Posted on 10/23/2014 11:43:48 AM PDT by Dave346
The founder and former CEO of the Blackwater Worldwide security firm said Thursday that the conviction of four of his former employees for their roles in the 2007 fatal shooting of 14 unarmed Iraqis was unexpected, and raised questions whether they received a fair trial.
“Well, there was certainly a lot of politics surrounding this and the fact that the federal government spent tens of millions of dollars on this, now trying it seven years after the event, and 7,000 miles from where it happened,” said Erik Prince, in a phone interview. “Certainly, it adds a lot of politics to it.”
Prince, a former Navy SEAL, founded Blackwater in 1997 and left the firm in 2010. He said the federal government is 1 for 2 in prosecuting the case, citing a judge’s decision in late 2009 to dismiss charges against five guards amid allegations that prosecutors improperly used statements the guards provided to the State Department. The government brought charges against the five guards again, including the four convicted Wednesday.
“The first time they tried it, it was thrown out for prosecutorial misconduct, and the guys have a lot of very solid options for appeal,” said Prince, who said he did not recall ever meeting the guards involved. “I’m sure they will exercise their rights to the fullest.”
Prince said Thursday that the case should have been tried by the military under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, a different system of laws that is administered by military officers. Prince is the chairman of another security and logistics firm, Frontier Services Group, that is focusing on Africa.
“This is a war zone case, clearly,” Prince said. “It’s probably tougher for [the jury] to get a full understanding of the events, again, 7,000 miles away and seven years later.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
If all the contractors quit today, the US would be in a heap of a mess
true, and it’s not like these contractors are bunch of yahoos...many many of them are ex special forces.
I don’t remember all the particulars about this case.
If the guys are guilty, then I’m glad. If they were railroaded, I am not.
If one is not a sworn member of our armed services would they have any protections from the law anywhere for anything?
If it had been found that non soldiers/police officers working for a private concern had special legal privileges, is this a precedent we want set?
And, what possible reason could anyone have that would free them from murder laws?
Maybe there is one. Let's hear it.
Legitimate question to be sure, but I’m not convinced that’s what we’re contemplating here.
Did the crew actually kill innocent people, or was there something else going on here that is being ignored to go after these guys?
I don’t want these guys to be able to essentially carry out an extermination due to anger or being out of control. If that were the case here, I’d be all for a guilty verdict.
I’m not certain it is. Seems to me I heard some reports that led me to believe there was something going on here other than what the government is trying to make us think there was.
Perhaps someone else will step in and clarify the issue.
Two different accounts of what happened, one from the Blackwater people, and another from the Iraqi police, that fired on them.
From Wiki:
The Blackwater guards’ account of the incident differed from that set forth in an Iraqi government account. The latter claimed that as the convoy drew close to Nisour Square, a Kia sedan with a woman and her grown son in it was approaching the square from a distance, driving slowly on the wrong side of the road, and that the driver ignored a police officer’s whistle to clear a path for the convoy
According to this account, the security team fired warning shots and then lethal fire at the Kia. Then set off stun grenades to clear the scene. Iraqi police and Iraqi Army soldiers, mistaking the stun grenades for fragmentation grenades, opened fire at the Blackwater men, to which they responded.
In the account by the Blackwater firm, it stated that the driver of the Kia sedan had kept driving toward the convoy, ignoring verbal orders, hand signals, and water bottles which were thrown at the car, and continued to approach even when fired upon.
An Iraqi policeman went over to the car possibly to help the passenger, but the vehicle kept moving and it looked to the guards as if the policeman was pushing it. In their view, this confirmed that they were under attack by a vehicle bomb, whereupon they fired at the car, killing both people in it as well as the Iraqi policeman.
In response to the guards’ killing of the Iraqi policemen, other Iraqi police officers began to fire at the Blackwater men. Since insurgents in Iraq often disguise themselves by wearing police uniforms, the guards could not be sure they were dealing with actual police. They communicated to the State Department operations center that they were under attack. A State Department employee who, walking into the department’s Baghdad operations center on the day of the incident, heard a radio call from the convoy: “Contact, contact, contact! We are taking fire from insurgents and Iraqi police”.
According to Blackwater vice-president Marty Strong, the convoy was hit with “a large explosive device” and “repeated small arms fire” which disabled a vehicle
Several sources have stated that the explosion was caused by a mortar round, though this is not reflected in the Department of State incident report.
Blackwater has denied Iraqi allegations that one of their helicopters fired from the air during the incident.
A State Department report stated that eight to ten attackers opened fire “from multiple nearby locations, with some aggressors dressed in civilian apparel and others in Iraqi police uniforms”.
The report said that as the convoy tried to leave, its route was blocked by insurgents armed with machine guns at 12:08 pm. According to another US government report, “The team returned fire to several identified targets” before leaving the area and a second convoy en route to help was “blocked/surrounded by several Iraqi police and Iraqi national guard vehicles and armed personnel.”
A US Army convoy, possibly the same one delayed by Iraqi forces, arrived approximately a half hour later, backed by air cover, to escort the convoy back to the Green Zone.
On September 27, 2007, the New York Times reported that during the chaotic incident at Nisour Square, one member of the Blackwater security team continued to fire on civilians, despite urgent cease-fire calls from colleagues. It is unclear whether the team-member mistook the civilians for insurgents. The incident was resolved only after another Blackwater contractor pointed his weapon at the man still firing and ordered him to stop.
“I don’t want these guys to be able to essentially carry out an extermination due to anger or being out of control.”
They believed they were under attack. A type of attack that had happened many times before.
Where they erred was the panicked shooting of anything that moved in the square, by some of them, until relief arrived.
It SHOULD have been considered a “Fog of War” incident, but the Iraqi Gov, and Liberals in the US Media wanted BLOOD.
I’m just saying that giving anyone, anywhere, the privileges/ROE that sworn soldiers have with regards the use of force might have set a very dangerous precedent.
Soldiers are one thing, and we should completely allow our troops to kill or break whatever they need to; private individuals- I am not sure.
Which is something I want to allow for, if that is in fact the case. Holding these guys to a standard that would equate to the streets of Atlanta is pointless, and in fact dangerous. It causes other contractors to re-evaluate certain tasks.
We ask these people to do a tough job and we have to back them up some way. Granted there are limits, but in an honest tough situation, I’m not for going for these guy’s throats.
Perhaps some reassignments or other punitive measures are called for. Prosecutions I’m not sure are called for.
Academically speaking, can’t we simply hold them to the same standard as our troops? I’m not sure that creates a dangerous precedent. Does it?
If our troops do something wrong, they should be taken to task on it as well.
Isn’t that a reasoned approach for the private sector too?
Perhaps you’ve got something in mind that I don’t. Explain what situation you fear coming about.
Potentially some sort of censure or charge is appropriate for the single man who kept firing on civilians, but that's it.
But why is the US Government prosecuting? Let Iraq prosecute.
Let’s be logical. Why would any civilian stand around while the bullets are flying and a convoy is blocked and surrounded after being at war? Are they rubber necking like Virginians on 95?
Situation is very complex.
Started when a car bomb went off and various Blackwater units left the Green Zone to secure the area.
The Raven 23 unit according to prosecutors was ordered to stay in the Green Zone but instead tried to secure Nussor Square.
Immediately when they reached the Square according to defendants they took hostile fire from several directions. At some point during the confrontation a vehicle approached them and disobeyed several warnings to stop and they opened fire fearing it was another car bomb.
After a few minutes they were ordered back to the Green Zone but at about the same time one of their vehicles was disabled and they had to remain in the Square for a few more minutes until they could tow it out with them, while the firefight continued.
Prosecution claimed there was never any hostile fire, but if there was then their response wasn’t proportionate. They put forth a theory that the damage to Blackwater vehicles was caused by grenade blow back (that they were in the blast radius of grenades that they used themselves).
Okay great. Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate it.
This was then the result of disobeying orders. I suspect they were probably convinced they needed to take action due to exposure to danger to people and or assets.
I can see why they thought another car bomb was about to blow.
Fog of war... it’s at least a credible story.
I think there is a world of difference. We should support our troops and their missions; I see no reason why someone working for a private firm should have any more right to wave guns at citizens - of this or any other country - than you or I.
I don’t like the use of contractors (even though my dad was one for Chiang). Soldiers are there to kill people and break things.
Prosecution also tried to explain away the AK-47 rounds found at the scene by saying that traffic cops sometimes shoot in the air to stop traffic.
Prosecution was troubled for years as evidenced by the 2009 dismissal. Judge ruled the whole case was tainted by compelled statements given by the guards themselves immediately after the incident.
One of the defendants was charged with murder only because the prosecution dismissed charges than wanted to reinstate after the 5 year statute of limitations for manslaughter expired.
There was also disagreement between the Blackwater guards - there were 4 vehicles and I believe only 2 were firing.
Prosecution also tried to discredit State Department investigation findings at trial saying they were part of a coverup while relying on FBI investigation that happened weeks later.
Defense argued that there was a coverup by US and Iraqi investigators of hostile fire.
Radio logs showed them reporting hostile fire from insurgents as well as Iraqi police throughout.
Insurgents frequently dressed as Iraqi police.
Honestly I would have a very difficult time with any prosecution where there is clear evidence of hostile fire (bullets, radio logs, pictures of damaged vehicle).
Even if there were one or more orders disobeyed during the incident.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.