Matters Blackwater (Merged thread)

[Ken White]

Glad there are still some about. :D

Though, to be fair, it does look like the Congress is about to underwrite Free Beer. I'm placing no bets on whether it'll be screwed up or not...:wry:

[jmm99]

I guess the next question is why these types of arguments have not been made to date? We seem to have significant gaps in both the Laws of War and Rules of Law when it comes to the war on terrorism. In a lot of ways I thing the troops are the ones paying the price for those gaps.

and is not a legal question at its core; but rather a structural problem in lending assistence to an already-established HN government - or to one which we have established.

Your last sentence is totally on target; and has been true since Vietnam and Korea before it.

The problem is that there are two things going on at once:

1. A war (whatever its intensity; an "armed conflict" in GC terms) is on-going - and demands a military solution (whether hard, soft or in-between) with Unity of Command - realized to some extent in Korea, not in Vietnam. In that arena, the Laws of War are generally applicable - and do provide some guidance and structure.

2. A political contest is also on-going, where the ball is flipped back and forth; with factions in the HN political set-up; with one or more HN insurgent groups; with the US (with all its agencies and its own external and internal politics) having its own agenda(s); and also allies, non-violent adversaries and international organizations.

IMO: determining what Rule of Law should apply best in that mess is practically impossible on any consistent basis because there are too many conflicting "rules of law" and political interests.

I suppose one solution is the Roman model, where the top officers in each legion had legal, judicial and legislative experience, both domestic and foreign. Their military experience was only a part of their whole. As we know, the legion's military experience primarily rested in its centurions - culminating in the primus pilus. His boss, the legionary legate, whether in a Roman province or in an assisted HN, had both COCOM and LEGCOM (made that acronym up) in his legion's area of responsibility. Thus, there was Unity of Command in both the military and legal (political) arenas.

IMO: The present-day US is not about to adopt the Roman model. The present-day structural problem is beyond the capabilities of those who are constitutionally tasked to solve it. Therefore, the solutions (except in simpler cases) will be kludges - probably with blowback in some areas.

Perhaps, when in Rome do as the Romans did; otherwise, stay out of Rome. :(

[John T. Fishel]

one of my pet peeves. :rolleyes:

It seems to me that there is no reason why we can't achieve unity of command over USG activities in a COIN - or other conflict - environment. We do it regularly in nearly every American Embassy in the world where the Ambassador is in charge of ALL USG activities (with the exception of major ongoing military opns). We have also achieved it in a military operations environment - most recently (I think) in Operations Desert Storm prior to the arrival of Amb Ghnem in Kuwait and in Southern Iraq during the brief period of occupation and in Operation Provide Comfort in Northern Iraq where LTG Jay Garner commanded all USG elements - the Ambassador to Turkey suported Garner.

But there seems to be an incredible hesitancy on the part of USG political leaders to do the obvious and designate someone as being in charge. In Iraq, is it Amb Crocker of GEN Odierno? During the CPA was it Bremer or Sanchez or someone else, although they all reprted to SECDEF Rumsfeld? How hard iwould it be for the President (or the SECDEF in CPA like case) to point his finger and say, "You are in charge." And point it to the other guy and say, "You work for him."? Not hard for me to imagine but it seems to be impossible for the elected and appointed civilian leadership of the USG.:confused:

Cheers

JohnT

[jmm99]

Assuming the first base problem could be solved (I noticed in another thread that Ken, in mentioning this thread, thought not likely), we still would have the rest of the bases to cover. As to those, I don't see the military as the problem in the choice of law (conflicts of law) arena. E.g., MAGTF has worked out how it would (should) work with civilian agencies.

I see the biggest problem in co-ordinating the various agencies, which operate under their own individual rules of law.

Generalized example from a matter about a decade ago. Agency A (my client) had the end goal of releasing funds to complete a project. Agency A had to meet the requirements of Agencies B and C for release of the funds. Agency B had one set of requirements (which were updated to accord with what would be considered generally accepted practices ca. 2000).

Agency C was another story. Its requirements were ca. 1980 or earlier - "lessons learned" was not in its vocabulary. As its lead person told me, all of us here are well aware of what should be (Agency B's ca. 2000 rules); but we have to go by our rules - no exceptions.

Fortunately, Agency B was willing to bend a little. So, Agency C was satisfied and the project went forward. Now, multiply this ten-fold; and filling the bases becomes very complex - impossible if no one can or will bend.

[Pattonmat89]

What on God's green Earth does "Xe" mean? I'm sure it's just something that I don't get. Could someone please enlighten me?

[CR6]

Apparently nothing (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/13/AR2009021303149.html).


Tyrrell said there is no meaning to the new name, which is pronounced "zee." "It was just a choice of a name," she said. "We thought of it internally."

[Cavguy]

It means our old name was bad for business, so we had to make up a new one not associated with thuggery downrange.

[MikeF]

It reminded me of the singer formerly known as Prince.

[Ken White]

In Viet Namese, xế means: slant or decline :wry:

[CR6]

It means our old name was bad for business, so we had to make up a new one not associated with thuggery downrange.

bingo.


It reminded me of the singer formerly known as Prince.

Now news coverage will refer to the "PMC firm formerly known as Blackwater".

[Uboat509]

I read where someone on another forum referred to this as turd polish. A bit crude perhaps but accurate none the less.

SFC W

[ODB]

You know that little white speck on top of chicken ####, well that is chicken #### too!

[Pattonmat89]

Xe...nu? :eek:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu

(H/T http://twitter.com/ChrisAlbon/statuses/1208505089)

[Old Eagle]

Didn't "Altria" used to be PhilipMorris? I don't want to own a tobacco company, but a "consumer products" conglomerate is right up my alley.

[Hacksaw]

Ah... there is nothing to make you shiver and feel dirty like a head-long plunge into the Scientology pool... Really makes you wonder about the how much higher we could raise the collective gene pool if we could cause a massive resettlement of adherents using DC-8 like aircraft to area surrounding a volcano...

[Voodoun]

What on God's green Earth does "Xe" mean? I'm sure it's just something that I don't get. Could someone please enlighten me?

It certainly is going to make them more able to operate under the radar. Web searches become much more difficult, and their other division changing to 'US Training" seems to follow that same notion.

There's a reason behind the name change, I don't know what it is, but they didnt just throw a dart at the Periodic chart.

[wm]

which is a noble gas.
Remember the Xenon searchlights on tanks--They want to show that they are willing to shine a light on their internal operations because they have nothing to hide.

Xe is also an inert gas--Thety want to show they are very stable and not prone to "react" at a moments provocation.

I'm surprised no one else in this august group picked this stuff up--no wonder the bad guys are whipping us at the strategic communications game.:D

[Steve Blair]

which is a noble gas.
Remember the Xenon searchlights on tanks--They want to show that they are willing to shine a light on their internal operations because they have nothing to hide.

Xe is also an inert gas--Thety want to show they are very stable and not prone to "react" at a moments provocation.

I'm surprised no one else in this august group picked this stuff up--no wonder the bad guys are whipping us at the strategic communications game.:D

So it's an oxymoron, in other words.....:D

[Beelzebubalicious]

XE = Xenon which is a noble gas.

I think they're just blowing smoke up our collective assets.

[bourbon]

Xe = Xena: Warrior Princess (http://www.thespywhobilledme.com/the_spy_who_billed_me/2009/02/not-blackwater-but-xe-as-in-xena-warrior-princess.html)

[jmm99]

Judge Urbina decided two pre-trial motions (http://wire.antiwar.com/2009/02/17/judge-refuses-to-toss-charges-in-blackwater-case/) - temporarily in favor of the DoJ, which means this case is headed toward trial.


Judge refuses to toss charges in Blackwater case
Federal judge refuses to dismiss manslaughter charges against Blackwater guards
NEDRA PICKLER
AP News
Feb 17, 2009 14:44 EST

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that the manslaughter case against five former Blackwater Worldwide security guards accused of spraying innocent Iraqis with machine-gun fire can continue.

U.S. District Judge Ricardo Urbina denied two motions to dismiss the case against the five men accused in a September 2007 shooting that left 17 Iraqis dead and another 20 wounded in a busy Baghdad intersection.
....
Federal prosecutors argued the men were supporting the work of the Defense Department by helping to create a stable, self-governing Iraq. They said they would offer evidence at trial that their employment supported the Defense Department.

Urbina sided with prosecutors and agreed that the issue should be heard at trial. But he noted that the "defendants' points on this issue are rather strong" and predicted it would be an issue that either he or a jury would decide later.

It would be highly unusual (and probably error) for a trial judge to dismiss a prosecution where the government makes a proffer that its position will be supported by evidence at trial. However, when a judge tells you that the other side's case seems "rather strong", it's about time to start circling the wagons.

[Hacksaw]

A revamping of corporate image by renaming itself seems more in tune with Scientology :D

[SWJED]

Blackwater Accused of Murder in 'Crusade to Eliminate Muslims' (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6740735.ece) - Tim Reid, The Times


A series of allegations including murder, weapons smuggling and the deliberate slaughter of civilians have been levelled against the founder of Blackwater, the security company being investigated for shooting deaths in Iraq.

The accusations, including a claim that the company founder Erik Prince either murdered or had killed former employees co-operating with federal investigators, are contained in sworn affidavits lodged at a Virginia court on Monday night.

The company was the most prominent of an army of private security companies employed by the Pentagon and State Department to protect military convoys and guard US diplomats in Iraq.

The accusations against Mr Prince are being made by two former employees, including a former Marine, who have sworn them anonymously as John Doe No 1 and John Doe No 2, because they said they feared for their lives if their identities were revealed...

[IntelTrooper]

My gut reaction is, "Didn't Mommy and Daddy show you enough attention when you were a child?"

Having people murdered? Come on...

[jmm99]

Go slow and wait. The DoJ's "neither confirm nor deny" should be taken literally. An indictment would be another story - and a big one.

[Courtney Massengale]

Will religion become the new sexual harassment?

Sure looks like things are heading that way.

[jenniferro10]

Reaction 1: Um...yeah? Surprised? Maybe you should be paying more attention. Then, calming myself a little, and trying to be more objective...
Reaction 2: Well, it seems like the murder of whistleblowers would have come out before now...could they really be that evil? Then,
back to reaction 1.

[goesh]

- another book in the making either way -

[Uboat509]

So, according to this article Blackwater has committed virtually every possible heinous crime known to include, apparently child prostitution (no regicide yet but give it time). Additionally, apparently Prince has been running the organization like a weird "crusader" mafia like army, wherein informants and random Muslims are routinely murdered. All of this has been going on essentially under the DOS's nose for years but we just now found out about it. Riiiiight.

This thing reads like movie written by Michael Moore and directed by Oliver Stone. They tried so hard to pack so much evil in there that it is almost laughable. I don't doubt that there has been wrong doing by Blackwater in Iraq and elsewhere, but I am not prepared to give Blackwater or Erik Prince enough credit for competence to have engaged in this kind of high level conspiracy. Most of the guys I know who have worked for the various PMCs tell me the same thing. Competent operators avoid Blackwater like the plague. Prince got greedy and took on more contracts than he had competent operators to fill. In order to meet his obligations he started hiring almost anyone. The competent guys don't want to deploy with these guys so they start to find other employment so Blackwater has to hire more of the lower quality operators and so on. I would be inclined to believe that whatever wrongdoing has been committed by Blackwater members has more to do with the policy of hiring guys who probably shouldn't be allowed access to sharp objects much less guns than it has to do with a "crusader" conspiracy.

SFC W

[SWJED]

- another book in the making either way -


You’re kidding - more like a "reality show" on an island or a remote track of NC countryside - this time the word survivor will take a whole new meaning.

[bourbon]

Explosive Allegations: Blackwater Founder Implicated in Murder (http://www.alternet.org/rights/141763/explosive_allegations:_blackwater_founder_implicat ed_in_murder_/?page=entire), by Jeremy Scahill, The Nation. Posted August 4, 2009.

Doe #2 states: "Using his various companies, [Prince] procured and distributed various weapons, including unlawful weapons such as sawed off semi-automatic machine guns with silencers, through unlawful channels of distribution." Blackwater "was not abiding by the terms of the contract with the State Department and was deceiving the State Department," according to Doe #1.
Gotta get me one of them.

[William F. Owen]

I don't doubt that there has been wrong doing by Blackwater in Iraq and elsewhere, but I am not prepared to give Blackwater or Erik Prince enough credit for competence to have engaged in this kind of high level conspiracy. Most of the guys I know who have worked for the various PMCs tell me the same thing. Competent operators avoid Blackwater like the plague. Prince got greedy and took on more contracts than he had competent operators to fill. In order to meet his obligations he started hiring almost anyone.

Concur. 2 years hanging out in certain bars Bangkok, I met more than a few PMCs contractors, and "Blackwater" were bottom of the Sh*t list, as concerns competence. Horror stories abound, but how many were true, I don't know.

[bourbon]

Courtesy of Cryptome (http://cryptome.org/0001/black-prince.htm), in PDF:

August 3rd, 2009 - Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (http://www.expose-the-war-profiteers.org/archive/legal/2009-1/20090803.pdf)

July 29th, 2009 - Declaration of John Doe No. 2 (http://www.expose-the-war-profiteers.org/archive/legal/2009-1/20090729.pdf)

July 27th, 2009 - Declaration of John Doe No. 1 (http://www.expose-the-war-profiteers.org/archive/legal/2009-1/20090727-1.pdf)

[jmm99]

especially your last links to the original court pleadings. IIRC, Blackwater's responsive reply is due 17 Aug.

Let's all keep in mind that this case is a private civil case, where the standard of "rigour" (we might say) can be much lower than that in a Federal criminal prosecution. While one side of this case has Blackwater personnel emerging out from under their rocks, that cuts both ways. That is, the affidavits are from Blackwater personnel - are they also emerging out from under their rocks ?

The flavor of this case comes to the fore in the first paragraph of the Plaintiff's Opposition:


Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court deny Defendants’ Motions To Dismiss and permit Plaintiffs’ claims to proceed to discovery and trial. Defendants mislead the Court by portraying Plaintiffs as challenging the State Department’s policies. As explained below, nothing could be further from the truth. Plaintiffs are challenging Mr. Prince’s callous scheme to kill, repeatedly, innocent Iraqis. This scheme was implemented without the knowledge or consent of the State Department. This scheme was motivated by Mr. Prince’s greed and his racist Christian supremacist views. Mr. Prince and his Blackwater companies deceived the State Department, and destroyed evidence that might have led to the detection of the scheme. Mr. Prince’s actions, and those of his alter ego companies, should not evade judicial review. No statutory or decisional law supports Mr. Prince’s claim that he is immune from the rule of law.

It is one thing to allege it; it is quite another thing to prove it.

Just something to keep in mind.

PS: See pp.92-124 of the Opposition for a good example of how to prove foreign law (in this case, Iraqi law). In the usual case involving domestic laws (Federal or state), the judge simply takes judicial notice of the applicable laws. Where foreign law is concerned, it technically has to be proved by a foreign law expert (sometimes the parties simply agree to handle it like domestic laws). So, Blackwater could come back with its own Iraqi law experts; and so on. The court could, if it wished, appoint its own Iraqi law experts. Just a point of in-courtroom legal trivia, for true devotees. :)

[IntelTrooper]

Most of the accusations seem pretty vague and unprovable. I'm interested in hearing more from former CFO Roy Mettinger, though.

[Dayuhan]

Blackwater IS the Templars. The Vatican is secretly in charge; they formed Blackwater and sent them to Iraq to get rid of Muslims and recover a mysterious relic with infinite power. The CIA is involved,and oil companies, and aliens, and Elvis. Blind affidavit #1 was filed by a gorgeous chick, and when the Templars come to silence her she will be rescued by the guy who filed blind affidavit #2, a manly man with perfect hair and lots of liposuction, who has a gun that shoots 437 rounds without reloading and knows kung-fu and ninjutsu. In 120 minutes they will save the day, recover the relic, kill the sinister corporate stooge at the core of the conspiracy, discover cold fusion, save the whales and the ozone layer, and we will all live happily ever after.

If you don't believe me, wait for the trailer... coming soon to a cinema near you!

[William F. Owen]

B#2, a manly man with perfect hair and lots of liposuction, who has a gun that shoots 437 rounds without reloading and knows kung-fu and ninjutsu.

Oh thank G*d! I was beginning to think I was the only guy like that!

[marct]

If you don't believe me, wait for the trailer... coming soon to a cinema near you!

Shush! It's a SECRET!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwXdHej3B-o

[Greyhawk]

...but can't help but notice the repeated efforts in the linked piece to depict State as another victim of Dr Evil's diabolical scheme.

[jmm99]

for this link to an interesting procedural development in this case, dealing with the government's obligation to provide security for defense lawyers to investigate the case, interview witnesses, etc., in Iraq.

Before you die from laughing, read the article, Blackwater defense team seeks security (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28517.html#) (JMM emphasis added):


By JOSH GERSTEIN | 10/21/09 5:11 AM EDT

Lawyers for five former Blackwater contractors facing manslaughter charges over an alleged massacre in Iraq are demanding that the U.S. government arrange armed security for the defense team as it heads into the dangerous streets of Baghdad to gather evidence and interview witnesses.

The Obama administration could soon face a stark choice: Order U.S. commanders in Iraq to give the defense attorneys a military escort for their trip, or throw into jeopardy the prosecution of one of the worst alleged atrocities of the Iraq war.

The defense lawyers complain that U.S. prosecutors and FBI agents had military help to gather evidence to bring the charges and that the government initially blew off the defense’s request for protection by sending over a list of security contractors derived in large part from Internet searches. ....
....
In a response filed Monday, prosecutors urged [Judge] Urbina to reject the defense request. “The defendants ask this Court to assume a role that would violate the separation of powers; they invite this Court to take the extraordinary step of ordering the Executive to expend its resources (including those of the armed forces) [and] to reorient its overseas missions and priorities,” the Justice Department said.

The Justice Department predicted further disputes if the defense team and military personnel on the ground disagreed about the feasibility of visiting certain places. The government’s response did not detail what security provisions were given to prosecutors and the FBI when they investigated the case. ....

This case does raise a serious issue in criminal prosecutions, whether against AQ or Taliban detainees or against US military or civilians, for offenses requiring formal testimony and evidence from foreign nationals or sources. That has not been an issue in the Gitmo habeas cases because the judges have been accepting statements, declarations and other written summaries from both sides. Those are technically hearsay.

In Federal court criminal prosecutions, the more formal hearsay rules in the Federal Rules of Evidence apply; and in addition, the defense has a right to interview the witnesses listed by the government.

I won't predict what Judge Urbina will do. I have a data point of one - a case where I was court-appointed defense counsel and the prosecution relied on an expert witness at the preliminary hearing to testify on several technical issues. Before trial, I moved for appointment of an expert witness (named his qualifications and costs, etc.). The judge called us into chambers to decide the motion privately. Told me I had a good point; but that my expert would blow his budget for the case. So, he held that no expert testimony from either side would be allowed on the technical issues; saying: I'm probably legally wrong, but what I'm doing is fair. I won the jury trial.

Of course, a similar ruling by Judge Urbina would exclude all of the evidence from Iraq - which would gut the government's case. We shall see.

[jmm99]

Bourbon reported (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=79437&postcount=11) the pleadings in this case in opposition to the defense motion for summary judgment.

That motion was denied as reported by this article in the Nation (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091109/scahill):


Judge Refuses to Dismiss War Crimes Case Against Blackwater
By Jeremy Scahill
October 22, 2009

On Wednesday, a federal judge rejected a series of arguments by lawyers for the mercenary firm formerly known as Blackwater seeking to dismiss five high-stakes war crimes cases brought by Iraqi victims against both the company and its owner, Erik Prince. At the same time, Judge T.S. Ellis III sent the Iraqis' lawyers back to the legal drawing board to amend and refile their cases, saying that the Iraqi plaintiffs need to provide more specific details on the alleged crimes before a final decision can be made on whether or not the lawsuits will proceed. .... (more in article).

The opinion by Judge T.S. Ellis III is here (http://www.thenation.com/images/pdfs/ruling-20091022.pdf) (56 pp.).

It is well to keep in mind that the standards required to decide this type of motion are that all allegations made by the plaintiff are held to be true (even if the defendant makes contrary allegations), and the judge does not decide questions of fact between the contrary positions. In short, this kind of motion is suited for a case where the facts are conceded by both parties; and one of the parties is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Nonetheless, viewing the present allegations most favorably to the plaintiffs, the judge found that the plaintiffs had not stated valid Federal law claims; but allowed them to re-plead those claims to the extent it would not be futile.

As to the non-Federal law claims (based on Iraqi law), the judge stayed his hand until the plaintiffs re-pleaded their claims.

So, in effect, this is a decision non-decision.

[davidbfpo]

The BBC report:
A US federal judge has dismissed all charges against five guards from US security firm Blackwater over the killing of 17 Iraqis in 2007.
The five, contracted to defend US diplomatic personnel, were accused of opening fire on a crowd in Baghdad. District Judge Ricardo Urbina said the US justice department had used evidence prosecutors were not supposed to have.

Link:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8436780.stm

[jmm99]

the latter for dropping into my mailbox and gnawing my ankle. Here are two articles, Judge Drops Charges From Blackwater Deaths in Iraq (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/01/us/01blackwater.html) (NYT) and Judge Dismisses Blackwater Case (http://www.military.com/news/article/judge-dismisses-blackwater-case.html?ESRC=eb.nl) (Military.com).


from NYT
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
Published: December 31, 2009

WASHINGTON — In a significant blow to the Justice Department, a federal judge on Thursday threw out the indictment of five former Blackwater security guards over a shooting in Baghdad in 2007 that left 17 Iraqis dead and about 20 wounded.

The judge cited misuse of statements made by the guards in his decision, which brought to a sudden halt one of the highest-profile prosecutions to arise from the Iraq war. The shooting at Nisour Square frayed relations between the Iraqi government and the Bush administration and put a spotlight on the United States’ growing reliance on private security contractors in war zones.
.....
In a “reckless violation of the defendants’ constitutional rights,” the judge wrote, investigators, prosecutors and government witnesses had inappropriately relied on statements that the guards had been compelled to make in debriefings by the State Department shortly after the shootings. The State Department had hired the guards to protect its officials.
....
The guards had been told by State Department investigators that they could be fired if they did not talk about the case, but that whatever they said would not be used against them in any criminal proceeding.

Nevertheless, Judge Urbina found that “in their zeal to bring charges,” investigators and prosecutors had extensively used those statements, disregarding “the warning of experienced, senior prosecutors” that “the course of action threatened the viability of prosecution.”

“The explanations offered by the prosecutors and investigators in an attempt to justify their actions and persuade the court that they did not use the defendants’ compelled testimony were all too often contradictory, unbelievable and lacking in credibility,” Judge Urbina wrote.

The judge also criticized prosecutors for withholding “substantial exculpatory evidence” from the grand jury that indicted the defendants, as well as for presenting “distorted versions” of witnesses’ testimony and improperly telling the grand jury that some incriminating statements had been made by the defendants but were being withheld. ......

and


from M.c
January 01, 2010
Associated Press

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."
....
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. ....

Judge Urbina's 90-page opinion (https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2008cr0360-217) was written after he held a 3-weeks long merits hearing on the USG's use of the statements. His bottom line on the relevant law and facts (pp. 1-3 of pdf):


The defendants have been charged with voluntary manslaughter and firearms violations arising out of a shooting that occurred in Baghdad, Iraq on September 16, 2007. They contend that in the course of this prosecution, the government violated their constitutional rights by utilizing statements they made to Department of State investigators, which were compelled under
a threat of job loss. The government has acknowledged that many of these statements qualify as compelled statements under Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967), which held that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination bars the government from using statements compelled under a threat of job loss in a subsequent criminal prosecution. The Fifth Amendment automatically confers use and derivative use immunity on statements compelled under Garrity; this means that in seeking an indictment from a grand jury or a conviction at trial, the government is prohibited from using such compelled statements or any evidence obtained as a result of those statements.

The government has also acknowledged that its investigators, prosecutors and key witnesses were exposed to (and, indeed, aggressively sought out) many of the statements given by the defendants to State Department investigators. Under the binding precedent of the Supreme Court in Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1971) and this Circuit in United States v. North, 910 F.2d 843 (D.C. Cir. 1990), the burden fell to the government to prove that it made no use whatsoever of these immunized statements or that any such use was harmless beyond any reasonable doubt.

Beginning on October 14, 2009, this court convened a Kastigar hearing to explore whether the government had made any use of compelled statements during its prosecution of the defendants. During this hearing, which spanned three weeks, the parties presented testimony from twenty-five witnesses, including the government’s entire prosecution team, the lead FBI agents in charge of the investigation and all five defendants. The parties offered hundreds of exhibits into evidence and submitted voluminous pre- and post-hearing memoranda.

From this extensive presentation of evidence and argument, the following conclusions ineluctably emerge. In their zeal to bring charges against the defendants in this case, the prosecutors and investigators aggressively sought out statements the defendants had been compelled to make to government investigators in the immediate aftermath of the shooting and
in the subsequent investigation. In so doing, the government’s trial team repeatedly disregarded the warnings of experienced, senior prosecutors, assigned to the case specifically to advise the trial team on Garrity and Kastigar issues, that this course of action threatened the viability of the prosecution. The government used the defendants’ compelled statements to guide its charging decisions, to formulate its theory of the case, to develop investigatory leads and, ultimately, to obtain the indictment in this case. The government’s key witnesses immersed themselves in the defendants’ compelled statements, and the evidence adduced at the Kastigar hearing plainly demonstrated that these compelled statements shaped portions of the witnesses’ testimony to the indicting grand jury.[2] The explanations offered by the prosecutors and investigators in an attempt to justify their actions and persuade the court that they did not use the defendants’ compelled testimony were all too often contradictory, unbelievable and lacking in credibility.

In short, the government has utterly failed to prove that it made no impermissible use of the defendants’ statements or that such use was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the court must dismiss the indictment against all of the defendants.

[2] In fact, the government has conceded that key testimony used to indict defendant Nicholas Slatten resulted from the exposure of grand jury witnesses to his compelled statements, and has moved for leave to dismiss the indictment against that defendant. See generally Govt’s Mot. for Leave to Dismiss Indictment Without Prejudice Against Def. Slatten.

I believe it is important to note that this is not a case where a clearly inculpatory confession is flipped and a clearly guilty on the facts defendant is set free. A great deal of conflicting evidence existed in this case; and as the judge noted, the USG suppressed exculpatory evidence in favor of the defendants (p. 83, n.63):


63 This reckless behavior was in keeping in with the way the prosecution conducted itself throughout the grand jury process, as it withheld the testimony of numerous percipient witnesses who had provided substantial exculpatory evidence to the first grand jury, presented the second grand jury with distorted and self-serving “summaries” of the accounts of other witnesses and implied to the second grand jury that the defendants had given inculpatory statements to State Department investigators which the government could not disclose to the grand jury because they were given “in exchange for immunity.” See supra Part II.A.9.

The defendants' DSS statements were mainly exculpatory. The USG used many of the facts in the statements (who, when and where weapons were fired - which the defendants claimed were in self-defense) to "build" its case. Which leads one to question what sort of contrived case the USG would have attempted to present at trail.

[jmm99]

The end of this case is reported here, Hat tips to David and Polarbear1605 (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=90251&postcount=20).

Some controversy will still exist as to whether the Rule of Law (a domestic US criminal prosecution) should have been employed in this case. Whether that be so or not, the Rule of Law (here the basic constitutional right of a US citizen not to be convicted by use of statements - here largely exculpatory - which were given immunity) was affirmed and set the defendants free.

Regards to all who contributed to this thread

Mike

[carl]

Mike:

i have 2 questions.

Can relatives of the victims sue Blackwater and the 5 guards in an Iraqi civil court?

Could the Iraqi gov. bring some sort of case before an international court?

I am curious if any of these are possible and what the likelyhood of success would be.

[jmm99]

Carl - I haven't the foggiest on the Iraqi Civil Code.

Blackwater and its employees were immune from prosecution under Iraqi criminal law because of an immunity agreement (from NYT article in other thread):


The guards could not be prosecuted under Iraqi law because of an immunity agreement that had been signed by the Coalition Provisional Authority, the governing authority installed by the United States after the invasion of Iraq.

Because of the way DoS Security and the DoJ-FBI handled the case, the Blackwater employees cannot be prosecuted under US criminal law - except for the guy who pleaded guilty and was flipped.

Of course, immunity from criminal prosecution does not mean immunity from civil actions for wrongful death (which could be based on as simple a theory as negligence). Again, from the NYT article:


In the Nisour Square shooting case, prosecutors did not charge Blackwater itself, but the families of several of the Iraqis who were killed have filed a civil lawsuit against the company, which has changed its name to Xe Services.

and from the AP article (also linked in the other thread):


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.

That case against Blackwater (as the target defendant) is discussed in the other thread - and appears to hinge on Iraqi civil law (see this post (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=79458&postcount=12)).

I have to admit dumbness; I'm not an SME on your questions.

Cheers

Mike

[sandbag]

My experiences with Blackwater have not been good. They really took on way too much work, and now hire just about anyone that can make their OIF rotation at Victory as a spoon sound sexy on a CV. If you see them downrange, run the other way, but not for any cool or sexy reasons.


Concur. 2 years hanging out in certain bars Bangkok, I met more than a few PMCs contractors, and "Blackwater" were bottom of the Sh*t list, as concerns competence. Horror stories abound, but how many were true, I don't know.

[tequila]

Pile-jumping a little bit, but Blackwater's anti-pirate navy has, in the words the USNI blog, sunk (http://blog.usni.org/2010/01/04/blackwaters-pirate-fighting-navy-has-sunk/).

[Stan]

In short, the government has utterly failed to prove that it made no impermissible use of the defendants’ statements or that such use was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the court must dismiss the indictment against all of the defendants.

Whoa Mike ! Don't they always do that (and get away with it) ?

[Fuchs]

Pile-jumping a little bit, but Blackwater's anti-pirate navy has, in the words the USNI blog, sunk (http://blog.usni.org/2010/01/04/blackwaters-pirate-fighting-navy-has-sunk/).

Wow, that's harsh.

It's more a roundhouse kick against fanboi milbloggers than a simple news about Xe. And he kicks one of his fellow USNI bloggers (Galrahn) by linking at his text at ID as a hype example.

"And few in the blogosphere bothered to do their due diligence–most just joined in the hype and began braying away (it’s a distressing habit that extends to the latest topic-of-the-day–be it ASBMs, piracy, or whatever–beware those who constantly hype the popular programs and suck up to the powerful people)."

Luckily, I ignored the sage completely on my blog and tried to keep the other fashion waves small as well.

The hyping of programs by MilBlogs is quite a large phenomenon, of course. The list of "enthusiastic" MilBlogs is long even if we ignore the commercial examples. Some MilBlogs sound like extensions of some public relations departments.

The SW Blog is not without fault either; the tunnel vision on the SW topic is a weak spot in itself.


About Xe; well, that's a symptom of a badly failed personnel policy and of red tape. It's not the problem itself.

[Presley Cannady]

Pile-jumping a little bit, but Blackwater's anti-pirate navy has, in the words the USNI blog, sunk (http://blog.usni.org/2010/01/04/blackwaters-pirate-fighting-navy-has-sunk/).

Complaint: there's too little widely disseminated trade news and background about security contracting.

Background: I currently rely on the sporadic attention of the mainstream press, milbloggers, and press releases for information. The politics behind contracting in the past decade or so have severely poisoned an already dry well.

Examples:
1) Springboard is an effectively nothing more than a useless, snarkier version of Matt Drudge when it comes to anything related to security contracting, especially where it concerns Xe. Case in point, the McArthur episode--after a year of "reporting" all I've learned is a) he really hates Xe, b) Xe hasn't won any contracts, and c) he really, really, hates Xe.
2) Galrahn loses interests after lampshading a new development.
3) David Isenberg is perpetually fixated on his "hiring locally" pet theory at the expense of broader developments in the field.

[Presley Cannady]

Wow, that's harsh.

The bark is worse than its bite. Bottom line, Xe sought takers in the West and for whatever reason found none after 1 year. Whether or not this is an indictment of the business model generally or a matter of execution requires more information. At least one guy (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-isenberg/the-right-way-to-use-priv_b_414169.html) is already calling for a split decision. Personally, I think all the words Galrahn, Isenberg, Shipboard and the milblogging community in general have offered on this topic don't amount much of anything.


About Xe; well, that's a symptom of a badly failed personnel policy and of red tape. It's not the problem itself.

I think we'd need some hostile workplace statistics in civilian maritime to properly place these incidents in context. Xe's under a tremendous spotlight as it is; hardly conditions that favor drawing accurate conclusions from such limited information.

[Fuchs]

I think we'd need some hostile workplace statistics in civilian maritime to properly place these incidents in context. Xe's under a tremendous spotlight as it is; hardly conditions that favor drawing accurate conclusions from such limited information.

I meant the regular forces with "failed personnel policy" and "red tape"

[Ken White]

I meant the regular forces with "failed personnel policy" and "red tape"In both cases... :(

[Pete]

Two defense contractors indicted in shooting of Afghans

By Jerry Markon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 8, 2010; A03


Two defense contractors working for a subsidiary of the former Blackwater Worldwide were charged with shooting and killing two Afghan citizens in Kabul and wounding a third, prosecutors said Thursday, the first slayings linked to the firm in that country and its latest legal blow.

Justin Cannon, 27, and Christopher Drotleff, 29, were indicted by a federal grand jury in Norfolk on murder and other charges in the May 5 shootings, in which the men opened fire with AK-47 assault rifles on a car that they said they thought was trying to run them down. The indictment was unsealed Thursday.

At the time of the shootings, the men were Pentagon contractors employed by Paravant LLC, a Blackwater subsidiary that specializes in firearms training. They were in Afghanistan to train that country's army in using and maintaining weapons systems and were transporting two Afghan translators at the time of the incident, their attorney said.

The charges are another legal black eye for Blackwater (now called Xe Services LLC), which has been under fire for a string of incidents in which its heavily armed guards have been accused of using excessive force overseas. But the controversy over the North Carolina company's tactics has focused on its actions in Iraq, where it has provided security under a State Department contract.

The indictment marks the first instance in which employees of a Blackwater-affiliated company have been charged for their actions during the war in Afghanistan.

That's only the beginning of the story--I'd post a link for the remainder but the Post website requires users to register.

[jmm99]

are at Cryptome (http://cryptome.org/cannon/usa-v-cannon.htm), including today's DoJ press release, case jacket and the docket card (which doesn't require PACER). The indictment is here (http://cryptome.org/cannon/003-1.pdf).

Judge Robert G. Doumar is assigned to the case. He is a Senior Judge (b. 1930), appointed by Pres. Reagan, who has a very interesting personal bio, as well as experience in GWOT cases (trial judge for Hamdi). See Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_G._Doumar) and official bio (http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=641).

[Pete]

Spotty service records for charged Xe guards

By Mike Baker - The Associated Press
Posted : Monday Jan 25, 2010 19:33:09 EST

RALEIGH, N.C. — A pair of former Blackwater contractors charged with murdering two people in Afghanistan had checkered pasts with the military before getting hired to work overseas, according to service records disclosed in recent U.S. court hearings.

The troubled backgrounds of the two men — including instances of violence, drug use and disregard for authority — are a first sign that Xe, the company formerly known as Blackwater, was staffing its war-zone workforce with contractors who might not be suited for the job.

The military typically keeps its detailed service records confidential. That makes it difficult to verify the conventional perception that Xe has long filled its rosters with decorated special forces personnel. In the cases of Chris Drotleff and Justin Cannon, prosecutors brought up their records while arguing at hearings this month that both men should be jailed pending their trials.

Drotleff’s three-year service in the Marine Corps ended with an other-than-honorable discharge in 2001 and a military record that included offenses for seven unauthorized absences, two failures to obey an order, assault, disrespect toward a noncommissioned officer and falsely altering a military ID card. Before his service with Blackwater in Afghanistan, the 29-year-old also faced a number of state convictions for reckless driving, disturbing the peace, assault and battery, resisting arrest and DWI.

Cannon, 27, was discharged from the Army after going AWOL and testing positive for cocaine. He later petitioned successfully to have his military records officially changed to an honorable discharge.

Both men were indicted by a federal grand jury in Virginia this month on two counts of second-degree murder, attempted murder and weapons charges in a 2009 shooting along a Kabul road. They had been in Afghanistan working for Xe subsidiary Paravant under a Department of Defense contract to provide weapons training to the Afghan National Army.

Their records were detailed in exhibits and arguments at detention hearings in Virginia and Texas this month. Cannon, of Corpus Christi, Texas, and Drotleff, of Virginia Beach, Va., have been ordered held in custody, with the federal judge in Drotleff’s hearing citing his “decade long pattern of refusing to obey laws orders and regulations.”

[BayonetBrant]

Complaint: there's too little widely disseminated trade news and background about security contracting.



Check out http://civiliancontractors.wordpress.com/

[bourbon]

Feds won't charge Blackwater in Sudan sanctions case (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/06/27/96579/obama-wont-charge-blackwater-with.html), by Warren P. Strobel, Jonathan S. Landay and Joseph Neff. McClatchy, 27 June 2010.

WASHINGTON — The security contractor Blackwater Worldwide tried for two years to secure lucrative defense business in Southern Sudan while the country was under U.S. economic sanctions, according to current and former U.S. officials and hundreds of pages of documents reviewed by McClatchy.

The effort to drum up new business in East Africa by Blackwater owner Erik Prince, a former Navy SEAL who had close ties with top officials in the George W. Bush White House and the CIA, became a major element in a continuing four-year federal investigation into allegations of sanctions violations, illegal exports and bribery.



After negotiating a $2 million draft contract to train Kiir's personal security detail, Blackwater in early 2007 drafted a detailed second proposal, valued at more than $100 million, to equip and train the south's army. Because the south lacked ready cash, Blackwater sought 50 percent of the south's untapped mineral wealth, a former senior U.S. official said.

In addition to its well-known oil and natural gas reserves, Southern Sudan has vast untapped reserves of gold, iron and diamonds.
I thought Jesus was against predatory lending?

[davidbfpo]

A NYT expose of a new PMC enterprise in the UAE (Persian Gulf), pre-dating recent events:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/world/middleeast/15prince.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

Hat tip to:http://www.enduringamerica.com

Moderator at Work

Today I have merged nine threads on Blackwater into one and so changed the thread title.(Ends)

[SWJ Blog]

‘Civilian Warriors: Blackwater and the War on Terror’ (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/%E2%80%98civilian-warriors-blackwater-and-the-war-on-terror%E2%80%99)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/%E2%80%98civilian-warriors-blackwater-and-the-war-on-terror%E2%80%99) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[davidbfpo]

A lengthy WSJ interview of Erik Prince. I suppose he is moving to where the $ can be made; Blackwater follows the pivot or are they the advance guard?

Link:http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303465004579324650302912522?mod=rs s_about_china&mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB1000 1424052702303465004579324650302912522.html%3Fmod%3 Drss_about_china&fpid=2,7,121,122,201,401,641,1009

[davidbfpo]

Security guards working for the private US contractor Blackwater have been found guilty of manslaughter in the deaths of a group of unarmed civilians at a crowded Baghdad traffic junction during one of the darkest incidents of the Iraq war. The massacre in 2007 left a total of 17 people dead and 20 seriously injured after the guards working for the US State Department fired heavy machine guns and grenade launchers from their armoured convoy in the mistaken belief it was under attack by insurgents.
During the trial’s emotional closing arguments (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/27/blackwater-trial-prosecution-closing-arguments), jurors were told of the “shocking amount of death, injury and destruction” that saw “innocent men, women and children mowed down” as they went about their business in downtown Baghdad.
The federal prosecutor Anthony Asuncion said: “These men took something that did not belong to them: the lives of 14 human beings. They were turned into bloody, bullet-riddled corpses at the hands of these men.”
“It must have seemed like the apocalypse was here,” said Asuncion in his closing argument, as he described how many were shot in the back, at long range, or blown up by powerful grenades used by the US contractors.


Link:http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/oct/22/us-jury-convicts-blackwater-security-guards-iraq

[davidbfpo]

Today a federal court finallys entenced four Blackwater contractors for the shooting / murder in Baghdad in 2007:
Three of the guards — Paul Slough, Evan Liberty and Dustin Heard — were each handed down 30-year sentences for voluntary and attempted manslaughter. Nicholas Slatten was sentenced to life in prison for first-degree murder.
Link:http://www.wbur.org/npr/399339092/blackwater-security-guards-handed-lengthy-sentences-for-iraqi-killings

As this report explains the door maybe shut, but this has happened before in this case.

[davidbfpo]

A long report on Erik Prince's company developing a militarised version of a "crop duster" for clients:https://theintercept.com/2016/04/11/blackwater-founder-erik-prince-drive-to-build-private-air-force/

Viktor Bout even had a role, leaving aside the Chinese investors.

[AdamG]

A long report on Erik Prince's company developing a militarised version of a "crop duster" for clients:https://theintercept.com/2016/04/11/blackwater-founder-erik-prince-drive-to-build-private-air-force/

Viktor Bout even had a role, leaving aside the Chinese investors.

Devil in the details.

Reference weapons pylons,

After failed attempts to acquire them through multiple countries, they conceded defeat. The plane would have to deploy without the pylons. But they instructed Airborne to begin building customized pylons capable of carrying both Russian and NATO munitions that could be added later. According to Prince’s original Thrush blueprint, the aim was to patent a new pylon. Creating such a device was a challenge, but Airborne’s engineers would eventually succeed in building it, according to the former Airborne employee. “It was really an impressive engineering accomplishment,” he said, pointing out that Western and Russian bombs required different mounts. “You could arm those aircraft with any weapons — NATO or Warsaw pact — with the pylons we built. It was kind of incredible.”

[CrowBat]

...and another one by Arnaud: Erik Prince’s Mercenaries Are Bombing#Libya (https://warisboring.com/erik-princes-mercenaries-are-bombing-libya-88fcb8e55292?mc_cid=926225d076&mc_eid=4a82c9f57e#.ihhjm6qtq)


On Jan. 11, 2017, Intelligence Online — a professional journal covering the world’s intelligence services — revealed that the pilots of Air Tractor attack planes flying from Al Khadim air base in Libya are private contractors working for Erik Prince, the founder of the company formerly known as Blackwater.

War Is Boring’s own sources in Libya confirmed the assertion. Our sources said that the pilots flying the United Arab Emirates Air Force IOMAX AT-802 Air Tractors — converted crop-dusters — are mercenaries and aren’t Arabs. Most of the for-profit aviators are American, according to IOL.
...

[AdamG]

The conversion of crop dusters into light attack aircraft had long been part of Prince’s vision for defeating terrorists and insurgencies in Africa and the Middle East. In Prince’s view, these single-engine fixed-wing planes, retrofitted for war zones, would revolutionize the way small wars were fought. They would also turn a substantial profit. The Thrush in Airborne’s hangar, one of two crop dusters he intended to weaponize, was Prince’s initial step in achieving what one colleague called his “obsession” with building his own private air force.


https://theintercept.com/2016/04/11/blackwater-founder-erik-prince-drive-to-build-private-air-force/

[AdamG]

Somewhat breathless update.

Blackwater’s Dark Prince Returns
A DECADE AFTER BLACKWATER’S RETREAT AMID SCANDAL AND A MASSACRE, ITS FOUNDER ERIK PRINCE WANTS TO PRIVATIZE AND SHRINK THE CONFLICT IN AFGHANISTAN. RECENT WHITE HOUSE TURNOVER HAS GIVEN HIS PLAN A FIGHTING SHOT
https://www.forbes.com/return-of-erik-prince/#3bc6587a50aa