Can Security Contractors Be Charged With War Crimes?
by sarabeth at 5:18 pm on September 19th, 2007 in Iraq WarCNN provides two eyewitness accounts that support what the NYT reported earlier:
Blackwater USA, the private security firm at the center of the controversy, says its employees simply defended themselves against armed attackers.
Two men hospitalized with gunshot wounds disagree. They say the guards fired on people for no reason.
Hasan Jaber Salman lies in Yarmouk Hospital, bandages covering gunshot wounds in his back.
Salman says he is a lawyer who was headed from a courthouse to the Ministry of Justice when he found his route blocked by four armored Blackwater SUVs.
The roadblock soon caused a traffic snarl, so armed Blackwater guards began waving at the drivers, telling them to turn around and leave the area.
“So we turned back, and as we turned back they opened fire at all cars from behind,” Salman said. “All my injuries, the bullets are in my back.
“Within two minutes the security force arrived in planes — part of the security company Blackwater. They started firing randomly at all citizens.”
Blackwater, in a statement issued after the incident, denied that gunfire came from aircraft. “The helicopters providing aerial support never fired weapons,” it said.
The firm also said its employees “acted lawfully and appropriately in response to a hostile attack.”
But Salman claims the attack was unprovoked.
“No one fired at them, they were not attacked by gunmen, they were not targeted by an explosion,” he said.
The firing continued until Salman’s car crashed into a police checkpoint and flipped over, he said, adding that eight bullets struck his car and four struck him.
“My left shoulder is broken … and my arm is broken. I had a surgery. … They opened up my stomach,” he said. “I swear to God no one did anything to them at all.”
The lawyer said he intends to sue Blackwater, which he already did in 2005 after his son was involved in a similar incident outside al-Muthana Air Base near Baghdad’s international airport. That lawsuit has not yet been resolved, he said.
Laborer Abul-Raheem Amir said he was on his way to a job when the minibus he was in got caught in a traffic jam caused by an explosion.
“A security company called Blackwater, they got out and kept on firing randomly at people, starting with the people walking or working the street — even the traffic policeman, even the people who work in the area,” Amir said.
“People at first thought we were safe in the minibus, but when they realized they were not, they started getting out and went to other places to save themselves,” he recounted. “Unfortunately that did not work. As they got out, people were shot and killed.”
He said he tried to make a run for it after the driver and two women next to him on the minibus were shot.
“I ran about 50 meters [about 55 yards] and then was shot, the first bullet. Still I kept running, but the second bullet dropped me to the ground. … It broke my bones, and the third one made me start crawling.”
Some people helped get him off the street and away from the carnage. The shooting lasted for about a half-hour, and there were some 30 bodies in the street, he said.
“I remember people strewn on the streets, children, elderly, young men, elderly women. … The street turned into the street of the dead, a graveyard,” he said.
“There was nothing I could do. Every man was for himself.”
Amir wonders what the Blackwater employees were thinking.
“Is this some kind of a show of force for them to flex their muscles?” he said. “Are they doing this to us, the victims, so they can advertise and promote their abilities through the Western media? … Is their mission to protect one person by killing 10 unarmed people? And if they are protecting two people, then they shoot 100 unarmed people. … Is this Vietnam? …
“Enough, enough,” he said. “Enough of all that’s happening. God’s fury is coming. Enough of this. Enough.”
There has been a lot of speculation about whether the Blackwater employees accused of these killings can be prosecuted, and if so, in what court and by whom?
The way this is now starting to sound, maybe the appropriate forum would be a war crimes tribunal? After all, the troops in Blackwater’s private army are effectively licensed participants in this war. They have rules of engagement, and all.
If the allegations currently being made hold up, it’s hard to see even the Bush administration shielding the alleged killers from prosecution. And here’s a little sign that these eyewitness accounts may very well be true:
The State Department has said that Blackwater fired warning shots in Sunday’s Mansour attack at an approaching car.
I believe they call that corroboration.
JimC wrote:
In all the recent witness accounts being laid out as evidence, I didn’t notice the anything that mentions them being in a firefight. However, from here
So this witness does claim there were attackers (gunmen) and a firefight that lasted 20 minutes between the gunmen and the security forces.
Is this witness a witness of the same events so dramatically told in these other accounts?
So are we truly to believe these security forces, which most of them are highly trained ex-US special forces soldiers, simply went on a rampage or perhaps held to old slogan “Kill ‘em all, Let God sort them out”? Or could be that they were in fact under attack and the attackers specifically chose a crowded area to inflict maximum civilian casualties?
By the way, these dramatic eyewitness accounts that CNN has brought to us, may possibly be true but they are suspiciously reminiscent of tall tales sold to an all too willing media.
Posted 19 Sep 2007 at 7:25 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
This is not an eye-witness, he seems to be an ear-witness. Perhaps you recall that there was a bomb explosion in the general area? Eyewitnesses seem to be unanimous that the bomb explosion was nowhere near the convoy. Ear-witnesses presumably can’t quite tell.
And when an ear-witness hears gunfire, I would certainly like to know:
a) how he determines he’s hearing gunfire “between gunmen and the convoy people”
b) how much money greases that determination.
My real point, of course, is that this man’s testimony is suspect on the face of it.
You are free to believe whatever you like.
We’ve been through innumerable episodes of this before, where you choose to believe the exact opposite of what Matt and/or I do.
Unfortunately, you invariably have turned out to be wrong, and Matt and/or I have invariably turned out to be right.
Maybe that says something about our relative abilities to look at many news accounts and make realistic assessments of where the truth probably lies?
Which doesn’t, of course, mean there was no mention of firefights. I hope you did notice the somethings that said specifically there was no firefight as such, that Blackwater was not being fired upon, that it was just doing all the firing?
Posted 19 Sep 2007 at 8:01 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
I’m not sure but this may already be one of those times where I get to point out a logical flaw in your comment.
Back to my “ear-witness”’s comment:
Did you hear that?
(Why did it take so long for Yellowbeard to appear on DVD? I’m waiting now for the Bluray version)
Correct if I am wrong, but are you claiming this “ear-witness” has incredible hearing so as to be able to determine not only that the convoy people were foreigners (possibly by language?) but incredibly even be able to hear the distinct difference in the sounds their clothes make?
Of course I’m being facetious however, clearly this man was more than an “ear-witness”…which i dare say, brings his testimony back on the table.
But of course, he could be just seeking money as you said. Unfortunately, the CNN witness is actually admittedly willfully seeking money….and not the first time either. But he may very well have been there, after all, if you’re gonna pick sides, chose the one with Oscar winning testimony….
Just read this part again:
Sounds very dramatic and horrifying except why the little detail “A security company called Blackwater,”? Would the average joe Iraqi know Blackwater when they saw them? Possibly, but why so identify them so specifically? Scripted perhaps? I can’t prove it but it seems fishy to me.
Now the simple guy who “heard” the foreigners and “heard” their civilian clothes, well he just sounds like he called it like he saw…errr….heard it….
Posted 19 Sep 2007 at 9:23 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
I have to pull this movie quote in as well….
First the witness:
And now Sam Sweet:
Posted 19 Sep 2007 at 9:28 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Of course, you’re wrong.
What I meant was how can he tell there are two parties shooting back and forth instead of one party getting shot repeatedly by the other?
It’s very clear from this man’s account that the convoy passed him by, and then everything else happened out of sight. He’s very clear about what he saw, and what he heard. (But that does require some reading comprehension skills.)
A little common sense goes a long way.
The shooting happened on Sunday. He’s talking to CNN days later. This has been the big news for the last several days.
So how does he know they were Blackwater?
You do the math…
Try not to be blatantly dishonest. He’s lying in hospital shot full of bullets, mad as hell, planning to file a lawsuit. That invalidates his testimony?
Someone who’s lying to bolster his lawsuit is going to cheerfully tell CNN he’s filing a lawsuit?
( A little common sense…)
You might also remember that CNN isn’t exactly a distinguished member of the liberal media. They think this guy is credible. Both these guys. I think that means something.
And like I said, we’ll find out later which version is true. Will you show up here agreeing that you were wrong (if that’s how it turns out)? Or will we just hear how you’re now prepared to concede that Bush has made mistakes in Iraq? Because that’s what you’ve produced every time Matt has invited you to acknowledge how wrong you were.
Posted 19 Sep 2007 at 9:59 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
I still don’t have a clue what you think was the “logical flaw”.
Posted 19 Sep 2007 at 10:00 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
How did the witness know the convoy people were foreigners but more still, dressed in civilian clothes if all he did was hear the whole episode? Could he have seen them in their civilian clothes as they drove by? Sure but why would he take notice of them at that time? He heard the explosion followed by gunfire and then followed it up with something you would generally only know if you saw who was doing the shooting, described their physical appearance.
Can you tell the difference between a civilian and an insurgent? An Iraqi Police Officer or an insurgent dressed up as one? The very nature of the conflict in Iraq right now is that it is impossible to tell who is the enemy and who is not until they shoot at you.
How do we know or even could possibly know if this guy isn’t in fact one of the attackers? I’ve watched plenty of videos on LiveLeak to witness an innocent looking person turn into a grenade throwing insurgent in a split second and then blend right back into the crowd.
Or maybe they are just innocent Iraqis and were unjustly shot by members of “A security company called Blackwater”.
I would be curious to know if Blackwater has video of this incident because I have seen Blackwater video from Iraq before.
Absolutely. Et tu?
Posted 19 Sep 2007 at 10:18 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
You’re embarrassing yourself again.
My argument — and this should have been clear even to you — is precisely that the man is describing things he couldn’t possibly know since he was only an ear-witness (and that he’s doing this because he may have been bribed or blackmailed or otherwise coerced)
You have somehow convinced yourself that the fact that he described things he couldn’t possibly know is a logical flaw in my argument.
Frankly, I just don’t have time for this.
You go ahead and believe whatever you want to, whether it’s the facts of an incident, or the meaning of what I wrote, or the existence of logical flaws in what I wrote. I really don’t care if you get it wrong. I do care about the enormous amount of time I end up spending correcting your misconceptions. And I’m not prepared to do it any more.
I’m not even going to respond to that “Absolutely”. I’ll leave it to Matt to engage you on the subject of whether that applies retroactively.
Posted 20 Sep 2007 at 5:01 am ¶
JimC wrote:
I understand your argument perfectly clear but what I don’t understand is how you draw the conclusion that this guy must have been paid off or coerced? Why is it that this guy is lying? And how you can so definitively know that he didn’t see what took place after the explosion went off? Is it possible that he went to look to see what was going on and that’s how he is able to describe the physical appearance of the security forces? I know you want to focus on a certain angle of this story but it just baffles me how easily you dismiss an account of someone you don’t even know and accept the account of others you don’t know, based on what criteria???
In an AP story from today:
We’ll just have to wait and see what the investigation brings forth.
Posted 20 Sep 2007 at 7:47 am ¶
matt wrote:
why do you always latch on to the lone data point that matches your viewpoint in the face of multiple independent sources that tell a much different story. that’s why you’re always wrong. when the preponderance of the evidence runs one way, you pick up the freeper/lgf nonsense about finding that one dissenting voice that you say is enough for reasonable doubt.
and why shouldn’t you? clearly you don’t care about your accuracy record which is about nil. so all this costs you is a bit of time which i’m sure is worth it when measured by how much of our time we waste refuting the garbage you spout off here.
Posted 20 Sep 2007 at 9:20 am ¶
JimC wrote:
I got the link from Drudge. I haven’t been on freerepublic or lgf for some time.
The lone data point? Except that of those who were attacked. Does the defendants testimony not count for anything?
The information available is sketchy at best and because one side of the story comes from people who we can’t verify their credibility and the other side comes from a controversial organization, I think we need to remain open to the whole story and not just presume Blackwater is guilty. If they are, so be it, but let them first be presumed innocent and be proven guilty before they are hanged from a bridge…
As it stands now, Blackwater say they were under attack, at least one witness (that I found and I haven’t looked for anymore yet) that backs their story up, we have the official initial report which says they came under attack, we also have witnesses that say blackwater just started randomly killing people, and now we have reports that even the Iraqi officials have conflicting reports about what happened. My point? No one knows for a fact what exactly happened yet and until then I contend Blackwater should be given the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise, similar to the Haditha incident, of which the Marines are being cleared one by one…
Posted 20 Sep 2007 at 9:44 am ¶
matt wrote:
hilarious. you think there’s a difference?
blackwater? come on.
right, because nothing in their past would make this any more likely. when will democrats and non-believers be subject to this openness?
what does guilt have to do with it? they aren’t subject to any laws. nice callback to the charred mercs.
you throw around “conflicting reports” like it means anything. “conflicting reports” like when that utah mine operator said an earthquake not retreat mining caused that cave in, and the USGS with all of their fancy equipment said that wasn’t the case and then the media dutifully called it “conflicting reports?” or like here where you can say whatever you pull out of your ass and we go and do a few hours of research to disprove it and you say “conflicting reports?”
haditha? marines being let off by military courts? like abu ghraib?
are you putting mercs next to soldiers?
Posted 20 Sep 2007 at 9:54 am ¶
JimC wrote:
That is a real problem which needs to be addressed. I think I stated it or was going to but I believe if we hire these groups to perform paramilitary operations then they should be attached to our regular military and fall under their operational guidelines and laws. This point does need fixed.
Posted 20 Sep 2007 at 10:01 am ¶
matt wrote:
they wouldn’t do the job without this immunity. and the only reason they are there is so there doesn’t have to be a draft.
Posted 20 Sep 2007 at 10:13 am ¶
matt wrote:
what do we have here?
Posted 20 Sep 2007 at 12:21 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Re 9: are you conceding that you only dispute my version of events, but there was no logical flaw in my argument?
Posted 20 Sep 2007 at 12:31 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
You know I don’t really care how you classify it, whatever you call it, my point is that the man you claimed to be an “ear-witness” was more than that because he physically described the convoy security guards’ physical appearance. If that is a dispute of your version of the events, fine. My real point is that
a) there is a witness who claims gunmen attacked
b) there is no reason to doubt his testimony nor is there proof of bribery or coercion.
c) he must have visibly seen the security forces to describe their physical appearance and therefore is an eyewitness.
If this is merely a disputed version of events, so be it. I really don’t care about calling you on a logically flaw…it was however a great way to bring in movie quotes from Yellowbeard.
Posted 20 Sep 2007 at 12:45 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
You accused me of a logical flaw in my argument.
Pressed to substantiate it, you can’t or won’t.
Nor will you take it back.
You’re just an intellectually dishonest wimp.
Posted 20 Sep 2007 at 1:00 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
And if you want to pretend that Computer Programmer JimC doesn’t understand the meaning of the term “logical flaw”, so be it.
Posted 20 Sep 2007 at 1:02 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
No response to Matt’s 15. How interesting.
Posted 20 Sep 2007 at 1:06 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Look ok fine, it is a logical flaw because you argued the man heard it only but clearly he described their physical appearances, that’s the logical flaw in your “ear-witness” claim. You can deduce all you want but the fact remains he ended with a physical description, i.e. he saw them…
Look, it is just not that important to me to destroy your perfectly logical world, so call it what you want, it doesn’t matter, you will never agree it is a logic flaw so why should I press any further?
Posted 20 Sep 2007 at 1:17 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Except for what he himself said
“We saw a convoy of SUVs passing in the street nearby. One minute later, we heard the sound of a bomb explosion followed by gunfire that lasted for 20 minutes between gunmen and the convoy people who were foreigners and dressed in civilian clothes.”
Like I said before, he’s very clear what he saw and what he heard.
So it’s a perfectly logical interpretation that he only heard the gunfire etc, but is describing it in the words that he is only because he was paid to.
You do indeed not understand the meaning of “logical flaw”, which is truly, truly funny.
Posted 20 Sep 2007 at 1:40 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Still no response to Matt’s 15. How very interesting.
Posted 20 Sep 2007 at 1:44 pm ¶
matt wrote:
if you’re not here to prove us wrong, or at least make a reasonable case for some compelling alternate view, wtf are you here for?
Posted 20 Sep 2007 at 1:46 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
How did he know they were foreigners and dressed in civilian clothes? To solve this logical problem, you invent details that he was paid to say it., basically adding information that doesn’t exist so that logically it works. Ok, no flaw then….right.
Yeah, only the Q and theoretical physicists can change the rules to make the logic work, good to know you’re such good company.
What exactly am I supposed to respond to? Yeah, it is another incident involving Blackwater and yes they denied it for a time, I suppose this supposed to prove something in this current case? That we can’t trust our government but we can trust Iraqis? Is that it?
I made my point and gave the alternative view, which is to at least consider both sides of the story. However, I cannot compete with logic based on details not even present in the evidence provided, e.g. the mobile phone guy was coerced or bribed…how am I supposed to argue against that? That is clearly a made up “fact”.
Posted 20 Sep 2007 at 2:17 pm ¶
matt wrote:
notice the lack of “reasonable” and “compelling.”
Posted 20 Sep 2007 at 2:51 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
I think my view was more than reasonable, in fact it was a very fair view, not necessarily pro-anyone but for the preservation of one our basic legal tenets, innocent until proven guilty. But if that is not a reasonable and compelling view, then you’re right, what am I doing here…
Posted 20 Sep 2007 at 3:09 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Precisely, Matt.
In a very similar situation — but a lesser one, if you will, involving just one dead Iraqi — Blackwater and the State Dept both showed that their first instinct is to produce a barefaced lie. Only when pressed did they later admit the truth.
What does that possibly have to do with this incident?
Posted 20 Sep 2007 at 3:12 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
JimC, re #7, inquiring minds want to know whether, in view of all the evidence coming to light from the U.S. military, you’re prepared at this time to concede that you were wrong about this incident?
Posted 12 Oct 2007 at 10:35 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Was I wrong to presume their innocence before judging them guilty? NO. Was I wrong to hope they were not guilty? It is starting to look that way. But it isn’t over yet but I will concede that it doesn’t look good for them.
Posted 13 Oct 2007 at 6:18 am ¶
matt wrote:
we’re not in a court of law, and this isn’t a trial.
wtf does hope have to do with it? we’re not a church either.
given their past actions, it didn’t look good from the start.
Posted 13 Oct 2007 at 11:51 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Thank goodness but not my point.
Only churchies can have hope? Again not my point. My first reaction was a desire that they were innocent and reacted in self defense. It has nothing to do with church but everything to do that another political problem in trying to make progress in a hopeless situation.
You’re correct, it didn’t, but there are still two sides of the story and the Iraqis aren’t always a beacon of accurate or even remotely truthful information, but it still not stacking up in their favor at all.
One thing that strikes me coming out of this whole story is a sweeping stereotyping of these security soldiers (mercs if you will). There are no doubt a higher percentage of them willing to pull the trigger too quick (as compared to the US military) but I’m sure a good majority of them, ex-US military types, are good and decent people doing a very dangerous job very professionally.
My final opinion is …. remove Blackwater, force our diplomats to be protected by Marines and any shortages caused by this shift, force the Iraqi government to step up their own security where Marines were pulled from.
Posted 13 Oct 2007 at 3:35 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
back when I said “Will you show up here agreeing that you were wrong (if that’s how it turns out)?” (in 5) and you replied “Absolutely” (in 7), this wasn’t about hoping they were not guilty.
it was quite simply about the facts, about what had probably happened. It was “about our relative abilities to look at many news accounts and make realistic assessments of where the truth probably lies”.
The issue was simply whether the Blackwater guards had been fired upon or not.
Your position — very unambiguously — was that the testimony of that guy I dismissed as an earwitness was credible, and that they probably had been fired upon.
My position was that it was the testimony of the Iraqi witnesses and victims — all of whom told very similar stories — that was credible. That they had probably not been fired upon. That the earwitness was lying.
So for God’s sake stop obfuscating the issue now with drivel about “Was I wrong to presume their innocence before judging them guilty… Was I wrong to hope they were not guilty?”
That’s not the fucking point. Never was. And don’t pretend you don’t know that.
Posted 13 Oct 2007 at 7:44 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
And my position was that the Blackwater guys may very well be guilty but until all the facts came out, I wasn’t going to prejudge them nor simply dismiss anything that may get in the way of my position. My position was not to take any side but rather let the facts come out. My position was that until all investigations are concluded, we shouldn’t dismiss *anyone* or any potential evidence or testimony. Your position is very clear and needs no clarification.
I believe something wrong definitely happened and those who committed these acts need to face justice but not with a broad stroke. There are some within Blackwater that are trouble or even criminal, but I don’t believe they all deserve such labeling and so those who are innocent and just doing their jobs the best they can, need and deserve the benefit of the doubt and those that are criminal need to be investigated and prosecuted, simply put, let a proper justice system rule and not the mobs or public opinion, take down the bad individuals and not paint all of Blackwater as thugs.
However, in *any* case, I feel Blackwater needs to go, mainly because of incidents like these which undo so much our military tries to build. Blackwater has become a symbol for what is wrong in Iraq, they do not fit into the latest developments to bridge relations with US military and the Iraqi tribes. Removing Blackwater not only solves the problem of getting reckless individuals out of Iraq but also shows a commitment to build trust and if it forces Iraqis to step up, then that gets us closer to Iraqis securing themselves.
Posted 13 Oct 2007 at 9:15 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Before all the facts are in? Oh dear!
And what, pray, does that mean?
Finally, you wouldn’t like to change your screen name to DishonesT, would you?
For example, there are these statements you made, presumably in the spirit of keeping an open mind:
And maybe I need to offer you a longer excerpt to remind you of the specific context of my “if you turnout to be wrong” challenge:
And, if you like, go back and read #7 — which is where you accepted my challenge by saying: “Absolutely.” What is that whole comment about? The veracity of the earwitness (who now appears to have been lying) and the CNN witness you argued was lying (who now appears to have been telling the truth).
Posted 14 Oct 2007 at 5:17 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Reader Cristian sent us this CBC News story, which delves in detail into the question of whether civilian contractors can be charged with war crimes.
Short version: you bet!
Posted 15 Oct 2007 at 1:26 pm ¶