Blackwater Indictment Alleges Grisly Tale

[SlightlyCatholic]

(CBS/AP) U.S. prosecutors say Blackwater Worldwide security guards used machine guns and grenade launchers in an attack on unarmed Iraqi civilians, some of whom had their hands up.

Prosecutors unsealed a 35-count indictment against the five guards Monday for a 2007 shooting in Baghdad. The guards surrendered in Utah, where they will argue the case should be tried.

The Justice Department charged the men with manslaughter, attempted manslaughter and using a machine gun in a crime of violence. The latter charge carries a 30-year mandatory prison sentence.

A sixth guard for the U.S. contractor admitted in a plea deal to killing at least one Iraqi in the shooting. His guilty plea, likewise, was unsealed Monday.

"The government alleges in the documents unsealed today that at least 34 unarmed Iraqi civilians, including women and children, were killed or injured without justification or provocation by these Blackwater security guards," national security prosecutor Pat Rowan said. Blackwater protects U.S. State Department personnel.

Witnesses said the heavily armed U.S. contractors opened fire unprovoked at a crowded intersection. Blackwater, the largest security contractor in Iraq, says its guards were ambushed by insurgents while responding to a car bombing.

"Prosecutors allege that the men shot and killed Iraqis 'upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion' - that's the language in the indictment," writes CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen. "But it also tells us what the defense is likely to be - that this was an accident triggered by scared young guards who were in over their heads in Iraq."

"We think it's pure and simple a case of self-defense," Paul Cassell, a Utah attorney on the defense team, said Monday as the guards were being booked. "Tragically people did die."

Hassan Jaber was wounded that day - shot in the arm and back as he tried to escape, reports CBS News correspondent Elizabeth Palmer from Baghdad. A year later, he says that today's arrests are a step in the right direction - but not justice. He says there were more than five guards firing that day.

Jaber, like other wounded victims, got $7,500 compensation from the U.S. Embassy in Iraq, which he used to pay for medical care. But, Palmer reports, his body is still full of shrapnel.

Though the case has already been assigned to U.S. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina in Washington, attorneys want the case moved to Utah, where they would presumably find a more conservative jury pool and one more likely to support the Iraq war.

This is going to be a very dense, technical case with a ton of pre-trial issues that will have to be resolved before the first witness is called," writes Cohen. "The defendants are going to raise jurisdiction and venue questions and seek a ruling from the court that these domestic charges can't be brought against them for conduct in Iraq.

An afternoon court hearing was scheduled on whether to release the guards. Defense attorneys were filing court documents challenging the Justice Department's authority to prosecute the case. The law is murky on whether contractors can be charged in U.S. courts for crimes committed overseas.

The guards face the prospect of 30-year mandatory prison terms under the anti-machine gun law passed during the height of the crack cocaine epidemic.

The indicted 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.

The sixth guard was identified as Jeremy Ridgeway.

The case is complicated by the circumstances involving the Iraq war, which could affect legal strategy.

"The judge is going to have to be very careful not to allow this trial to become a trial about the larger U.S. role in Iraq," writes Cohen "I think defense attorneys would want to go in that direction and prosecutors of course want to separate out this event from all the other security issues in and around the Green Zone in Baghdad."

The shooting strained relations between the U.S. and Baghdad. The fledgling Iraqi government wanted Blackwater expelled from the country. It also sought the right to prosecute the men in Iraqi courts.

"The killers must pay for their crime against innocent civilians. Justice must be achieved so that we can have rest from the agony we are living in," said Khalid Ibrahim, a 40-year-old electrician who said his 78-year-old father, Ibrahim Abid, died in the shooting. "We know that the conviction of the people behind the shooting will not bring my father to life, but we will have peace in our minds and hearts."

Defense attorneys accused the Justice Department of bowing to Iraqi pressure.

"We are confident that any jury will see this for what it is: a politically motivated prosecution to appease the Iraqi government," said defense attorney Steven McCool, who represents Ball.

Based in Moyock, N.C., Blackwater is the largest security contractor in Iraq and provides heavily armed guards for diplomats. Since last year's shooting, the company has been a flash point in the debate over how heavily the U.S. relies on contractors in war zones.

A few things to discuss...

1) If domestic charges can't be brought against the defendants, then what law are they under? As far as I know, they're not under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ either.

2) How responsible is the U.S. for the actions of these men (if they are indeed found guilty)? Are contractors basically mercenaries who are completely separate from military forces or are they actively issued orders from military commanders? Who do they really report to, if anyone?

3) I see a potentially large problem with this getting out into the international arena because it makes us seem like our military isn't strong enough on its own and we need what basically amounts to mercenaries to augment the fight. I'm not saying this is true by any means, but for many people appearances are no different from the truth (as they have no real access to the latter). Does it hurt our reputation as a nation to have these contractors indicted?

[03_SHOOTER]

To my understanding, Blackwater was under contract to the State Department to provide PPD (personal protection detail) for US contractors and dignitaries, so no, they are not operating under the DoD.

As far as this particular case is concerned, it's essentially a "he said, she said" situation where the Blackwater people are saying they were fired upon, and returned fire in self-defense, and the other side is claiming that they simply "went berserk" and started shooting for no reason.

[JohnP]

Originally Posted by 03_SHOOTER

To my understanding, Blackwater was under contract to the State Department to provide PPD (personal protection detail) for US contractors and dignitaries, so no, they are not operating under the DoD.

As far as this particular case is concerned, it's essentially a "he said, she said" situation where the Blackwater people are saying they were fired upon, and returned fire in self-defense, and the other side is claiming that they simple "went berserk" and started shooting for no reason.

As a former "Contractor" for the DOJ in the late 90's - I was a civilian contracted by a US Agency. I was in a country that wasn't completely pacified and subject to snipers, random checks, and ethnic cleansing. We were not allowed to carry weapons but they could be bought in a regular market as easily as you bought the vegetables. If you violated any local law, you were subject to that nation's law.

These men came under a different set of rules for their ROE. (Changing this January with the new SOFA.) If it was a bad shoot, it was a bad shoot and the men should face penalties for it. If it was a good shoot, then they should be aquitted.

Tim - the United States, by all means should handle this case. If it is above the board and with no hidden agendas, will exonerate the US as a nation of rules, laws and justice.

[JohnP]

Originally Posted by Seminarian_Tim

A few things to discuss...

1) If domestic charges can't be brought against the defendants, then what law are they under? As far as I know, they're not under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ either.

2) How responsible is the U.S. for the actions of these men (if they are indeed found guilty)? Are contractors basically mercenaries who are completely separate from military forces or are they actively issued orders from military commanders? Who do they really report to, if anyone?

3) I see a potentially large problem with this getting out into the international arena because it makes us seem like our military isn't strong enough on its own and we need what basically amounts to mercenaries to augment the fight. I'm not saying this is true by any means, but for many people appearances are no different from the truth (as they have no real access to the latter). Does it hurt our reputation as a nation to have these contractors indicted?

Tim - This site is for the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in the House of Representives. It is regard to its findings in October 2007. It's not current, but it will give you some ideas on how contract security shouldn't work.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/20071001121609.pdf

[txb&b]

Tim - since the commonly accepted definition of mercenary is "one serving merely for pay or sordid advantage", I really take offense to that word being used to describe Blackwater contractors. Maybe you should do a little research about the kind of men who work for Blackwater. The Washington Post article below might give you some insight:

My Husband Was a Blackwater Hero

By Marybeth Laguna
Sunday, November 30, 2008; Page B03

My husband, Art Laguna, was a hero. He was a man of honor -- he kept his word and he valued truth and honesty, and he expected no less from anyone else. His life was spent in service to his country and his family.

Here at home, Art served as a sheriff's reserve deputy. He was a volunteer helicopter pilot and flew medical evacuation missions with the California National Guard out of Sacramento 's Mather Field. He was the father of four and grandfather of six.

Art was proud of his three-decade career with the U.S. Army and the National Guard. He served in Iraq three times and he deployed once to Bosnia. In 1998, he was awarded a medal of valor from the California Department of Corrections for piloting a National Guard helicopter that helped save a California man who'd been stranded by floodwaters on the roof of his car. And last June, the military awarded him the Legion of Merit for exceptional conduct in the performance of outstanding services and achievements. I accepted this most recent honor on his behalf.

And this past week, as our family gathered around the table to give thanks for our blessings, one very important blessing was missing. Art was killed last year in Iraq when the helicopter he was piloting was shot down while assisting a U.S. Embassy convoy that had come under fire in a violent Sunni neighborhood in central Baghdad.

Art could have chosen a safer profession. He knew that -- and so did I. But from the time he was a child, all he'd ever wanted to do was to fly and to help people. At the time of his death, he was flying rescue missions into Iraq's most dangerous areas to help evacuate teams of U.S. government employees who had come under attack.

Since the horrible day in January 2007 when the telephone rang with the news that Art had been killed, I've experienced the breadth of emotions that anyone feels when they lose a loved one. There's intense pain, loss and grief. There's pride in his accomplishments, the choices he made and the way he lived his life. And, yes, there's anger.

My anger, however, doesn't come from the direction you might expect. I'm not angry at Art for the risks he took in life, or at the war that took that precious life. Instead, I too often find myself operating at a slow boil, sometimes exasperated and sometimes irate at those who never knew my husband or his colleagues, yet who insist on tarnishing their memories each day.

Because when Art died, he wasn't working for the military. He was working for Blackwater.

Art considered his job with the private security firm that protects U.S. diplomats in Iraq a continuation of his service to this country. He told me that he believed in the job and respected the mission. But somehow, this one word -- Blackwater -- gets in the way of a lucid, reasoned discussion.

Art first went to work for Blackwater in August 2006 and was on his second deployment with the company when he was killed. When I tell people these facts, they rarely express appreciation for his services. Instead, most suggest that he was crazy to go back. I've had people repeat the ridiculous urban legend that Blackwater instituted martial law in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina and ask me whether Art had been a part of that. At a recent social event, someone asked me whether Blackwater was the same company that "goes around shooting people." I've heard the news media and even elected officials casually throw around words such as "cowboy" and "mercenary" to describe men and women who voluntarily go into harm's way to protect others. Those caricatures are wrong. They might describe someone's antiwar agenda, but they don't describe my husband or his colleagues.

This public relations spin on contractors by antiwar activists has unfortunately gained traction, and the smearing got worse after an incident in September 2007, when a Blackwater team found itself in trouble and opened fire, tragically causing the deaths of several Iraqi civilians. What I know about this comes only from the media; the company said the security guards were responding to an ambush. But when this newspaper reported that federal prosecutors had sent letters to six Blackwater Worldwide security guards involved in that incident, there was a resurgence of unfair mischaracterizations of the company and its contractors.

I don't know the Blackwater men involved or the details of that day. But as the wife of someone who was deployed to a war zone four times, I do know that whether you're a member of the military or a private security contractor, if you think you're in trouble, you're going to protect yourself. I also know that, in addition to his prior extensive military experience, Blackwater required Art to go through rigorous training before sending him to Iraq. The same was true of all his colleagues.

Our all-volunteer military is overwhelmed and doesn't have enough soldiers with the experience it takes to guard the kinds of high-profile and highly targeted Americans who must travel around Iraq. That's why veterans working for contractors such as Blackwater, DynCorp, Triple Canopy and others are stepping up to serve their country again.

My husband and his fellow contractors answered a call. Art didn't do it for the money. He wanted to contribute in any way possible so that his kids and grandkids could continue to enjoy the American dream. He wanted to test himself and give back to his country using the training he'd received throughout his life.

Just like soldiers, security contractors based in Iraq face daily threats to their lives. Rather than demonizing these men and women, we should be thanking them for the essential service they provide. Whether they are working for Blackwater or directly for the U.S. military, they are all risking their lives to work for the United States. And they deserve our respect.

[SlightlyCatholic]

The findings are certainly very informative. Thank you for the link.

This citation in particular caught my attention:

This is an average of 1.4 shooting incidents per week. Blackwater's contract to provide protective services to the State Department provides that Blackwater can engage in only defensive use of force. In over 80% of the shooting incidents, however, Blackwater reports that its forces fired the first shots.

It looks like (according to the report) they broke their own contract with the State Department, so why do they still have one with the U.S. government?

txb&b- the word "mercenary" was used in an interrogative sentence in my original post for the sole purpose of getting the opinions of those of you "in the know". I was not making any sort of judgment either way as the mercenary nature of Blackwater, I was merely probing the possibility therein pending verification by the "BTDT" personnel here. Please do not be offended, as I would never attempt to degrade or undermine anyone's service to the United States. I would like to thank you for your informative response and the information you provided for the benefit of myself and the other members of the forum.

[Des]

Wouldn't the MEJA laws apply? They were expanded in 2005 to include employees of any Federal agency supporting the mission of the Department of Defense overseas, and in 2007 the bill to expand them to include

persons who, while employed under a federal agency contract in, or in close proximity to, an area where the Armed Forces are conducting a contingency operation, engage in conduct that would constitute an offense punishable by imprisonment for more than one year if engaged in within U.S. jurisdiction, shall be punished as provided for that offense

[JohnP]

Originally Posted by Des

Wouldn't the MEJA laws apply? They were expanded in 2005 to include employees of any Federal agency supporting the mission of the Department of Defense overseas, and in 2007 the bill to expand them to include

According to what I've read, yes, they would be held responsible under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act and the US Code.

MEJA - http://www.pubklaw.com/hi/pl106-523.pdf

US Code - http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C212.txt

[Spider]

Originally Posted by Seminarian_Tim

The findings are certainly very informative. Thank you for the link.

This citation in particular caught my attention:

This is an average of 1.4 shooting incidents per week. Blackwater's contract to provide protective services to the State Department provides that Blackwater can engage in only defensive use of force. In over 80% of the shooting incidents, however, Blackwater reports that its forces fired the first shots.


It looks like (according to the report) they broke their own contract with the State Department, so why do they still have one with the U.S. government?

Possibly, but maybe not. I have no idea of the specifics on the contract and the defensive actions mandated, but in legal terms self defence does not rule out pre-empting a threat and striking first if you have a reasonable and honest belief that you are about to be attacked.

[Woody]

First car they hit killing 3 civillians was considered a justified shooting under their rules of engagement .The rest were not even by their rules .Its lucky they are not facing an Iraq court.
The whole contractor business is very dodgy .Some are brave and honurable others are muppets .