DebateGate

General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: BSB on December 08, 2008, 01:34:25 PM

Title: 35-Count Indictment Against Blackwater Employees
Post by: BSB on December 08, 2008, 01:34:25 PM
The New York Times
Monday, December 8, 2008 -- 12:09 PM ET
-----
5 Guards Are Charged With Manslaughter in Iraq Deaths

The Justice Department unsealed a 35-count indictment charging five guards for Blackwater Worldwide with manslaughter, attempted manslaughter and weapons violations in a 2007 shooting in Baghdad that killed at least 17 Iraqi civilians.

Read More:
http://www.nytimes.com/?emc=na (http://www.nytimes.com/?emc=na)
Title: Re: 35-Count Indictment Against Blackwater Employees
Post by: richpo64 on December 08, 2008, 02:22:23 PM
Yeah, this should be good. The question is, what authority does the US government have in Iraq? Isn't the Iraqi government is charge? There are plenty of legal questions to be sorted out here.

I understand Blackwater is offering it's services to protect the shipping lanes against pirates. Good for them. Bush isn't going to do it, he doesn't need the headaches. Barry doesn't have the balls, so let a private company TCB.
Title: Re: 35-Count Indictment Against Blackwater Employees
Post by: Knutey on December 08, 2008, 02:35:39 PM
Yeah, this should be good. The question is, what authority does the US government have in Iraq? Isn't the Iraqi government is charge? There are plenty of legal questions to be sorted out here.

I understand Blackwater is offering it's services to protect the shipping lanes against pirates. Good for them. Bush isn't going to do it, he doesn't need the headaches. Barry doesn't have the balls, so let a private company TCB.

Great idea ! Instead of krispy kritters like they were in Falluja, they will be waterlogged kritters.
(http://www.historycommons.org/events-images/a140_blackwater_massacre_2050081722-13250.jpg)
http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?us_occupation_of_iraq_tmln_contractors=us_occupation_of_iraq_tmln_blackwater_usa&timeline=us_occupation_of_iraq_tmln (http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?us_occupation_of_iraq_tmln_contractors=us_occupation_of_iraq_tmln_blackwater_usa&timeline=us_occupation_of_iraq_tmln)


Title: Re: 35-Count Indictment Against Blackwater Employees
Post by: kimba1 on December 08, 2008, 02:47:43 PM
that`s the rub about blackwater.
they`re not subject to the same restriction as a U.S.soldier so in truth they are a great liability in iraq.
they are commiting acts on iraqi soil but are not subject to iraqi law.
that`s a easy recipe for another war and a blackwater lawyer no matter right he is can`t fix it by saying it`s legal.
notice blackwater pulled out when it`s announced they will now be subject to military code of conduct.
Title: Re: 35-Count Indictment Against Blackwater Employees
Post by: richpo64 on December 08, 2008, 02:52:46 PM
Why aren't the subject to Iraqi law?
Title: Re: 35-Count Indictment Against Blackwater Employees
Post by: kimba1 on December 08, 2008, 03:05:23 PM
got no idea
for some reason contractors get some kind of diplomatic immunity .
but we now see the end result of such unregulated immunity.
Title: Re: 35-Count Indictment Against Blackwater Employees
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on December 08, 2008, 03:30:50 PM
Why aren't the subject to Iraqi law?

===========
Neither US troops nor mercenaries hired by the US are subject to Iraqi law, or at least this was the case until recently. US troops can be courtmartialed under the UCMJ, but Blackwater and other mercenaries were exempt from that, too.
Title: Re: 35-Count Indictment Against Blackwater Employees
Post by: kimba1 on December 08, 2008, 03:51:59 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/08/blackwater-iraq-shooting-guards (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/08/blackwater-iraq-shooting-guards)

note the last paragraph
Title: Re: 35-Count Indictment Against Blackwater Employees
Post by: BSB on December 08, 2008, 05:40:20 PM
Iraqi law?

"Bring in the 5 defendents please." (3 Blackwater employees come into the Iraqi courtroom.) "Where are the others?" asks the judge. "Ah, they were beaten to death last night, your honor." says the prosetor. "Approach the bench." says the judge. (the prosector approaches the bench)"Did you get their wallets?" asks the judge.     
Title: Re: 35-Count Indictment Against Blackwater Employees
Post by: BSB on December 08, 2008, 05:45:49 PM
should be "prosecutor"
Title: Re: 35-Count Indictment Against Blackwater Employees
Post by: richpo64 on December 08, 2008, 06:50:57 PM
>>Neither US troops nor mercenaries hired by the US are subject to Iraqi law, or at least this was the case until recently.<<

That's what the article says about Iraqi law. So what happened recently? Looks like Iraq can prosecute them. The libtard (BO) says they can't be charged, he's obviously wrong ... again.

The anti-American folks at the Justice Department want to prosecute these Blackwater agents using a US law banning automatic weapons designed to go after crack dealers. Huh?

Yeah, good luck with that.

Like I said before, there's a real question of wether or not the JD can actually prosecute them for events overseas.
Title: Re: 35-Count Indictment Against Blackwater Employees
Post by: Knutey on December 08, 2008, 07:03:10 PM
>>Neither US troops nor mercenaries hired by the US are subject to Iraqi law, or at least this was the case until recently.<<

That's what the article says about Iraqi law. So what happened recently? Looks like Iraq can prosecute them. The libtard (BO) says they can't be charged, he's obviously wrong ... again.

The anti-American folks at the Justice Department want to prosecute these Blackwater agents using a US law banning automatic weapons designed to go after crack dealers. Huh?

Yeah, good luck with that.

Like I said before, there's a real question of wether or not the JD can actually prosecute them for events overseas.

I cant believe how much I am agreeing with you on this one. I think the DOJ should turn these Blackwater pricks over to the Iraqis for trial. The Bushidiot's DOJ wouldnt but I betcha Big O's will. They will surely get their just desserts in Iraqi courts . Just like Saddam did.

(http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/2524/saddamliveleak2wb0.jpg)
Title: Re: 35-Count Indictment Against Blackwater Employees
Post by: richpo64 on December 08, 2008, 07:05:33 PM
You're really a sick fuck aren't you knutty. You get off on dead bodies huh?

Freak.
Title: Re: 35-Count Indictment Against Blackwater Employees
Post by: Knutey on December 08, 2008, 07:48:59 PM
You're really a sick fuck aren't you knutty. You get off on dead bodies huh?

Freak.

Dont forget that you are the one that  enjoys killing them,
Sick fuck.
Title: Re: 35-Count Indictment Against Blackwater Employees
Post by: BSB on December 08, 2008, 08:36:29 PM
From what I understand the law has changed and now certain types of contractors, like Blackwater employees, fall under the local legal jurisdiction. However, I can't believe it's grandfathered in, so these guys are not subject to Iraqi law.     

The point is no US military veteran with a brain would have gone from say, the Special Forces, to Blackwater in Iraq, if he was going to fall under Iraqi law. You'd be crazy to place yourself in that kind of jeopardy.
Title: Re: 35-Count Indictment Against Blackwater Employees
Post by: Plane on December 08, 2008, 10:12:44 PM
Hired by the state department wern't they?

Is there some employer responsibility?

The State department could have had the USMC guard them in uniform , what made the Blackwater guys compeditive with that?
Title: Re: 35-Count Indictment Against Blackwater Employees
Post by: Knutey on December 09, 2008, 11:01:24 AM
Hired by the state department wern't they?

Is there some employer responsibility?

The State department could have had the USMC guard them in uniform , what made the Blackwater guys compeditive with that?

The Marines couldnt kill with impunity like the Bushidiot , Big Dick and Condee Whiterice wanted.And ,besides, your fiscally responsible Pres loves to give money to his friends to kill his personal enemies.

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=85&subsecID=65&contentID=254470 (http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=85&subsecID=65&contentID=254470)
Title: Re: 35-Count Indictment Against Blackwater Employees
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on December 09, 2008, 11:21:10 AM
The point is no US military veteran with a brain would have gone from say, the Special Forces, to Blackwater in Iraq, if he was going to fall under Iraqi law. You'd be crazy to place yourself in that kind of jeopardy.

==========================================================
For the chance to strut about heavily armed among cowering Iraqis and the sort of salary Blackwater was paying, I think some degree of craziness might emerge.

It appears that Blackwater's mercenaries were accountable to no one other than Blackwater itself, which only had the power to fire them.

Still, there should have been more accountability than that, though it appears that this was not the case. Rumsfeld was a man whose incompetence was unmatched except for his towering ego.
Title: Re: 35-Count Indictment Against Blackwater Employees
Post by: BSB on December 09, 2008, 01:31:55 PM
Ah huh, the Blackwater guards were nothing but bullies, the Iraqis were cowering innocents, and it was all Rumsfeld's fault.
Title: Re: 35-Count Indictment Against Blackwater Employees
Post by: richpo64 on December 09, 2008, 02:23:31 PM
It's amazing how people who were nowhere near Iraq at the time this happened seem to know so much about it. Nobody knows what happened yet. If these guys are guilty of a crime they'll pay for it. If they're not the left will still blame them.
Title: Re: 35-Count Indictment Against Blackwater Employees
Post by: kimba1 on December 09, 2008, 02:57:57 PM
well
it`s kinda hard to look innocent when you blowup a girls school
I got that info an hour ago in the radio.
of all the buildings to hit.
collateral damage is a bitch that should not be ignored.
and don`t forget u.s. soldier have been held at gunpoint by blackwater guards
we talked about this 6 months ago.
that`s why laws are being changed to allow blackwater guard to not be immune to any laws
even the subject now is still in question on what laws applies to them
Title: Re: 35-Count Indictment Against Blackwater Employees
Post by: kimba1 on December 09, 2008, 03:00:42 PM
example
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_11171864 (http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_11171864)
Title: Re: 35-Count Indictment Against Blackwater Employees
Post by: richpo64 on December 09, 2008, 05:16:31 PM
I agree with their attorney. The charges are politically motivated. We've seen this from the left before. Scoot Libby for one.
Title: Re: 35-Count Indictment Against Blackwater Employees
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on December 09, 2008, 05:44:31 PM
Homicide charges against guys who admittedly went ape and wiped out bunches of innocent people is "politically motivated"?

I suppose they should just walk away and forget about it, hunh?

No trial, no prosecution, just let it go.

Now if all those Iraqis had been foetuses, then this would be worth investigating, woudn't it?
Title: Re: 35-Count Indictment Against Blackwater Employees
Post by: kimba1 on December 09, 2008, 05:56:17 PM
the problem with blackwater is the company was too stupid to stop this themselves years ago.
thier is piles of abusive complaints on blackwater from the very beginning of them setting foot on iraq.
but since those acts are not chargable by law they just think they can do anything.
and this is the end result.
Title: Re: 35-Count Indictment Against Blackwater Employees
Post by: richpo64 on December 09, 2008, 06:22:06 PM
>>Homicide charges against guys who admittedly want ape and wiped out bunches of innocent people is "politically motivated"?<<

Want ape? Why would they want an ape? Would an ape have been able to help??

>>I suppose they should just walk away and forget about it, hunh? No trial, no prosecution, just let it go.<<

I didn't say that. I didn't say anything about an ape either. The question is can the SD procecute them in Iraq. Haven't you been paying attention?

>>Now if all those Iraqis had been foetuses, then this would be worth investigating, woudn't (sic) it?<<

If they were I'm glad it happened before Barry is president. He would have ordered them killed just for being outside the womb.
Title: Re: 35-Count Indictment Against Blackwater Employees
Post by: richpo64 on December 09, 2008, 06:26:22 PM
>>but since those acts are not chargable by law they just think they can do anything.
and this is the end result.<<


When in Rome.

I imagine they looked at it like they had a job to do. Protect their clients. That's what they went about doing. If they did something wrong they should pay for it. However, it seems to me that this is just another boogieman created by the left. Someone else to use to create a false face on the war. They demonize Bush, Cheney, Haliburton, and Blackwater. IMO It's nothing but more politics from the left perpetrated to fool people.
Title: Re: 35-Count Indictment Against Blackwater Employees
Post by: sirs on December 09, 2008, 06:35:59 PM
Homicide charges against guys who admittedly want ape and wiped out bunches of innocent people is "politically motivated"?  

Black Water want apes?  To what purpose?  Wouldn't it be more cost effective to simply buy ammo for their weapons vs food and medical care for the apes?  It's hard to aim an ape as well.  Could easily "backfire", I would imagine















That is how Mr Literal, the spelling nazi would respond, right?




Title: Re: 35-Count Indictment Against Blackwater Employees
Post by: Plane on December 09, 2008, 06:37:29 PM
well
it`s kinda hard to look innocent when you blowup a girls school
I got that info an hour ago in the radio.
of all the buildings to hit.
collateral damage is a bitch that should not be ignored.
and don`t forget u.s. soldier have been held at gunpoint by blackwater guards
we talked about this 6 months ago.
that`s why laws are being changed to allow blackwater guard to not be immune to any laws
even the subject now is still in question on what laws applies to them
A girls school?

I am suspicious , that is a terrible co-incidence.

I wouldn't be surprised if the girls school were chosen as a site for ambush in hopes of  the ugly massacre  happening.

It has been done before.

But I am speculateing with very little knoledge of what really happened , I am sure that the public will be cursed with more details soon.
Title: Re: 35-Count Indictment Against Blackwater Employees
Post by: Knutey on December 09, 2008, 06:58:14 PM
well
it`s kinda hard to look innocent when you blowup a girls school
I got that info an hour ago in the radio.
of all the buildings to hit.
collateral damage is a bitch that should not be ignored.
and don`t forget u.s. soldier have been held at gunpoint by blackwater guards
we talked about this 6 months ago.
that`s why laws are being changed to allow blackwater guard to not be immune to any laws
even the subject now is still in question on what laws applies to them
A girls school?

I am suspicious , that is a terrible co-incidence.

I wouldn't be surprised if the girls school were chosen as a site for ambush in hopes of  the ugly massacre  happening.

It has been done before.

But I am speculateing with very little knoledge of what really happened , I am sure that the public will be cursed with more details soon.

Fascist assholes like the Bushidiot and Blackwateridiots are easy to rope a dope into stupid things like attacking the wrong nation and girls schools

And you can bet we will hear a lot more about this Blackwater stupidity.
Title: Re: 35-Count Indictment Against Blackwater Employees
Post by: kimba1 on December 09, 2008, 07:04:16 PM
actually were already been curse with details about blackwater for quite awhile.
as i said before this is not an isolated incident and even the military has an interest on how to deal with them.
how is it people are not upset how they treat the military?
Title: Re: 35-Count Indictment Against Blackwater Employees
Post by: Plane on December 09, 2008, 07:44:27 PM
well
it`s kinda hard to look innocent when you blowup a girls school
I got that info an hour ago in the radio.
of all the buildings to hit.
collateral damage is a bitch that should not be ignored.
and don`t forget u.s. soldier have been held at gunpoint by blackwater guards
we talked about this 6 months ago.
that`s why laws are being changed to allow blackwater guard to not be immune to any laws
even the subject now is still in question on what laws applies to them
A girls school?

I am suspicious , that is a terrible co-incidence.

I wouldn't be surprised if the girls school were chosen as a site for ambush in hopes of  the ugly massacre  happening.

It has been done before.

But I am speculateing with very little knoledge of what really happened , I am sure that the public will be cursed with more details soon.

Fascist assholes like the Bushidiot and Blackwateridiots are easy to rope a dope into stupid things like attacking the wrong nation and girls schools

And you can bet we will hear a lot more about this Blackwater stupidity.
You mean, you also think that the ambush couold have been planned for the neighborhood of the school on the hope of an embarassing massicre ?
Title: Re: 35-Count Indictment Against Blackwater Employees
Post by: Knutey on December 09, 2008, 07:52:19 PM
>You mean, you also think that the ambush couold have been planned for the neighborhood of the school on the hope of an embarassing massicre ?<

Of course I do  that doesnt exonerate these Blackwater animals in anyway. It just shows how stupid you can be and still make $600 a day .
Title: Re: 35-Count Indictment Against Blackwater Employees
Post by: Plane on December 09, 2008, 08:04:32 PM
>You mean, you also think that the ambush couold have been planned for the neighborhood of the school on the hope of an embarassing massicre ?<

Of course I do  that doesnt exonerate these Blackwater animals in anyway. It just shows how stupid you can be and still make $600 a day .

Whether true or not I would expect that to be part of the defense.

If it could be proven it would amount to  complete exoneration, if it can't be proven but can be mde to seem likely it might amount to reasonable doubt.


I don't know much yet , but I have hot and cold running doubts already.
Title: Re: 35-Count Indictment Against Blackwater Employees
Post by: kimba1 on December 09, 2008, 08:11:18 PM
no matter the outcome of this case ,it still should address the question if similiar situation arises who  (beside it`s own internal company) are contractors answerable to.
Title: Re: 35-Count Indictment Against Blackwater Employees
Post by: Plane on December 09, 2008, 08:26:36 PM
no matter the outcome of this case ,it still should address the question if similar situation arises who  (beside it`s own internal company) are contractors answerable to.


They are in any case answerable first to whoever is shooting at them , all other claims are smaller.
Title: Re: 35-Count Indictment Against Blackwater Employees
Post by: BSB on December 10, 2008, 01:08:24 AM
>>They are in any case answerable first to whoever is shooting at them , all other claims are smaller.<<

That's right. That's not to say though that shouldn't be held accountable, they should be, but certainly not by those who they've been shooting at. They were hired to protect American citizens in a combat zone. Like them or not, that is the central fact.   
Title: Re: 35-Count Indictment Against Blackwater Employees
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on December 10, 2008, 11:48:28 AM
The testimony thus far is that NO ONE was shooting at them.

If this is the case, then the Blackwater group are simply murderous thugs. The difficulty is that at the time and place that this occurred, there appear to be no enforceable laws against such thuggery. This is because Rumsfeld did not choose to include any.

I will be surprised if anyone gets sentenced for this.
Title: Re: 35-Count Indictment Against Blackwater Employees
Post by: Knutey on December 10, 2008, 11:59:06 AM
>I will be surprised if anyone gets sentenced for this.<

They might now that there is a new sheriff in town

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiTd3O7YTjM[/youtube]
Title: Re: 35-Count Indictment Against Blackwater Employees
Post by: BSB on December 10, 2008, 01:00:17 PM
>>The testimony thus far is that NO ONE was shooting at them.

If this is the case, then the Blackwater group are simply murderous thugs.<<

Lets wait and see before labeling them all "murderous thugs". There are other reasons for opening up beyond being shot at, such as a fear of suicide bombers. One of them could have acted on what he thought was a threat, and then others panicked.
   

>>The difficulty is that at the time and place that this occurred, there appear to be no enforceable laws against such thuggery. This is because Rumsfeld did not choose to include any<<


They were working for the state dept, does the Sec. of Def set up the laws governing state dept contractors? 
Title: Re: 35-Count Indictment Against Blackwater Employees
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on December 10, 2008, 03:37:10 PM
They were working for the state dept, does the Sec. of Def set up the laws governing state dept contractors? 

---------------------------------------------------
There were no laws governing these guys. Remember that Rumsfeld was the one who wanted private contractors in the first place.

Maybe Cheney had a hand in this incompetence and inattention to detail as well.
Title: Re: 35-Count Indictment Against Blackwater Employees
Post by: Plane on December 10, 2008, 03:50:13 PM
They were working for the state dept, does the Sec. of Def set up the laws governing state dept contractors? 

---------------------------------------------------
There were no laws governing these guys. Remember that Rumsfeld was the one who wanted private contractors in the first place.

Maybe Cheney had a hand in this incompetence and inattention to detail as well.


Why wouod Rumsfeild advocate private guards?
Lots of well armed government employees were already working for Rumsfeild , and the state department could already have asked for Marine escort. Whoever chose to hire private guards must have been a state department boss.

I don't see any of this being a Rumsfeild idea.
Title: Re: 35-Count Indictment Against Blackwater Employees
Post by: sirs on December 10, 2008, 03:53:03 PM
You didn't get the memo, Plane.  Rumsfeld is evil, Bush is evil, Cheney is evil.  They all should have the term "Darth" before their names.  At least that seems to be the consistent impression trying to be applied by a large contingent of the left
Title: Re: 35-Count Indictment Against Blackwater Employees
Post by: richpo64 on December 10, 2008, 04:34:00 PM
>>The testimony thus far is that NO ONE was shooting at them.<<

So these evil Blackwater desperados pulled up to a girls school and opened fire for the fun of it?

Sure they did.