, a Department of Justice spokesman. "We are assessing the next step."

Many of the Blackwater guards gave sworn statements about the incident with the guarantee that the statements would not be made public or used against them. Journalists later obtained copies of the statements, and Urbina ruled that the subsequent publicity "tainted" the prosecution's decision to seek indictments against five of the guards.

But the appellate judges ruled that Urbina erred by lumping all of the statements and other evidence together when "at the most only some portion of the content was tainted." They also said Urbina "made no effort to decide what parts … were free of taint."

Blackwater has since been renamed Xe Services. The company's general counsel in North Carolina, who refused to be identified by name, declined to comment about the setback for the four guards.

In September 2007, a car bomb ignited near a Baghdad compound where a U.S. diplomat was meeting with Iraqi officials. American security officials ordered the guards from Blackwater, a private security company under contract with the State Department, to escort the diplomat to safety.

At the same time, as a separate Blackwater team began blocking traffic in order to get the diplomat to safety, shots erupted, killing 14 Iraqi civilians and wounding 20.

The four guards who will be sent back for trial were identified as Evan Liberty of Rochester, N.H.; Paul Slough of Keller, Texas; Dustin Heard of Maryville, Tenn.; and Donald Ball of West Valley City, Utah.

Charges against the fifth guard, Nicholas Slatten of Sparta, Tenn., have been dismissed by prosecutors. A sixth guard, Jeremy Ridgeway of California, has pleaded guilty to manslaughter and signaled he will testify against the others.

The shooting drew an outcry in Iraq because the dead were not armed or insurgents. In fact, some were shot and killed in their cars as they attempted to leave the area. Many in Iraq wanted the guards prosecuted in that country.

Hassan Jabir, a lawyer who was wounded, told the Associated Press that Friday's ruling was a "big achievement." He characterized the shooting as a "Blackwater crime" and added, "They must be convicted according to the Iraqi and American law."

It sounds like Urbano can't handle taint. Here's hoping he does a far better job if it this time.