This story is archived
F.B.I. Says Blackwater Killed 14 Iraqis Without Cause »
Posted by: Aidenag 1 year, 12 months agoFederal agents investigating the Sept. 16 episode in which Blackwater security personnel shot and killed 17 Iraqi civilians have found that at least 14 of the shootings were unjustified and violated deadly-force rules in effect for security contractors in Iraq, according to civilian and military officials briefed on the case.
Read Full Story at nytimes.com »
Submitted By:
Aidenag
Photographer by day, news junkie by night. My main areas of interest are politics and the environment.
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 220
-
gamahuche
Nov. 14, 2007, 4:59 a.m.FTA
Representative David E. Price, a North Carolina Democrat who has sponsored legislation to extend American criminal law to contractors serving overseas, said the Justice Department must hold someone accountable for the shootings.
"Just because there are deficiencies in the law, and there certainly are," Mr. Price said, "that can't serve as an excuse for criminal actions like this to be unpunished. I hope the new attorney general makes this case a top priority. He needs to announce to the American people and the world that we uphold the rule of law and we intend to pursue this."
...
Investigators found no evidence to support assertions by Blackwater employees that they were fired upon by Iraqi civilians. That finding sharply contradicts initial assertions by Blackwater officials, who said that company employees fired in self-defense and that three company vehicles were damaged by gunfire.
-
gamahuche
Nov. 14, 2007, 6:30 a.m.If there is anyone who's willing to predict what his verdict will be and/or who would be willing to make a thoughtful attempt to explain what distinguishes the Blackwater action from terrorism I'd be very interested to hear it.
Seriously! These are not trick questions. You will NOT go to Jail without passing GO.
-
not2needy
Nov. 14, 2007, 7:29 a.m.I saw this on the news! It's pitiful what these people are capable of doing with our govt's blessing!
-
gamahuche
Nov. 14, 2007, 10:02 p.m.>>it's true gamahuche - they are terrorists!
Ah!
And well-paid too - unless ALL of those millions are going into the boss's back pocket and/or being recycled to the Karl Rove poker fund.
-
Charlson
Nov. 14, 2007, 10:45 a.m.They're trying to pass a bill now to include private contractors as subject to the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, or MEJA.
A few years too late. Why were these loose cannons given the license to kill without recourse?
-
BuffaloJ
Nov. 14, 2007, 10:46 a.m."recklessly used lethal force" = MURDER
fry those involved and go after those in our countries administration that are trying to protect them.
-
Will1313
Nov. 14, 2007, 10:50 a.m.The head of Enron was held responsible for the actions of his company..
WHY IS THE HEAD OF BLACKWATER NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTIONS OF HIS EMPLOYEES...
-
-
tehranchik
Nov. 14, 2007, 11:09 a.m.From the article: "Prosecutors have yet to decide whether to seek indictments, and some officials have expressed pessimism that adequate criminal laws exist to enable them to charge any Blackwater employee with criminal wrongdoing."
FBI investigates, finds fault with Blackwater, now they have to make up their little minds about charging or not? OMG!
-
crespi
Nov. 14, 2007, 11:19 a.m.Blackwater is a true threat to our National security.
Disband it now.
-
Wolfie2007
Nov. 14, 2007, 11:27 a.m.Now, now don't get too excited little libs. The investigation isn't even over and after all this article did come from the NY Times. You guys are always jumping the shark. lol
-
AbuAmirahComment has been removed: Spammer, Hard Banned
-
hamy
Nov. 14, 2007, 11:52 a.m.Why is Bush hiring mercenaries to do the jobs typically done by the millitary? Is it a private millitary force? Is it because the millitary itself is not capable of protecting dignitaries? Or is it to funnel government money back to his supporters?
Which is it?
-
HomeGManComment has been removed: Retracted by user
-
-
Will1313
Nov. 14, 2007, 2:12 p.m.well ABNTV.. you have been able to provide NO credible sources for your rants.. you and WOLFIE... nothing of substance from either of you...
negger and a moron..
-
abntv
Nov. 14, 2007, 2:24 p.m.I have provided a link to the use of private security units around the world in an above post.
I will leave this thread with this statement.
The use of private security units is legal and has been used by countries all over the world. Look it up..try a little google..if you do not like the link I gave you.
If you do not like the idea of private security forces guarding U.S. diplomats contact your Senator and tell them to change the law.
-
-
MonkeyBiz
Nov. 14, 2007, 4:14 p.m.I think that if the USA is going to hire private military forces (that is exactly what they are), the personnel in those companies should be subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Right now, their lethal actions in Iraq may have a muddied legal solution in the USA, but gunning down innocent civilians is a war crime. Put them in the cell next to the Serbians who are being tried at the Hague.
BTW - The US Marines have always been in charge of the security of our overseas embassys (including personnel). During the Vietnam conflict, the US Army provided war time security with Military Police.
It is only since the repugs have been in power that outsourcing government responsibilities and functions has become popular. There is no historic precedence for the US government to hire private military forces to protect anyone or anything and our military has never needed any help to fight our wars.
-
Truzseeker
Nov. 14, 2007, 4:14 p.m.Todays mercenaries, tomorrows "law enforcement officers". The entire organization needs to be dismantled.
-
IanFraigun
Nov. 14, 2007, 4:24 p.m.Bottom line to this whole incident.
We forced the Iraqi government to hold our contractors harmless for any actions taken. We also have contracted with them that they would be held harmless for acts outside this country.
We simply built a structure where you can do anything you want and there is no accountability for anything you do of you are a contractor in Iraq.
Is there anyone gulliable enough to think that those contractors would not take advantage of the situation for a little target practice on Iraqi civilians.
Yes the contractors involved should be held accountable, but this administration also needs to be held accountable for defining the rules that allowed such actions to occur without any recourse to accountability or punishment of those involved.
-
Jaydee40
Nov. 14, 2007, 4:47 p.m.Im sorry but the crime happened in Iraq, let Iraqi law handle it. If the country does not have any current laws regarding these killings let the old law deal with it.
-
joeblowe
Nov. 14, 2007, 5:08 p.m.Contrary to what GWB would have everyone believe, Iraq is NOT currently a war zone as defined by our Constitution - we are NOT at war with Iraq. As far as I know, there is NO reason for "independent contractors" (read: mercenaries) to be working on our payroll there. The sovereign nation of Iraq has, I presume, laws against killing people. In the absence of ANY justification for self defense here, these armed felons committed murder, plain and simple. I wonder what the penalty is for murder in Iraq? I'll bet it isn't pretty. Say, do they still allow murderers to skate by paying off the families of those they killed?
-
xlegultx
Nov. 14, 2007, 5:14 p.m.Private army with a CEO who thinks his organization is better than the United States army. Blackwater could stage a Coup d'état and you would have to wake up tomorrow morning worshiping these thugs.
-
Dicax_Maximus
Nov. 14, 2007, 5:26 p.m.Little question for all....
Were you there ?
Do you KNOW what happened (as opposed to what you saw on CNN or other news media) ???
Given what/where/when, i'd wait until PROOF was supplied.. Yes, before you all shout at me, I've read the same reports, BUT, I also know an ex-special forces person rather well, and that these people, mostly ex-special forces, reacted like a bunch of gunslingers, he found beyond contempt. I'd rather take his word on reactions to situations, than either a PC journalist or a (possibly ???) biased local....
-
lovermanComment has been removed: Retracted by user
The first 200 comments are shown. Show all 220 comments »
Submit a Story
Advertisement
