ex-Blackwater defendants walk free

[Officer of Engineers]

A civil suit in which combat lethality is involved and both sides agree to keep the combat non-disclosed even thoug neither the Irai nor the American governments is obliged to observe the silence?

[Red Seven]

I, too, find the decision to be a bad one.

I am curious about whether the military members on the site think the outcome would have been different if this were a case in which the perpetrators were operating under the US ROE? It's my understanding private firms in Iraq still do not do that.

There are so many different and cloudy versions of this incident from so many different points-of-view, each having it's own particular agenda, that I seriously doubt whether the prosecution could have gotten convictions. There were bullets going both ways that day, much confusion and some provocations. I have serious reservations about the validity of a number of the accusations made by the Iraqis considering the bad blood existant between Iraqi police & contractors.

People who have never been in the complexity of a firefight tend to oversimplify their analytical interpretations, as if it were something choreographed or subject to their rules of order and logic.

As far as your question about rules of engagement, the ROE/RUF for contractors is more stringent than it is for US military units because contractors are not mercenaries--as the first post in this thread erroneously states. Unless they are involved in certain clandestine green badge activities--which is rare--they do not take part in offensive operations and are not permitted to initiate contact except in matters of life and death and self-defense or the defense of those they have been contracted to protect.

[sfm818]

contractors are not mercenaries--as the first post in this thread erroneously states. Unless they are involved in certain clandestine green badge activities

Check again on that first post. The word mercenaries is a direct quote from the original article. Not my words.

[Countezero]

There are so many different and cloudy versions of this incident from so many different points-of-view, each having it's own particular agenda, that I seriously doubt whether the prosecution could have gotten convictions.

And a mistrial or acquittal might be the correct result, but I still feel a trial would help separate fact from fiction a little more and give us something more tangible to judge this incident.

There were bullets going both ways that day, much confusion and some provocations. I have serious reservations about the validity of a number of the accusations made by the Iraqis considering the bad blood existant between Iraqi police & contractors.

I do, too.

I think this incident became a flashpoint for other incidents, and as such, people began to inject their bias and anger into their recollections. But something happened that day, and the US government, who one would think would defend the contractors, seemed to think they were very much in the wrong.

As far as your question about rules of engagement, the ROE/RUF for contractors is more stringent than it is for US military units

Well, that's not been my understanding, from both soldiers and the contractors. The contractor I know who was just reactivated by his country's military essentially told me that there is no clearance process for the employees at those companies, no monitoring of their discipline and few, if any, methods for management and punishment if they **** up. He also stressed that they do not operate under military ROE.

The British CEO, who runs a HUGE company there, essentially said the same thing about the American companies. He said they have little if any oversight, either internally or externally.

because contractors are not mercenaries--as the first post in this thread erroneously states.

That's a matter of opinion. The British CEO stressed the same thing, too. He was not a mercenary, despite the fact he and his company largely behave like them. When I see SF soldiers leaving their jobs so they can take more money to carry a gun and do what their told -- in many cases, by private companies -- then I tend to view them as mercenaries. But I concede that private security is a very real and necessary thing and that the line between it and mercenary is thin and debatable.

Unless they are involved in certain clandestine green badge activities--which is rare--they do not take part in offensive operations and are not permitted to initiate contact except in matters of life and death and self-defense or the defense of those they have been contracted to protect.

But Blackwater would be the exception, as the recent revelations about the snatch-and-grab and hit-team reveal...

[Parihaka]

I thought the immunity was still in effect? I thought this was the case that essentially pushed the Iraqis to cancel it?

Whether right or wrong, this immunity was from Iraqi law. These guards were being tried in a US federal court. It was the issue of evidence gained, not any immunity by Bremner that lead to the case failing.

[Countezero]

Whether right or wrong, this immunity was from Iraqi law. These guards were being tried in a US federal court. It was the issue of evidence gained, not any immunity by Bremner that lead to the case failing.

Yes, but I believe if the companies were subject to the ROE, then the evidence collection here would not be an issue. But I am no lawyer...

Still, with all the troubling incidents in the theater, the contractor situation screams for more oversight if you ask me. Consider, the following high-profile incident: Texas Dems ding Cornyn again on alleged-rape vote | Texas on the Potomac | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

If you ignore the politics, you've got a case where companies are essentially allowed to violate employee civil liberties. In this woman's case, it's not far off to claim that she seems to have had less recourse than a Gitmo detainee...

[Red Seven]

Check again on that first post. The word mercenaries is a direct quote from the original article. Not my words.

Rog that.

[Red Seven]

Regardless of where guilt truly lies in this particular incident, it's indicative of the PSC boom in general that while the HSLD people are still the quiet professionals they always were, there are a lot of small-change cowboys now doing the gun & run. Some companies have better vetting and higher standards than others.

[Parihaka]

Still, with all the troubling incidents in the theater, the contractor situation screams for more oversight if you ask me.

Yeah I agree. There is a thread about it around somewhere, as well as the rape case you highlight, IMO placing contractors in what is effectively a combat situation just isn't a good idea.
IIRC the rape case covers her right to sue the company, not to have criminal charges brought against the rapists?

[Julie]

A civil suit in which combat lethality is involved and both sides agree to keep the combat non-disclosed even thoug neither the Irai nor the American governments is obliged to observe the silence?

This decision puts the US in breach of its treaty obligations to prosecute this case, which was an absolute international law obligation. Now, this case was being prosecuted in US court because of an order that was issued by the US occupation authorities that granted these people immunity from Iraqi criminal prosecution and accountability.

And I think the rule of international law is quite well settled. If the US cannot, for technical reasons, prosecute the case, the US is really obligated to waive the immunity under that order and surrender these individuals to the Iraqi authorities for prosecution, probably with an agreement as to what charges will be brought and an agreement that any prison term they were sentenced to could be served in the United States.

In addition to that, there’s also the possibility, that was alluded to in the setup here, for a civil action, and civil claims on behalf of the families of the victims are already pending in US courts. And the Iraqi government has now announced it’s going to directly support those claims.

The civil claims will be for damages. And the evidence of their culpability is quite overwhelming. The weird thing about this case before Judge Urbina is that the prosecutors were developing their entire case based on the statements that had been issued by the guards. Well, they didn’t need to do that. There were dozens of eyewitnesses in Iraq who were only too happy to come forward and testify about what happened and what was seen. And there was an incredible amount of forensic evidence of what occurred that day. So there’s plenty of evidence to be used. Plus, of course, in a civil suit, the standard for liability is a lower standard. It’s not beyond a reasonable doubt; it’s rather by preponderance of the evidence.

[Stan187]

I thought the immunity was still in effect? I thought this was the case that essentially pushed the Iraqis to cancel it?

Cancel it? It was not the Iraqis who wrote the initial policy or enforced it, unless I'm misunderstanding you.

[Stan187]

Well, that's not been my understanding, from both soldiers and the contractors. The contractor I know who was just reactivated by his country's military essentially told me that there is no clearance process for the employees at those companies, no monitoring of their discipline and few, if any, methods for management and punishment if they **** up. He also stressed that they do not operate under military ROE.

Go on the websites of the big 3 contractors, the ones who handle the majority of security contracting, and check out the checklists for trying to apply. It seems like pretty intense vetting process.

Granted, that does not address the issue of monitoring and discipline, but the thought is that if they are vetted and cleared professionals, a separate point you speak of, then based on their character they are less prone to say.. go on a rampage or what have you.