The First-Blush State Department Blackwater Report
by sarabeth at 6:00 am on September 28th, 2007 in Bush Man Date, Iraq WarWaPo has details:
According to the report, the sequence of events leading up to the shooting began at 11:53 a.m., when a car bomb exploded 25 yards outside of the Izdihar financial compound, just over a mile northwest of the Green Zone. One principal was inside, accompanied by a Blackwater personal security detail identified as Team 4. A Blackwater team normally consists of three or four armored vehicles manned by multiple security contractors armed with assault rifles and pistols.
A Blackwater tactical support team, identified as TST 22, drove to the location to help Team 4 extract the principal. The two teams escorted the official back to the Green Zone “without incident,” according to the report. “It is unknown who was the target of the” car bomb.
According to the report, a third Blackwater team, identified as TST 23, was dispatched from the Green Zone to assist after the car bomb detonated. Upon arriving at Nisoor Square, in Baghdad’s affluent Mansour neighborhood, the report said, TST 23 was “engaged with small arms fire” from “multiple nearby locations.”
The report said TST 23 returned fire and tried to drive out of the ambush site. However, one of the company’s tactical armored vehicles, a BearCat, became disabled during the shooting. In the middle of the firefight, according to the report, the other tactical support team, TST 22, was ordered back out of the Green Zone to assist TST 23 in Nisoor Square, identified in the document as Gray 87.
Before TST 22 could arrive, according to the report, TST 23 had towed the BearCat and returned to the Green Zone. TST 22 found itself alone in the congested traffic circle and confronted by an Iraqi quick-reaction force. “Over the next several minutes, additional Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police units arrived and began to encircle TST 22 with vehicles,” according to the report. “The Iraqis had large caliber machine guns pointed at TST 22.”
The Blackwater team contacted the tactical operations center for the U.S. Embassy’s regional security office, which oversees private security movements, according to the report. The report said the embassy’s regional security office deployed the embassy’s air assets, believed to be Blackwater’s armed “Little Bird” helicopters, for “route reconnaissance and additional coverage.”
“The U.S. Army QRF” — quick-reaction force — “arrived on scene at 12:39 hours and mediated the situation,” the report said. “They escorted TST 22 out of the area and successfully back to the [Green Zone] without further incident.”
Apparently, we are not being invited to take this account too seriously:
A State Department official cautioned that the “spot report” is only an initial account. “They’re not intended to be authoritative reports of what occurred in any given incident.” …
The official, who declined to be identified because of the ongoing investigations into the shooting, said the report, which was dated the same day as the attack, reflected only what embassy officers were told by the Blackwater guards immediately after the incident. He said details could change as the investigations move forward.
One detail that doesn’t seem to have come out before is that only one U.S. Embassy “principal” was involved. And this official had already been whisked from the scene before the shooting started. So all the eyewitness accounts on “our side” are going to be from Blackwater guards. I’m sure Blackwater is pleased as punch about that. And the accounts of the shooting will come entirely from the members of TST 23, who are the ones accused of shooting indiscriminately at civilians.
In other words, the State Department’s official account of the shooting itself is always going to be based entirely on the testimony of the accused. How rich is that?
Also, let us duly note that the shooting itself had nothing to do with protecting embassy personnel. At best, Blackwater was protecting itself. At worst, … but why don’t we wait for version 2.0 for that?
*** Update, 12:05 pm ***
It looks like WaPo updated their story. I’m pretty sure this wasn’t there early this morning:
Separately, a U.S. official familiar with the investigation said that participants in the shooting have reported that at least one of the Blackwater guards drew a weapon on his colleagues and screamed for them to “stop shooting.” This account suggested that there was some effort to curb the shooting, with at least one Blackwater guard believing it had spiraled out of control. “Stop shooting — those are the words that we’re hearing were used,” the official said.
JimC wrote:
Also reported on ABC World News tonight, clips from the “video” evidence, shot in very low FPS (looked more like a slide show than a “video” in fact that is what ABC is calling it on their website “a slideshow” but it is clear that it is security cam footage) and not quite the smoking gun we’d hoped. Also, evidence of bullet strikes found on Blackwater’s armored vehicles giving evidence to shots fired at them.
.
Here is a picture of the damage from small arms fire but I’m sure that in reality Blackwater personnel shot their own trucks to make it look like they were attacked…suspicious that they would just “happen” to have “bullet holes” on their “trucks” during the “firefight”????
Posted 28 Sep 2007 at 10:04 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Blackwater’s own guards are saying that one guy went totally berserk and wouldn’t stop shooting at civilians, till someone pulled a gun on him.
But, of course, that doesn’t count.
Posted 29 Sep 2007 at 5:07 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
NYT’s version of the gun-pulling incident was:
Posted 29 Sep 2007 at 5:18 am ¶
JimC wrote:
It counts but if they were in fact being shot at. that significantly changes the context of story now doesn’t it? Instead of going on an unprovoked rampage, they were returning fire, and yes there appears to be one guard who panicked and had to be forcibly stopped.
Posted 29 Sep 2007 at 6:29 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
If a Blackwater guard went berserk and mowed down civilians and wouldn’t stop till one of his colleagues pulled a gun on him, it does absolutely not fucking matter whether they had been shot at and were returning fire.
Perhaps it takes very strong Christian values to see that as not being an unconscionable crime?
Why don’t you stop making a complete laughing stock of yourself, and just sit back and wait till all the evidence is in, and a conclusive finding is produced? If the Blackwater guards are exonerated, there will be enough time then to jump up and down and gloat at my colossal stupidity.
(And let’s be very clear about one thing — exonerated is not simply a matter of whether anyone shot at them, but whether the civilian killings are deemed to be justified. The Blackwater story is that they were attacked first, and only fired carefully aimed shots in return. That is already pretty much disproved by the testimony of Blackwater’s own people on the scene.)
Posted 29 Sep 2007 at 8:28 am ¶
Rob_NC wrote:
…
..
sarabeth thats fine in a classroom but in the real world during such caos is lethal,imhho
Posted 30 Sep 2007 at 6:05 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
did you miss the fact that it’s they who are claiming they only fired carefully aimed shots?
Posted 30 Sep 2007 at 6:42 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
There is, of course, a perfectly good reason why they are claiming this:
Posted 30 Sep 2007 at 7:01 am ¶
JimC wrote:
No it takes wanting to know the whole truth before casting judgment. Now it seems the whole truth includes that they were shot at. It still may be found that this one guard freaked out and shooting targets that weren’t in fact threats but being put under the stress of fearing for his own life, that changes the situation from the original claims of them just mowing down civilians for no apparent reason. The reason is now apparent, they were being shot at and this guard feared for his life, right or wrong, this is not the brutal murder as it once was characterized early in the story. This is no longer a clear cut “war crimes” question. But of course if the President I voted for hadn’t started this war then this guard wouldn’t have been there and wouldn’t have feared for his life (just getting that out of the way).
Posted 30 Sep 2007 at 2:04 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
I see we’re back to reading comprehension issues again.
I said:
That’s what’s known as a hy-po-thet-i-cal.
The dead giveaway is the first word: “If“.
Posted 30 Sep 2007 at 3:35 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
If you really believe that, you’re one very sick puppy.
Posted 30 Sep 2007 at 3:40 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
No, if I didn’t believe that then I would have to condemn every WWII bomber crew for killing civilians during bomb raids over Europe. If I didn’t believe that then every war that we have waged against our enemies would be plagued with war criminals because civilians are inevitably causalities of war.
I cannot condemn men who are under fire and fearful of their lives trying to fight an enemy willing to put civilians in harms way. Neither can I condemn a man who was so frightened and wary of an enemy who hides among the civilians that he became paralyzed emotionally by his fear and saw threats everywhere.
The ones who killed those people were the ones who detonated that bomb and fired upon the guards….but of course that is not an angle that pays dividends politically….
Posted 30 Sep 2007 at 9:10 pm ¶
matt wrote:
how dare you equate reckless mercs with WWII soldiers.
Posted 30 Sep 2007 at 9:17 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Go fuck yourself.
I cannot believe that even you are capable of convincing yourself that your argument in 12 makes any kind of moral, ethical sense.
According to you, Blackwater guards can do anything at all and it’s justified because they are “fearful of their lives trying to fight an enemy willing to put civilians in harms way”.
That’s totally contemptible.
You’re totally contemptible.
Posted 30 Sep 2007 at 9:43 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
He didn’t become paralyzed emotionally by his fear and see threats everywhere, he mowed down a bunch of civilians. There’s a big fucking difference.
If a soldier did this, the Army wouldn’t buy this bullshit as a defense. He would never get away with saying: “I just became so fearful of my life trying to fight an enemy willing to put civilians in harms way, that I panicked and just shot all those people, ha ha. I mean, I’m sorry and all, really I am.”
The whole point of being a soldier is that that you are trained precisely not to do this. It’s a very clear no-no.
If you do it anyway, any army worth the name has to throw the book at you, because if they don’t, then way too many sick puppies will go around shooting civilians just for fun.
These Blackwater USA guards are supposed to be mostly Special Forces. They have all received this training. And they all have to be held to the same standard that a soldier would be. For exactly the same reason. Especially because in the case of Blackwater, it looks like the sick puppies already think they’ve got carte blanche.
Posted 30 Sep 2007 at 10:00 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Having slept on it, I take back “You’re totally contemptible”.
What you are is beneath contempt.
Posted 01 Oct 2007 at 5:14 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Those WWII bomber crews followed their training and their discipline, they followed their orders. They did precisely what soldiers are trained to do. (The fact that their superiors made the morally questionable decision that it was all right for civilians to be killed in this fashion is a separate issue,since you’re not equating the reckless mercs to those superiors. However, anyone with a moral compass will recognize that there was nothing either necessary or inevitable about those WWII bombing deaths of civilian.)
When you make this incomprehensible analogy, you not only expose yourself for what you are (and it is one ugly vision), you dishonor the military service you have always claimed to be so proud of. Any real soldier would spit in your face.
Posted 01 Oct 2007 at 5:23 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Are you sure it wasn’t Bill Clinton? Or how about that evil butterfly who keeps flapping his wings somewhere in China and starting all those hurricanes?
Posted 01 Oct 2007 at 5:36 am ¶
JimC wrote:
And you missed my point, my point wasn’t about being necessary but that the enemy used civilians to hide behind and when the enemy does this and you still have to kill the enemy, civilians will get harmed. For example: the civilians forced to work in munitions factories that had to be bombed….civilians died but the factories had to be taken out.
My point is that fighting war often puts you in the unfortunate position where your enemies use civilians as cover and if you don’t shoot back, if you hesitate, you’re dead….
Please….so far they haven’t and I know real soldiers.
Posted 01 Oct 2007 at 5:41 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
just go fuck yourself
Posted 01 Oct 2007 at 6:00 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Forget it. You and I can never understand fully what they were going through in that moment. I draw upon my training as a soldier to understand that sometimes soldiers can and do fire upon targets that turn out not to be what they thought it was and you, well, I don’t know what you are drawing upon to make your conclusions but you do what you want.
When this is all over we’ll see how this shakes out. Just remember I am not saying that nothing wrong happened, I’m just not willing to call them war criminals…
Posted 01 Oct 2007 at 6:37 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
You have gone way beyond “I’m just not willing to call them war criminals…”.
You have said in so many words no one can blame them for what they did. That the guy who went berserk and kept shooting at civilians for no reason is not responsible for his actions.
You’re just a fucking joke.
Posted 01 Oct 2007 at 7:03 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Of course you don’t. Because you are trapped forever somewhere between not being able to read and not being able to comprehend what you read:
How could anyone know where I’m coming from on this?
Posted 01 Oct 2007 at 7:06 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Your moral relativism is truly commendable.
Nobody needs to understand what they were going through, you clit.
What that asshole did is just wrong. By every moral standard. By every military norm.
And so I repeat: just go fuck yourself.
Posted 01 Oct 2007 at 7:10 am ¶
JimC wrote:
That’s a new one…
Even though both are very wrong, there is a difference between wrongfully killing civilians and murdering them. Executing civilians is a war crime/murder, killing them because you mistook them for threats during a firefight is not a war crime…wrongful killing: yes, war crime: no…
Posted 01 Oct 2007 at 7:51 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Make all the excuses you want, but if “you mistook them for threats” when even your own equally fearful, equally adrenaline-charged compatriots can clearly see they are anything but, if you went berserk, then that’s on you, that’s not explained by the circumstances.
“I went berserk and killed all those civilians but it’s not my fault because I thought they were threats” has never been regarded by any army as an acceptable excuse for such behavior, or as extenuating circumstances. For good reason. Which — surprise, surprise — seems to entirely escape you.
Posted 01 Oct 2007 at 8:16 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
So what’s your position?
What he did was very wrong, but I cannot condemn him?
Posted 01 Oct 2007 at 8:21 am ¶
JimC wrote:
My position is that what this guard did is very wrong but it may not rise to the level of being murder or by extension a war crime. The situation and evidence may come out that tilts it toward murder (e.g. this person has history of disdain for Iraqi civilians, talked of killing them, etc….) but right now it appears to me that while under fire, this guard mistook civilians as threats to his life. That may not get him out of any charges for wrongful death but it may not be murder and not a war crime….
Posted 01 Oct 2007 at 8:38 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Don’t dodge the fucking question. Would you condemn him for doing what you’re labeling “very wrong” (if it is proved that that’s what he did, etc)?
Posted 01 Oct 2007 at 9:00 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Not dodging anything but yes I would condemn his actions. And to what degree depends on his motive, was he fearing for his life and mistook civilians as threats or was he coldly calculatingly punishing civilians for just being there, that is what makes the difference between wrongful death and war crimes….
Posted 01 Oct 2007 at 9:17 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Great. Now you want to try explaining why, back in 12, you were saying that you could not condemn him?
Posted 01 Oct 2007 at 9:22 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Yeah in the context of #12 I was talking about not condemning every death of a civilian as a war crime. That in war civilians die and if that happens as a result of combat, then it is not a war crime and I could not condemn it as such.
I’ll try to clarify it: If this guard feared for his life and mistook civilians as threats then it is not a war crime and I cannot condemn him as a war criminal which clearly would hold a far greater penalty than causing wrongful deaths. I will condemn his actions in general for having killed civilians if it is found that he lost control. I will strongly condemn him as a war criminal if it is found that he knew he was killing unarmed civilians.
The big question for me is “were they under fire”. If they were under fire, then it will be difficult for me to buy into a scenario where this guard committed murder, wrongful death, yes, murder no. One caveat, if his character is described by those who knew him best as someone who could take advantage of a firefight to commit murder, then that would be the only thing that could turn me to condemn him as a war criminal in the “under fire” scenario but that would have to be based on his service record and testimony of fellow soldiers/security personnel, commanders/employers, and even his family.
I don’t believe we’ve gotten that far yet….
Posted 01 Oct 2007 at 9:41 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
There’s no mention of war crimes there. You are categorically stating you don’t condemn that mercenary if he killed civilians because “he became paralyzed emotionally by his fear and saw threats everywhere”. Who you condemn instead is “the ones who detonated that bomb” etc.
Posted 01 Oct 2007 at 9:49 am ¶
JimC wrote:
You missed this part…
Ergo, following the context of NOT describing WWII bombers as war criminals, carry that on into the part you quoted.
If you didn’t understand, then I it should be clear now that I would not condemn them as war criminals…and therefore this guard *if* he was…etc etc etc as mentioned many times before…
Posted 01 Oct 2007 at 10:05 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Not to mention 12 was in response to 11 which was clearly on the topic of war crimes…
Posted 01 Oct 2007 at 10:06 am ¶
KC wrote:
This just highlights the problem of paying what are, in effect, mercenaries to do the military’s job. If the situation there is so unstable that most dignitaries (American, Iraqi, and otherwise) must employ the services of actual mercenaries, then perhaps its time to re-think this “surge”, no?
Not only that, but lets keep in mind that these guys are CIVILIANS killing CIVILIANS, and none of us have to guess what would happen to us if we admitted to doing this here or in Iraq. Why is it that working for Blackwater gives them some kind of special privilege to “return fire” into a group of civilians. If these guys were legitimate security consultants and providers, perhaps they would have simply said “let’s get the hell out of here! Duck!” and returned fire ONLY if in fear that it was the only option for protecting their customer.
But we all know the truth. They are trigger happy (multiple instances of such, not only Blackwater employees) ex-military or law enforcement with a chip on their shoulder and the desire to stay in Iraq to make big bucks and kill some Iraqis.
They should be prosecuted as a company and as individuals and not be allowed to do business in Iraq until the situation is resolved, if ever. Plain and simple, though, they should be prosecuted as criminals.
Posted 01 Oct 2007 at 10:57 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
The customer was actually safely out of there by then.
Posted 01 Oct 2007 at 12:20 pm ¶
matt wrote:
probably because they would have never taken the contract without the immunity, and no contractors means no unending war.
Posted 01 Oct 2007 at 3:01 pm ¶