Comments on: Rush to Judgement on Blackwater Defendants

By: Robin

Robin — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:07:29 +0000

MAJ Pairmore,
Well said. I very much agree with you. The problem is more ethically than legally based. If I am out of date, I am truly sorry for our country. While I was on active duty, soldiers were supposed to protect people, as well as complete their mission. I cannot reconcile that a diplomat’s or contractor’s life is intrinsically more valuable than a citizen in his own neighborhood. Who makes that decision? PO Luttrell and his team-mates decided that their lives were NOT more valuable than a little Afghan girl. That was the correct moral decision to make. Unfortunately, they did not accomplish their mission. Who is right? I guess we will have to leave that to God.
I know that this difficulty is being thought of in a lot of places. Right now, it is food for thought. What would you, personally, decide? Instead of a 3 year old Iraqi girl, imagine it was your son or daughter, or niece. Now what is your decision? It shouldn’t depend on a person’s nationality.
Respectfully,

By: James Pairmore

James Pairmore — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 01:59:26 +0000

As an actively serving US Army Major currently in the CGSC/ILE program with over 20 years of service and numerous deployments, I feel compelled to express some personal opinions on the subject about the 6 former Blackwater employees. The security contractors fulfill a vital mission in our nation’s security at great personal sacrifice deserving our gratitude and support. Their portrayal as mere mercenaries is unjust and harmful.
The US government employed security contractors to fill a role that is traditionally performed by the military or the Department of State’s (DOS) World Wide Protective Service (WWPS). Since 1995 the DOS has faced increasingly greater security concerns due to terrorism and working in hostile environments which over taxed the capabilities of the WWPS. The solution was to utilize security contractors. Right or wrong, this is the reality our government faced. These security contractors have served our nation in harm’s way often with valor and distinction. Blackwater alone has suffered over 36 casualties. Many in the public think these men and women are nothing more than mercenaries. I would argue that if money alone were their only objective, they could likely find reasonable compensation with less risk of harm elsewhere. These men were protecting America’s diplomats. Diplomats that themselves were risking their lives in a difficult asymmetrical war zone. Personal protection services are amongst the riskiest and most difficult missions to accomplish. In order to protect, they must constantly expose themselves and put the lives of their charges above their own. This is no small sacrifice in a war characterized by suicide bombers, car bombs, improvised explosive devices, and extremist terrorists. Those that haven’t served in today’s combat environments would have difficulty imagining the confusion and chaos of an urban engagement in Iraq. It’s not like a movie that is clear cut with bad guys brandishing guns and exposing themselves. The fog of war is ever present and our men and women serving must make split second decisions. It’s no different for a security contractor employed by our government than for a uniformed service member when it comes to the dangers. Hesitation can result in mission failure and loss even more so when you are charged with protecting others.
My hope is that the accused former security contractors will receive a fair trial and not be prosecuted by the media and public before they have their day in court. These are American’s that answered our nation’s call in a time of war. We should respect that and acknowledge their service and give the same support we would any American accused of a crime- innocence until proven guilty. Our nation owes them that.
The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

By: Brian Richard Allen

Brian Richard Allen — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 13:06:12 +0000

They’re not mercenaries, Bugs.

They’re the incredibly brave men who put their lives on the line to replace the American Military Men the “administration” of the treasonous, recidivist, lying, looting, thieving, mass-murdering, co-serial-rapist incidental “president,” Billy-Bubbah Blythe, (”Cli’ton”) blew off (if you’ll pardon the expression) while the whore-Monica moaned him the blues in our once most hallowed house’s once most hallowed office.

Brian Richard Allen
Los Angeles – califUBAMAcated 90028

By: Robin

Robin — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 04:37:36 +0000

Tom,
Don’t pay any attention to robotech. I don’t pay any attention to people like that. He/she is just trying to get a reaction. Just FYI, I was a BCTP Intel Controller and ROE was a big deal.
Robin

By: Tom Holsinger

Tom Holsinger — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 01:18:06 +0000

BTW, Robin got me thinking of the proper analogy to this Blackwater Security incident, and here it is – an armed robbery of a Brinks Company armored car, which is operated by two Brinks security guards.

So one of the Brinks guards opens fire on the robbers, and there is a firefight in which all three robbers are killed, along with one of the two Brinks guards (the one who started the shooting) and two wholly innocent bystanders across the street. And forensic evidence shows the two by-standers were killed by bullets from the gun of the surviving Brinks guard, who was not the one who started the shooting.

Would the local district attorney bring involuntary manslaughter charges, with firearms enhancements, against the suriving Brinks guard for killing the bystanders? If he did, would the guard be aquitted given a reasonable defense on self-defense and defense of another (the latter of the now-dead guard)? Again, assume the robbers are dead. Also assume that the surviving guard fired wildly, and contrary to his firearms training from Brinks.

I just don’t see any criminal liability here. Civil liability for wrongful death, payable by damages to the dead bystanders’ families might be proper, but not being found guilty of a crime.

The Blackwater guards here drove straight into a setup by Iranian Revolutionary Guards who had already created an on-going incident for the express purpose of making Blackwater look bad. The Iranians succeeded, but that makes the Blackwater personnel as much victims of enemy action as the people they purportedly shot.

Not to mention that the Revolutionary Guards might alo have shot some of the Iraqi victims themselves, and blamed it on Blackwater complete with planted evidence.

By: robotech master

robotech master — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 01:17:02 +0000

I think you give him way way to much credit plus I find his claim of being military highly doubtful…

I also think you assume/read way to much in his beliefs…

I’ve watched similar propaganda artists run amok on other boards running an almost parallel story line…

By: Tom Holsinger

Tom Holsinger — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:31:59 +0000

robotech,

Robin knows the BwS guards were all ex-military. That is why he holds them to the higher standard of the U.S. military’s rules of engagement.

Robin’s problem is that they were NOT subject to the ROE, or the UCMJ, because they were non-military private contractors working for the State Department, and so subject only to Title 18 of the United States Code under the extra-territorial (aka “long-arm”) jurisdiction doctrine.

Legally they’ll walk. The only offenses for which they could be convicted are those chargeable under the UCMJ, and they were not subject to UCMJ jurisdiction. Title 18 of the United States Code simply cannot apply to the purported over-reaction of these BwS personnel to an ambush by Iranian Revolutionary Guards in a war zone.

IMO you owe him an apology for your tone. Legally he is wrong, but he was not offensive, and you are over-reacting.

By: robotech master

robotech master — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:00:34 +0000

To 26. Robin

Please please make it easier…

“These guys were contractors and their fear for their lives more than justifies killing civilians.”
“I can assure you that most professional soldiers do not blindly spray the crowd with gunfire.”

You are truly a smacktard… does your simple lying fake saying your in the military anti-war soldier hating talking points ever stop… ALL OF THE BLACK WATER GUARDS ARE EX-MILITARY YOU ****ING IDIOT…

Before you stop using anti-war bash soldier talking points of the “new age” where you try to pretend to support soldiers do a little ****ing research….

You run a classic new aged anti-war propaganda set… now STFU

“Even if they were under attack, the Blackwater guys over reacted beyond anything that was reasonable.”

Your opinion of what you think you know is retarded at best…. You use only emotion and lies to make your case… no facts… no laws…

By: Tom Holsinger

Tom Holsinger — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 21:33:54 +0000

Robin,

BwS personnel are not subject to the UCMJ, and violating ROE under fire is a UCMJ offense. Whether armed government contractors can be made subject to the UCMJ by contract and/or by the host government as a condition of entry into the country was a thread at the Volokh Conspiracy. Here’s the link:

http://volokh.com/posts/1228850137.shtml

These BwS personnel are being charged with a Title 18 U.S.C. offense, and their affirmative defense is both self-defense AND “defense of another” for which your reference to ROE is irrelevant. Here’s a link to a “defense of another” explanation:

http://volokh.com/posts/1176499503.shtml#205702

Basically these BwS are not guilty of the only possible 18 USC charges against them because the federal criminal code is simply not fitted to address matters which arise only in a military combat situation. And, as Professor Cassell noted in his opening post on the Volokh Conspiracy thread, DOJ has way over-reached in its charges because it knows how weak its case is.

I repeat, here, one of my comments in the Volokh thread – http://volokh.com/posts/1228850137.shtml#500567:

“Bear in mind that this incident was a not especially covert operation by Iranian Revolutionary Guards operating from the Iraqi ministry building near where the initial IED detonated.

There is a marvelous opportunity here for criminal defense counsel to demand discovery from all of US intelligence about the nature and extent of Iranian operations in Iraq, and to expose it in open court.

This is further evidence that the prosecution here is a “show trial”. It is not intended to produce convictions at trial, because then the prosecutors would have to provide incredibly secret intelligence information as discovery and watch it on television during the trial. It is obvious that charges will be dismissed against those defendants who insist on trial.

This Blackwater Security prosecution is only intended to produce propaganda. The only convictions it might produce will come via plea bargains by psychologically weak and vulnerable defendants. The prosecutors would deem it a victory if they can induce any such defendants to commit suicide too.

The government’s prosecution of Steve Hatfill and his replacement as scapegoat, who did commit suicide, and the failure of its Haditha prosecutions, are reasonable evidence of the government’s bad faith, lack of credibilty and lack of legitimacy in these sorts of prosecutions.

The Blackwater charges here are clearly political, and highly likely utterly devoid of merit.”

By: Robin

Robin — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 21:08:35 +0000

Tom,
OK, I couldn’t stay away. Yours is an argument I can respect. I’m very familiar with the scenario you outlined. I spent 17 years as an MI officer. I never gave any credence to the Haditha charges since it was fairly evident that it was faked. I was a Bn 2 and a Bde 2 (twice) and have investigated those types of incidents before. Anything reported more than 18 hours after the fact is, more often than not, fabricated or a lie.
Having been employed at CALL, I can assure you that most professional soldiers do not blindly spray the crowd with gunfire. Even if they were under attack, the Blackwater guys over reacted beyond anything that was reasonable. Mostly, they need to admit that they were wrong and to act like real men. Real men admit when they screwed up; they don’t make excuses.