« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
DoJ tells Congress: Prosecuting Blackwater for Nisour Square Shootings Will Be Mighty Difficult
Justice Department officials have told Congress that they face serious legal difficulties in pursuing criminal prosecutions of Blackwater security guards involved in a September shooting that left at least 17 Iraqis dead.In a private briefing in mid-December, officials from the Justice and State Departments met with aides to the House Judiciary Committee and other Congressional staff members and warned them that there were major legal obstacles that might prevent any prosecution....
The officials from the Justice and State Departments “didn’t say they weren’t going to prosecute,” said one Congressional aide who attended the briefing. “They said there would be a lot of difficulties.”
To review: it's debatable whether Blackwater can even be prosecuted because they don't seem to be covered by any law. Beyond that, the State Department provided the Blackwater guards involved in the incident with limited immunity in order to get their version of events, thus further compromising the investigation. And don't forget that Blackwater quickly mended the trucks involved in the incident, destroying key evidence as to whether the guards were actually under attack when they opened fire (Blackwater says that State gave them the green light to do that).
So those are the difficulties. The DoJ did launch a grand jury investigation after the FBI determined that the guards had indeed opened fire without provocation. But don't hold your breath.
Comments (24)
jc wrote on January 16, 2008 2:52 PM:This is just more bullshit spin from Bush. They could easily be tried under war crimes statutes.
No matter how much Bush & Cheney hate it, those Geneva Conventions do apply.
UnkleBry wrote on January 16, 2008 3:10 PM:We keep hearing how "the State Department" did this or that. No, State Department employees did this or that. Congress should demand the names of each individual involved and demand prosecution of them. They are subject to U.S. law. Lower levels would quickly turn on upper levels and we'd see how high up the coverup goes.
Billy Pilgrim wrote on January 16, 2008 3:12 PM:In addition, Congress should refuse to pay Blackwater's bills and cancel all existing contracts. Let them fight it out in court, with depositions under oath etc.
But of course Congress will do nothing.
Thank you jc for that reminder. Although murder for sport by Blackwater is protected under Bush administration policy, the rest of the world may not agree Blackwater has the right to randomly slaughter civilians.
Billy Pilgrim wrote on January 16, 2008 3:39 PM:Why is the being considered as a purely internal matter? Why isn't this case being brought before an international court where it more appropriately belongs?
nofltwlt wrote on January 16, 2008 3:44 PM:So what? They deserve to be prosecuted. The negative publicity will do the GOP well - for Americans.
marc wrote on January 16, 2008 4:08 PM:There is a simple and elegant solution to DOJ's problem. Wave immunity and turn Blackwater's employees over to the Iraqis. If this were a real possibility the speed in which Blackwaters shooters would start a circular firing squad to pass blame would be astounding. Also if DOJ really does have no bases for prosecution, under any jurisdiction, than it would be only the right thing to do for the sake of justice and the rule of law. Of course we are not really serious about freedom and democracy in Iraq. It's the oil stupid!
steambomb wrote on January 16, 2008 4:40 PM:No matter how much Bush & Cheney hate it, those Geneva Conventions do apply.
No matter how much Bush & Cheney hate it, those Geneva Conventions do apply.
JC, That statement cannot be voiced enough. Are we part of the world community or not. Globalist sure seem to think so when it suits their economic needs. Seems a pity to have a double standard when it comes to murder and war crimes.
JMOHR wrote on January 16, 2008 5:09 PM:I am waiting for the trolls to start on how horrible it is that we should condemn these wonderfull Americans prior to their trial and the finding of theri guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
We need to press for action against this contractor. A criminal prosecution may be an appropriate remedy. However, it is unlikely. Disbarment from federal contracts and other contractual remedies are not out of the question. Indeed, the destruction of evidence, claims of sexual harassment and fraudulent billing practices would easily support the disbarrment of this contractor.
hope4usa wrote on January 16, 2008 5:15 PM:Fine can't prosecute them....eliminate them as a contractor of any kind from Federally funded programs. They'll go out of business.
Persona non grata wrote on January 16, 2008 5:40 PM:Blackwater security guards
You mean mercenaries.
Geneva Not Applicable? wrote on January 16, 2008 6:30 PM:Link "Geneva Not Applicable" discusses at length a legal theory to prosecute Blackwater under the principle of "higher duty" or "clear and present responsibility" under Geneva. If the US will not enforce Geneva, then Blackwater employees should have known they were acting outside Geneva, not complying with the laws of war, and all information they gave could not enjoy any protections of that legal system they were not fully operating.
If the US will not enforce Geneva against Blackwater -- regardless the holes in US law -- then the US is sending a mixed signal: Those operating outside the law during interrogations can use evidence to prosecute; while those acting outside the law during combat can be immune from prosecution. This appears to tell the world: The US is not fully enforcing Geneva; and those acting outside the protections recognized at Nuremberg are impermissibly relying on legal principles they openly defy.
The solution may be for the US to decline prosecution because the US is not willing to fully enforce Geneva; but turn the Blackwater contractors over to the ICC. MCA would provide full legal costs to Blackwater, regardless the trial verdict.
Mary wrote on January 16, 2008 7:10 PM:Well, under the Mr. B's CPA Order, isn't all that is needed is for the US to defer back to Iraq? I think that is spelled out in the Order, that it is not an order that confers benefit directly on the contractors and the sponsoring country can waive their rights and allow Iraq to have jurisdiction.
If the contractors have returned to the US, then in addition to deferring to Iraq, we can extradite the individuals back.
See - problem solved. If Iraq's Ministry of Justice is looking for interrogation guidelines, apparently the Bybee Memo translates well.
Anonymous wrote on January 16, 2008 8:32 PM:Geneva Not Applicable? wrote on January 16, 2008 6:30 PM
Content was deleted/truncated.
Anyone have a copy of the original content at the link before it was removed?
truglass wrote on January 16, 2008 9:17 PM:I just "decided" that I'm not covered by any laws either. I can do that, right? Right?
parrot wrote on January 16, 2008 11:06 PM:And that's why we need an international war crimes tribunal to straighten this all out...
SadButTrue wrote on January 16, 2008 11:22 PM:I learned a new word from Jonathan Turley a while back - SPOLIATION. It's the willful destruction of evidence. Not only is it criminal in and of itself, but it allows the finder of fact in any subsequent legal proceeding to interpret all other evidence in a manner least favorable to the spoliator and most favorable to the opposition.
-Apply this principle. (in this case the repaired trucks are the destroyed evidence)
-Repeat as necessary.
Wikipedia: Spoliation of Evidence
rik @ work wrote on January 17, 2008 8:42 AM:To hard to prosecute?
We used to tell people we worked for (I'm a carpenter) that "we can do the hard jobs - the impossible will take us a little while longer". The Justice department does not want to upset Bush and the powers above them. Not to mention the campaign contributions. I'm so sick of all this I could puke.
marc wrote on January 18, 2008 2:04 PM:Can we please live by our laws and Constitution?
Re "Truck repairs could cloud evidence" (AP, Monitor Nation & World section, Jan. 12):
Your article about maintenance made to Blackwater vehicles failed to mention several critical points.
First, the majority of vehicles used by Blackwater under our contract to protect and defend U.S. government officials are owned by the U.S. government. Blackwater cannot repair, modify or add to these vehicles without direction from the government.
The alterations to the vehicles in question were made before any outside investigations were launched. And they were initiated after the completion of the State Department's own incident review which included photo documentation of all damage.
Furthermore, these changes were made to all vehicles in expectation of the all-too-frequent attacks by insurgents - not just the vehicles involved in the Sept. 16 incident. The vehicles being used were easily identifiable by color and were painted as a precautionary measure in case they were being specifically targeted.
Well-maintained vehicles are essential in supporting Blackwater's defensive mission. At least 10 Blackwater professionals have been killed or permanently maimed in vehicle attacks.
Had the company been asked to refrain from altering the appearance of any of the vehicles in question, we would have agreed. Blackwater would like to see accurate results of investigations as much as anyone else. The company continues to cooperate fully with these investigations.
ANNE E. TYRRELL
Moyock, N.C.
(The writer is director of public affairs for Blackwater Worldwide.)
Nothing this woman has uttered on behalf of Blackwater over the last year has been able to pass the giggle test. She is obviously an inept public relations spokesperson, but I can see a possible future on the "Comedy Channel", kinda like the "Colbert Report". The joke would be that she would really think she was being serious.
Robert Greenwood wrote on January 18, 2008 2:17 PM:It's ironic that marine grunts can be tried in court martial for doing their jobs too well, but "civilian" law contractors (mercenaries) have an immunity clause. this after Bush allows border control grunts and military grunts to be thrown under the bus. The marine commandant reportedly "convicted" seven marines in San Diego, saying they were guilty of murder even before they were charged — the same jerks that tries Lt pantano twice for the same offense under military injustice — which Pantano beat both times. the higher ranking military and State Department should be the ones on trial.
marc wrote on January 18, 2008 2:28 PM:Marine grunts and border patrol agents don't get billion dollar no bid contracts. They can't kick back millions for right wing Republican causes so there is no reason why the Administration would lift a finger to help them.
Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 8:29 PM:Where are the photos of the damage Blackwater says were taken _before_ the vehicles were repaired?
What does the US government contract require of Blackwater in writing to ensure alleged war crimes investigations are complete?
Does the Blackwater contract include any responsibilities under Geneva to fully cooperate with alleged war crimes investigation?
Where are the vehicles, the subject of the investigation, now located; how are they being used today?
Has Blackwater provided a full copy of all maintenance records of _these vehicles_ to investigators, even repairs _after_ the original "incident related repairs"?
How does the Blackwater maintenance post-event on these vehicles square with other documentation about other vehicles: Is there more information about _these vehicles_; or, conversely, does Blackwater have any issues with comparing maintenance repairs of _these vehicles_ with other maintenance records of other vehicles?
It would be a problem if the records are available for the vehicles in question, but there are less extensive records for other vehicles. This would suggest the attention to these vehicles, even after the original incident, was unusual, warranting further inquiry.
Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 8:34 PM:Why should Blackwater employees, who allegedly operate "outside" US laws, believe they are entitled to enjoy protections of US laws, and believe a "grant of immunity in exchange for truthful testimony" is enforceable?
When did the _court_ grant to the Blackwater employees the grant of immunity? [The _court_ didn't grant immunity; which _legal counsel_ should have known, and advised employees against testifying]
Why were Blackwater employees, allegedly operating "beyond US law" believing a _non-court-grant_ of immunity would be enforceable? [No reasonable basis for belief]
Could it not be argued Blackwter employees were induced, under foreseeable coercion, to believe something that was not true; and they should have known the "promise of immunity, because it was not from a court" was not enforceable? [Indeed, possible]
Why didn't legal counsel with Blackwater warn employees that because they were operating "outside US law" in Iraq, any promise of immunity under US law is not enforceable? [Issue with atty standards of conduct, due diligence? Perhaps.]
Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 8:38 PM:Saying, "it will be difficult to prosecute Blackwater under US law" is absurd: The _Supreme_ law includes Geneva. The real issue: The President has not included within his regulations/oversight, as commander in chief, rules that will fully _implement_ Geneva's well promulgated requirements, enforceable through the oath to the US Constitution/Treaties, 5 USC 3331.
The problem isn't the law; the issue is the unwillingness of DoJ to fully enforce Geneva. Treaties do not have to be recodified by Congress; they must be implemented by the President with orders, regulations, and directives. They were not.
Geneva, as DoJ should well know, was not fully implemented by this President's policies. Blackwater was not adequately overseen; nor was there a mechanism in place under the President to ensure all combatants fully complied with his rules to fully implement Geneva.
consume the consumer wrote on January 28, 2008 2:39 PM:Yes, incredibly hard to prosecute when you don't even try. And as for what law the contractors broke . . . hmmmm, conspiracy, tax evasion, mail and wire fraud, obstruction of justice and a whole host of other crimes used by the DOJ to prosecute low-level drug dealers, mortgage fraudsters and others come to mind. They just need to be as creative abaout prosecuting their cronies as they are about prosecuting minorities and those at the lower end of the economic spectrum (we can't all be rich, born-again mercenaries, can we now?)