Blackwater security personnel were not justified in shooting and killing 14 Iraqi civilians, according to an FBI investigation. Blackwater had said that the shootings were in self-defense, but the FBI determined that no one fired on the personnel and that civilians were shot as they tried to flee, the New York Times reported. The investigation did conclude that the killing of three additional Iraqis might have been justified because the personnel thought they posed an imminent threat (though at least two of them didn’t). Still, there’s a good chance that no Blackwater employees will be charged because of inadequate criminal laws.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- TomPaine on Too many exemptions
- littlejohn on Let immigrants run
- writerdog on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/23
- Monkeyhawk on Let immigrants run
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/23
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/23
- writerdog on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Let immigrants run
143 Comments
Terrorists. Plain and simple. And if the “legitimate government of the sovereign state of Iraq” is not allowed to bring them to justice it proves that government to be a fraud.
Ben,
You are wrong on both counts.
First of all, they are hardly terrorists. You have to stretch the meaning of the word to the farthest extremes to say Blackwater employees are terrorists.
Second, Civilian contractors and other Government employees are protected from prosecution under any Iraqi Law. That was already agreed to by the Iraqi government and even if it wasn’t we would never subject government contractors and our servicemen to litigation in an Iraqi Court.
It makes absolutely no sense.
If what these men did was wrong, as it seems, they should be brought to justice under our judicial system.
Yeah, the United States imposes a “government” and it agrees to all of the United States demands. It’s like saying Vichy France was doing the will of the people by siding with the Nazis.
Blackwater is a bunch of butchers who terrorize the Iraqi people for entertainment.
Nathan – I stand by BOTH statements. As for bringing them to justice under our laws that isn’t likely.
Blackwater joyfully guns down Iraqi civilians with total impunity. The most anyone will ever get might be a fine.
If I were to commit a crime in a sovereign nation I would expect to be extradited back there to face justice. The key term here is ’sovereign’
Looking at that picture I have two questions:
What government miliatry uniform is he wearing?
Is he a foreigner in Iraq?
Ben,
You’re SUCH a member of the ‘blame America first’ crowd.
I mean, what’s the point of being an occupying colonial power if you can’t gun down the locals with impunity?
Not to mention Blackwaters recklessness but “real” servicemen at greater risk by angering the local population. Both putting back US efforts at gaining trust and intell gathering, as I’m sure that at an Iraqi father is going to tell the location of the weapons stash if his kid just got used for target practice by a bored Merc.
IF the government knew the identities of said Mercs. it could build a lot of good will to the Iraqis by handing them over to them for trial.
Tom – our government DOES know their identities. I agree, we could show respect for the ’sovereign nation of Iraq’ by extraditing. Instead, our military has been complicit in halping Blackwater mercenaries flee after they have killed. Note, for example, the other one in the article who murdered the Iraqi security guard.
Since Tiahrt is so pro-life is he going to return all the campaign cash he received from Blackwater owner Erik Prince?
If what these men did was wrong, as it seems, they should be brought to justice under our judicial system.
Posted by: Nathan |
If Bush and Cheney really want to restore honesty and integrity to the White House, then they will demand that Blackwater security personnel are charged appropriately after all investigations are concluded.
Now the proof is in the pudding, huh Nathan? Will Bush and Cheney allow the Blackwater security personnel to be held responsible?
You hit the nail on the head indy. The ball is in Bush’s ocurt now.
Isn’t Erik Prince a fat cat in the Neo Con movement? If so, then Tiarht will try to claim he doesn’t even know him. So much for honesty and integrity, huh?
And, by the way, charged with something a bit more serious than littering. I think murder is supposed to have a rather severe penalty. Didn’t we hang Saddam?
Technically, it was the Iraqis who hanged Saddam. Perhaps they know how to handle murderous mercenaries, as well.
Very true Tom. As a sovereign state Iraq must have the right to bring them to justice.
Odd how the Libs are pro-Iraqi so suddenly when it gives them the opportunity to bash the administration and the U.S.
Libs – bad or tragic news is good news for Libs.
I agree indy. They should be held accountable in our court system.
I think that is the right thing to do.
However, all these cries calling them terrorists are absurd.
Some of you might think that, stand by it, call it your opinion, but you are full of crap.
The notion that we would subject our men and women to the courts of the country we JUST got done invading is prepostorous.
There is no precident for it.
I can only think your motives for calling for such a thing are centered more on your irrational hate for Blackwater and Bush.
Those who defend Blackwater are full of crap. They are full of irrational love for Blackwater and Bush.
Disgust with armed thugs gunning down more than a dozen innocent civilians is “irrational?” You’re kidding, right?
Hey Tom – since “we JUST got done invading” it’s OK.
Ben,
Alright Ben. You want to be absurd?
Lets turn the discussion to a logical one.
Define terrorism. Show me how that definition meets the “common” usage of the term. (Use a reputable source)
Then explain in a detailed and thoughtful way how Blackwaters mission makes them terrorists.
Tom,
Where did I say disgust was irrational?
Calling the entire organization terrorists and thinking they should be tried by Iraqi’s is irrational.
We have gone through this discussion many times back when everyone was calling them mercenaries and saying they were bad.
It is nearly impossible for me to get a logical or rational discussion out of anyone on this issue.
Nathan, being Lib means you can say “stuff” anyway you want without taking responsibility for it.
It’s hard to be “trigger conscious” in a hostile environment, where seemingly innocent activities can turn deadly in a split second.
I imagine what happened here is that someone was “trigger nervous” and his buddies heard the burst and followed through with support fire.
Tragic as it is, it happens a lot in war and hostile environments.
I don’t know if the Iraqis have an agreement with the State Department on prosecution of contract personnel. If the Iraqi’s don’t, then they cannot change the rules after they agreed to them.
However, I imagine the reason the FBI was called in was not only for their expertise in scene forensics, but their legal assessment team was needed to evaluate if their was negligent homicide. Also, some behind the scene Diplomatic pressure was no doubt in play.
Why the Libs want to use tragedy to illogically assign destructive rhetoric to a bad situation, I just don’t understand. Their “feelings” and ideology automatically eliminates them from be potential jurors.
Nathan – according to our government major points would include;
Not in uniform. -
Foreign.Killing civilians.
Blackwater scores on all three – in fact they often wear masks..
Now, how about YOUR definition?
According to Nathan anyone who is opposed to filling innocent taxi cab drivers full of lead is against America.
I wonder if we should give immunity to all gangs in Wichita so they can spread democracy and peace throughout the community. We’ll have to throw a six figure salary in there too.
Something tells me Nathan is just itching for the time he can sign that Blackwater contract and go kill some Iraqi civilians for fun.
If you are the only person who holds your opinion and everyone holds a differing one it doesn’t make sense to think you’re the logical or rational one.
You could HEAR my eyes rolling when I read your post, Nathan!
Of course, they are terrorists or mercenaries or whatever other words that may have the same meaning you find.
But you are of course entitled to your thoughts and opinions. Just don’t try to make them facts others believe.
A NEW DECLARATION
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all human beings are created with an equal desire in their hearts for freedom and democracy, and that they are therefore also endowed by their Creator with an equal entitlement to freedom and democracy; that, in order to secure this freedom and democracy, it is America’s God-ordained mission to spread freedom and democracy to all men and women everywhere, regardless of whether they are currently able and willing to institute a government among themselves with its powers derived from the consent of the governed; that, whenever any country falls short of our notion of freedom and democracy, it is the right of the American people endlessly to lecture, chastise, blackmail, and cajole the leaders of that country, pushing them to institute new government, with its foundation laid on such principles and its powers organized in such form, as to us shall seem most likely to effect their freedom and democracy.
But when a long-established pattern of resistance to our counsels, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reject permanently the spread of freedom and democracy, it is our right, it is our duty, to take over such country, and to impose on it new guards for its future freedom and democracy.
Some time ago Paul posted a link to the Geneva convention. It was interesting to note that foreign mercenaries are SPECIFICALLY excluded from protections.
Ben,
Whats wrong? Can’t answer a simple question?
That is not how our government defines terrorist. That is how our government defines an unlawful enemy combatant. They get no geneva convention protection.
However, you left out several other qualifications from the geneva convention.
Now lets try this again Ben.
What is the definition of a terrorist? (Reputable source now)
How does the mission of Blackwater make them terrorists?
Lets see your logic and reason.
Linda,
Do you enjoy coming over here with the occasional snipe from Tracy’s Blog?
What a hypocrite you are.
You sit over there talking about how much better you are than the WE Blog, while you bad mouth me and my father, and then you occasionaly come over here with a snipe or two directed at me.
Would you actually care to stick around long enough to show us WHY your opinion is correct in a logical and rational way?
“Second, Civilian contractors and other Government employees are protected from prosecution under any Iraqi Law.”
Begging the question.
A perfect example of it. Why are the Blackwater murders protected from prosecution from Iraqi law?
Why? Because they are protected from prosecution from Iraqi law.
But the question is exactly WHY SHOULD MURDERS BE PROTECTED FROM KILLING UNARMED IRAQIS MINDING THEIR OWN BUSINESS IN IRAQ?
One shouldn’t be able to answer the question with the question.
Obviously, Iraq does not have a legitimate, functioning government as long as the United States tells them what laws it will and will not obey while we occupy their country.
Oh, ho.
Look who doesn’t have a “sense of humor” now, eh, Nathan?
She didn’t even mention your name.
She did parody your ridiculous ideas however, most effectively.
Stop picking on girls.
“Terrorism in the modern sense[1] is violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians for political or other ideological goals.[2] Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear or “terror”, are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants. Many definitions also include only acts of unlawful violence.”
Blackwater, in my opinion, meets that criterion. Hoy YOU define terrorism (i.e. only when done by the other guy) doesn’t count.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism
The tenor of this thread reminds me of old Westerns where the “lynch mobs” would justify in their minds what they thought would be justice.
The Blackwater people involved are probably a handful that will probably get prison time in the U.S.
Why the hangman’s nooses are being clutched by the Libs on this blog is beyond me.
Perhaps there might even be a good “Democrat” amongst the shooters. Would you want him prosecuted without a fair hearing and trial?
“according to the Oxford dictionary a terrorist is “a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims”.”
Again, Blackwater qualifies – both as unlawful combatants and as terrorists.
CapnAmerica,
Did you not see anything I have written?
I believe that those found of doing wrong in Blackwater should be brought to justice in the American justice system.
It is for all the same reasons that we do not subject our men and women in the miliary to an outside justice system.
We are fighting a war in Iraq right now. The men and women who are American citizens who are working under a DOD contract expect to be treated fairly under our justice system, not Iraqs.
The Iraqi government has already agreed to this. Even if they had not, we still wouldn’t allow those who have gone to support our actions in a foriegn country to then be tried in that countries courts for doing something wrong.
It doesn’t matter how legitimate or functioning Iraq is either.
Kansas – all I am calling for is that they be tried by the ’sovereign state’ in which this took place.
Ben,
Perhaps you missed the second question for the second time.
How does the mission of Blackwater fit the definition of a terrorist or terrorist organization.
Third time a charm?
“we still wouldn’t allow those who have gone to support our actions in a foriegn country to then be tried in that countries courts for doing something wrong”
So much for the FICTION of Iraqi sovereignty.
Nathan,
Is Blackwater pursuing political aims? If so, they fit Ben’s definition.
Game. Set. Match.
No Nathan. I don’t think I want to allow you to tell me how to behave. I know for sure I don’t intend to get into a backandforth with you – been there, done that, find it to be an exercise in futility. I don’t need to hear your opinion again, don’t need to state mine again. I understand what we both said and don’t care whether you do or not. I know you won’t say anything that would cause me to change my opinion and don’t pretend I will say anything that could change yours. If you feel insulted, that’s your problem.
Their ACTIONS are designed to intimidate the civilin population into submission. That involves the commission of violence against civilians to achieve that political goal.
Wow…
This is what passes for logical and reasoned debate?
Seriously?
You guys wouldn’t make it through a Middle School debate with this junk.
It is very simple.
You claim they are terrorists.
In a logical and reasoned way, show us HOW Blackwater fits the definition of being terrorists.
Simply saying they do doesn’t count.
Adding “Game, Set, Match” doesn’t do anything either.
Linda,
Is that an example of how much better you are over at Tracy’s Blog?
Hypocrite.
Nathan – I just did. I realize that by YOUR definition foreign mercenaries using violence against civilians in order to intimidate them into submission is not terrorism. However, it DOES fit the Oxford definition.
“Simply saying they don’t doesn’t count either”
Ben, I believe there is a difference between “reckless disregard”, “negligent homicide” and terrorism.
There was no ideology or pre-planned mission for the Blackwater “troops” to go out and commit terrorist attacks.
What happened, was a reckless response to a situation and there will probably be members of that guard detail that will wind up in prison.
I know your a reasonable man Ben. If you had a neighbor who had a son in Blackwater, would you call him a terrorist even if he wasn’t in the area of the killings?
I know you wouldn’t. However, to harshly judge people before the facts are known is greasing the saddle of justice isn’t it?
We cannot let ideological assignment dictate justice in our society. We have learned too much to go that route.
What was committed in Iraq was negligence and grievous harm to innocent civilians. Let justice take its course.
Is Blackwater pursuing political aims? If so, they fit Ben’s definition.
Game. Set. Match.
Posted by: CF2K | November 14, 2007 at 02:32 PM
No, they are not pursuing political aims.
They were hired as contract protection by the State Department.
To make that assertion, one would have to believe that for instance, “a cop shoots some one” and the Mayor of that town is a Republican, means that the shooting was politically motivated.
Your charge CF2K is ridiculous and would be laughed out of any court, including the World Court.
I would say he is a member of an organization that engages in terrorist acts.
“Let justice take its course” – that is what I am calling for. And I know that Bush will not do so over here.
I don’t know what kind of fictional written plan Blackwater will claim governs their mission; I judge them by their actions.
“We cannot let ideological assignment dictate justice in our society.” But that is what we do when we shield them from facing justice.
“No, they are not pursuing political aims.
They were hired as contract protection by the State Department.”
Are you saying the State Department is not pursuing political aims? That they can outsource is so it doesn’t count?
Ben,
Indeed. Logical consistency doesn’t seem to be the strong suit of the authoritarian mindset one sees in evidence here.
Are you saying the State Department is not pursuing political aims? That they can outsource is so it doesn’t count?
Posted by: Ben | November 14, 2007 at 02:43 PM
Again, the analogy is akin to saying a Police Department is pursuing the political aims of a City’s Mayor if a shooting occurs.
I doubt there is any conspiracy by State Department employees, who by the way the majority are career Civil Servants to execute Iraqis for political ideology.
Ben,
You still missed it.
THE MISSION of Blackwater is not to pursue any political gain by causing fear or unlawful violence.
They teach their members how to protect people.
They do not premeditate going out and killing civilians.
Their actions are only to protect the people they were hired to protect.
Blackwater runs thousands of missions in Iraq. Every day, Every Week, Every month there are thousands of Blackwater employees doing nothing more than protecting people.
There have been a few instances where they have done something bad.
In those cases they didn’t set out to kill people.
Just as kansas says, they were reckless and negligent in their actions.
No one here is saying they shouldnt be held accountable.
Both Kansas and I have said they should be brought to Justice.
It seems you are more interested in calling them terrorists and having them tried in Iraq because of your fear that they wont be punished in our system.
Then the argument should be about how our system should change and what we need to do to fix it.
You are not solving that problem by turning around and saying to hell with reason and logic, let Iraq have them.
You have done nothing to show HOW Blackwater is a terrorist organizaion.
You simply keep saying the same thing over in a different way. You simply keep saying that they are.
I have yet to see you show HOW they are. Saying their actions make them terrorists doesnt show HOW those actions make them terrorists.
Are you ready to be logcial or reasonable yet?
Nathan writes, “The Iraqi government has already agreed to this [allowing Americans to gun down their citizens with impunity].”
Really? I guess you missed this article on Rush, eh Nate?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/10/16/iraq.blackwater/
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) — Iraq’s prime minister wants private military contractor Blackwater out of his country after an Iraqi probe found Blackwater guards randomly shot civilians without provocation in a Baghdad square last month, an aide said Tuesday.
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and most Iraqi officials are “completely satisfied” with the findings and are “insisting” that Blackwater leave the country, al-Maliki adviser Sami al-Askari told CNN
survivors have told FBI investigators harrowing stories of being shot at by the guards despite presenting no threat. And the first U.S. soldiers to arrive on the scene have told military investigators that they found no evidence the contractors were fired upon, a source familiar with a preliminary U.S. military report told CNN.
The soldiers found evidence suggesting the guards fired on cars that were trying to leave, and found that weapon casings on the scene matched only those used by U.S. military and contractors, the military source said.
*****
Gee, Nathan, did they “agree” to it with a gun to their head or did we just make them an offer they couldn’t refuse (in “The Godfather” sense of the word)?
The obvious point that anyone could see if they weren’t . . . uh . . . NATHAN, is that no real government would ever tolerate this.
We wouldn’t tolerate for a second in our country.
Historically, the only time we see examples of this kind of “our law trumps your law” is in places like Old China in occupied Shanghai which was carved up into “concessions” or the Japanese in Manchuria or the US in IndoChina.
This is exactly the legal fictions that occupying imperialist powers create to shield themselves from the justice they deserve.
CapnAmerica,
Nothing you posted had anything to do with Iraq agreeing to the terms of not holding our people in their courts nor did it address doing so.
Nathan,
It’s interesting, isn’t it, that Blackwater is exempt from legal restrictions, both under Iraqi law, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and State Department agreement?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14536388
Let’s see, what other groups operate outside of the legal protections for the military under international law…wouldn’t that be…TERRORIST groups?
Nathan – you make a lot of claims for Blackwater that are not borne out by their actions. You seem to judge them by their Prosoectus; I judge them by what they do.
I don’t CARE what fiction they write.
“having them tried in Iraq because of your fear that they wont be punished in our system”
On that you are correct – I do NOT believe they will be brought to justice in this country – the FBI has suggested that too. I believe that IF Iraq is sovereign then it has a right to exercise justice in its territory.
I have given logical reasons how gunning down unarmed civilians is designed to intimidate other civilians into submission to the desires of the occupying power.
“Are YOU ready to be logcial or reasonable yet?”
Nathan,
“The US government exempted its employees and contractors from Iraqi law when Iraq was still under US administration, an exemption that still applies even though Iraq has since formed its own government. This exemption has in the past denied Iraqis legal recourse against US-based contractors, and has been a source of tension between the US and Iraqi governments.”
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/09/blackwater-iraq-killings-highlight-lack.php
You WAY don’t have the facts on your side.
Why do Blackwater mercenaries wear masks?
Ben,
Once again, the majority of the ACTIONS of Blackwater involve nothing more than some guy standing around with the person he is paid to protect.
You give reference to only one action ( and there might be half a dozen more) of the wrongs Blackwater has done as if that is the status quo.
90% plus of what Blackwater does is simple routine protection missions with no action, no shooting, no killing, just walking and driving around with the people they are paid to protect.
You can’t seriously think you are being logical or rational.
I just don’t believe that someone as intelligent as you honestly believes this crap.
Maybe you do. The fact that you are twisting and doding and avoiding my points as much as you are is proving to me that you just don’t want to admit that you are wrong and being irrational.
It will be interesting to see if the Bush administration prosecutes anyone.
Nathan – how many years should we give the administration to bring them to trial?
If this is an exception then that exception should stand trial.
Why do they wear masks? Why do they not wear uniforms? Why the shield from legitimate sovereign authority?
I have NOT avoided your points Nathan – I have answered them.
Nathan – “YOU can’t seriously think YOU are being logical or rational.”
If it has a trigger, Nathan defends it.
Ben,
You are traveling in Turkey in your rented car. Traveling at about 20 mpg, you figure it will safe and you can brake quick enough.
Suddenly, just outside of the village, a shepherd leading his sheep forwards the herd right into the path of your car. You hit several sheep, three of which die.
Since ignorance of the law is no excuse in Turkey, you should have known that sheep always have the right of way.
The judge rules in the Shepherd’s favor and in accordance with Turkish custom assigns of find of $400.00 per sheep. However, also according to Turkish custom, you must pay half the amount of each sheep killed for five generations of sheep killed.
Your total bill is now approaching $5000.00. Not having that kind of cash on hand and they don’t accept travelers checks or credit cards, you are imprisoned in the Ankara Prison until a new trial with your cash settlement required to be payed before a new trial date can be declared.
Now, Turkish trial dates are willy nilly and there is no rush to set up a new date now that your cash settlement has been paid.
Meanwhile, you languish in the stone floor cell of the Ankara prison, surrounded by prisoners with tuberculosis and other diseases. Months pass and an ambassador’s aide comes to visit you.
He says I’m sorry, but we are doing the best we can. In the meantime, you find out that with the appropriate payment via attorney through certain officials you can “bribe”, I mean negotiate a settlement for your early release to preclude the trial.
You mortgage your house and pay the required $80,000 to “settle” the case.
Welcome to Middle East Justice Ben.
Aren’t you glad you didn’t commit a serious offense. :)
Nathan,”Show me how that definition meets the “common” usage of the term”
The “common” usage of the word “terrorist” refers only to our enemies. We, being the “good guys” can by definition do no wrong, even when we’re blowing away children for fun.
Kansas – which is one reason I don’t travel in Turkey.
“Ben,
You are traveling in Turkey in your rented car. Traveling at about 20 mpg, you figure it will safe and you can brake quick enough.”
Ben you’re in Turkey? Blackwater isn’t there is it? I thought this thread was about Blackwater not your vacation to Turkey ??? How;s the weather ?
No, I’m not in Turkey. Kansas is.
How’s the weather in Turkey ?
The bottom line is we should have never gone in there in the first place, then all this crap would have never happened
OK — To agree with Nathan’s non-definition of a Terrorist, then those folks resonsible for 9/11 are not terrorists either. They werent acting on political aims; they were trained as pilots; and they had Visas(some expired).
By Nathan’s definition, those folks were just bad people who done a bad thing… But not in the least terrorists!!
And, they’reeeee OFFFFFFFF!!!
If the Iraqi government cannot prosecute crimes committed on its soil, it is NOT a legit government.
“”"Second, Civilian contractors and other Government employees are protected from prosecution under any Iraqi Law. That was already agreed to by the Iraqi government and even if it wasn’t we would never subject government contractors and our servicemen to litigation in an Iraqi Court.”"”
American servicemen are prosecuted by the military for things they do while in uniform no matter where in the world they do it. The UCMJ has jurisdiction in all cases and at all times over military members. Contractors do not fall under the UCMJ and cannot be prosecuted in US courts over acts committed overseas. US courts do not have jurisdiction outside the USA over acts committed by civilians. If they are tp be prosecuted- and they should be- the supposed government of Iraq should demand that they be extradited to Iraq to stand trial. If not, they walk and it is “open season” on civilians in Iraq by any Americans there. So if soldiers get drunk and go rape a 12 year old, they can and will be prosecuted for it but if contractors do, they will not be touched.
The reason the politicians and generals prefer to use blackwater rather than the military is probable because blackwater can shoot first and ask questions later.
Whether or not the Blackwater personnel are terrorists is a red herring.
I am assuming that the actions (as far as we now know of them) of the Blackwater personnel do meet Nathan’s definition of murder. Correct?
If so, isn’t it standard procedure to punish murderers in the United States court system. So, I again am assuming that Nathan would favor that. I assume he will write his representative and protest if these murderers are not brought to justice in this country.
As long as the U.S. military is occupying Iraq, I am not sure we (or anyone else) could consider that government sovereign. Our occupation makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the Iraq government to assert sovereignty. The solution to that problem seems clear to me.
If the Carr brothers had been employees of Blackwater in Iraq committing the same crimes that were done here, would they get a get out of jail free card?
Nathan thinks Jesus would be a worker for Black water.
Of course, it’s been documented that our own solders have committed atrocities including rape, assault, and murder upon civilians with little consequence. The cons defend the atrocities by saying ..”Oh well, it’s war and that sort of thing goes on”. Makes me think many men join the military just so they can be thugs and get away with it.Now I’ve been told that Christians can fight and kill during wartime because the Ten Commandments only state that we can’t “murder”, but “killing” can be justified by God…well, I guess the Islamics that bombed the trade center should get a pass then, because they were only acting on “God’s will” that the infidels be destroyed.
It’s funny how “hero” and “terrorist” are terms defined by which side you’re on.
Yes, if you were an American from Palestine, and you sent money to help your people fight off their occupation, you’d be a terrorist sympathizer an locked up (without charges).
So, I guess that Nathan’s lack of response must mean that he believes the 9/11 perpetrators are in the same category as the Blackwater folks, and not terrorists. And that is by his own definition of what a terrorist is. How interesting!!
I was HOPING that this isnt a position Nathan would take, but it looks like it is!!
And from what I read before, I must assume that Nathan also has no major problem with mining the border with Mexico. I suppose that means – for Nathan – that an illegal immigrant is deserving of the death penalty. Also most interesting.
Mark Cuban provided the financing for a movie that will soon be released about the rape of a 14 year old girl by US military personnel (Redacted). His movie distribution company will by distributing it. Who would want to go see something like that, besides those that hate our military? You can bet that something like this movie will be shown prominently on Al Jazeera and used to drum up anti-American hate.
Some may say, “well it’s true, what’s the problem with showing the truth”. The problem is that it portrays an isolated nasty incident. Yet it will be portrayed by our enemies as if happens all the time. It will help ruin any good will that our brave men and women are working so hard to establish. It will place our military at even greater risk.
Cuban is the owner of the Dallas Mavericks of the NBA. I personally will never watch another game involving the team as long as Cuban owns it. I am going to write Cuban and the NBA commissioner and let them know. Alone, that action is insignificant. But I would urge anyone else who cares about our troops and our country to do the same, and ask your friends to do the same.
Mark Cuban is a traitor.
outlander
Sorry, but that only means Mark Cuban is a loyal, and strong American… He wants the American People to KNOW what our military is doing to “protect” our country.
I think it takes guts to distribute this movie. I am also certain that it will have the proper Motion Picture Rating attached to it. Perhaps he could be persuaded to distribute it only on DVD.
I cant help but wonder if those military personnel who would rape a 14 year old girl in a foreign land, would qualify as “Phony Soldiers” by the comedian RushLimbaugh??
Furthermore, if it is not shown, the enemies of our country will use that and claim it is an attempt to cover up actions that do nothing to help convince Iraqi people that we are there to protect them.
One extremely important word that you fail to deal with, Outtie…
That word is REDACTED — You might want to look up what that means in the movie industry…
Maybe by showing this example of the horrible things that an occupying army does, it will pressure the government to bring them home.
I don’t think we should do anything to innocent civilians that we wouldn’t want done to ourselves.
Let’s see a show of hands for who wants the US to be occupied by a more advanced society “for our own good.”
C’mon, get ‘em up there . . .
So many “haters” on the Lib side.
some many Repups are scared of the truth but yet call themselfs Christian
Lots of quibbling over semantics here. Nathan does that. It’s how he avoids ever directly addressing anything. He keeps you bogged down in details.
You also were a little unjustifiably nasty to linda there Nathan. For the record? The Tracy blog exists because of the nastiness here.
But we are not going to let THAT be a distraction too.
Well, the definition of “victory” in Iraq has been changed what 5 or 6 times now?
The latest and maybe last, because they are running out of ‘em, is “A sovereign Iraq capable of governing and defending itself and being an ally in the war on terror”.
I don’t care WHAT you call these Blackwater goons. They murdered Iraqi citizens. If Iraq is to have HOPE of sovereignty, it has to have justice for its citizens. But but we have an agreement! Blackwater personell are protected! Hogwash! If Iraq is to be capable of protecting its citizens it has to be allowed to try those who harm those citizens. Even if that means American contractors OR servicemen must stand trial.
We’ve considered Iraq sovereignty and protecting itself.
What of the third? An ally in the war on terror? Well how likely is that when American contractors engage in terroristic acts? Is Iraq just supposed to roll over and allow it?
If our (bush’s) commitment to Iraq is honest, these men must be tried by the Iraqi justice system.
“You also were a little unjustifiably nasty to linda there Nathan.”
Some are courteous, some aren’t. I’ve learned who is which and appreciate those who are! It’s a really good world full of many really good people so those who are less are easier to ignore. ;-)
Did you get Julie’s great news? Do the happy dance with her and keep up all the prayers and good thoughts as there is far to go.
I thought your earlier post was very creative linda.
No attacks, just ironic parody.
And yes, the news from Julie, that’s just great.
Blessings for Julie and her MM
“Redacted” should be banned. Truth is un-American. Anyone who tells the truth is a traitor.
Target practice on innocent civillians.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1784255374756078477&q=security+shootings+iraq&total=107&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
We have to do target practice somewhere! So what’s your problem?!
Nathan,
You are a pathetic excuse for a human. The Blackwater terrorist scumbags gunned down in cold blood 14 innocent people and yet you still defend them and their actions. They are murderous terrorist scum and deserve to meet justice in the country in which their crimes were committed.
I know that you would be singing a different tune if 14 Iranians or Iraqis came to the US and killed groups of innocent people in the streets of Wichita. Or would you stand by your absurd notion that they were not terrorists and that they should only be subject to the justice system of their home countries.
Nathan:How about the definition provided by the FBI? I took this from the Britannica online encyclopedia:
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) describes terrorism as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”
If that is credible enough for you I would be entertained by your trying to wiggle out of Blackwater being anything but a terrorist orginization.
Since Nathan seems to be giving “aid and comfort” to this “terrorist” outfit, isn’t he guilty of being one himself, to paraphrase Master G.W. Bush?
Where is the JR and JM blog control to run off these no good trouble makers?
Gee Nathan – anyone who differs with you is a no good trouble maker?
Ben,
Are you purposefully trying to be fatuous?
It is working if you are.
No Nathan; I am not. However it appears that you are.
Ben,
Is this your new little game?
Simply reply to me with what I say to you?
I’ve got Scott and Roo-Ster who did little more than attack me personally and then you mock me for calling them on it.
If this is the level of debate I am to expect from you, then why do you bother?
Last month you guys were calling Blackwater mercenaries, this month you are calling them terrorists, what are you going to call them next month?
You take a few incidents ( Which I have already agreed that they should be held accountable for ) and then attempt to label the entire organization in the most extreme way.
You can’t argue with the facts.
Blackwaters mission is to protect the people they were hired to protect.
They do not set out to kill civilians unlawfully for the purpose of inciting terror and fear to advance a political agenda.
They don’t even teach that at the school.
Yet you still sit here and call them all terrorists.
I have tried to be reasonable. I have tried to be logical. I have presented the facts.
If all you and the other half a dozen people here who want to call them terrorists can do is keep saying over and over again that Blackwater is a group of terrorists and try to attack me personally then have fun.
This has become a matter of futility.
“You can’t argue with the facts.”
We are using FACTS to argue with Nathan. The actions of your Blackwater heroes constitute terrorism. I don’t care what your fictional written mission statement says.
As for ” Is this your new little game?
Simply reply to me with what I say to you?”
If you don’t like it then don’t practice it.
“I have tried to be reasonable. I have tried to be logical. I have presented the facts.” SO HAVE I!
“They don’t even teach that at the school.” I wouldn’t know. Unlike you, I did not attend their school. I just know what they have been doing in Iraq.
“I have already agreed that they should be held accountable for”
But only under your coddleing manner. I want them to be TRULY held accountable, And I know that will not happen.
“This has become a matter of futility.”
AGREED. Blackwater apologists cannot be shown reality. They hate the truth.
“Last month you guys were calling Blackwater mercenaries, this month you are calling them terrorists, what are you going to call them next month?”
I will call them what they are. I have never wavered in that.
Ben,
My fictional written mission statement?
You have not used any facts. You simply quoted the definition of terrorism (after several repeated attempts) and then simply assert that Blackwater fits the definition.
You have made absolutely no attempt to EXPLAIN HOW they fit the definition.
Lets break it down.
Blackwater uses violence and force to PROTECT the person or people in their care NOT to intimidate for political gain.
Blackwater doesn’t advocate unlawfully killing people. They train their employees to PROTECT the person or people in their care.
Probably over 90% of Blackwater missions do not involve any hostility.
Most of the time Blackwater does use violence and force they do so according to the rules of engagement to PROTECT people.
The only FACT ( no s ) you have is this one incident. You are using one obviously wrong incident to label the entire organization as terrorists.
Now please Ben, explain to me how what Blackwater does is for the purpose of using unlawful violence and force to acheive a political goal.
Show me how that is the stated mission of the group.
Show how that is what they teach at the school.
Show how that is the majority of what they do.
Show how in this incident where they were wrong in killing people that their intention was to unlawfully go out and kill innocent people to terrorize them.
You say you know what they have been doing in Iraq. What is that?
Please tell us the research you have done to show how they are a terrorists organization.
“Blackwater uses violence and force to PROTECT the person or people in their care NOT to intimidate for political gain.”
According to the FBI that is a false statement. The murdered civilians were not a threat.
“Blackwater doesn’t advocate unlawfully killing people.”
According to the FBI they did just that.
The political goal is that of their employer – to make the Iarqi people submit.
I have NEVER calimed that Blackwater has put this in writing or on the record.
From the article cited above: (note also the one from a year ago where nobody is punished)
A separate military review of the Sept. 16 shootings concluded that all of the killings were unjustified and potentially criminal.
An earlier case involving Blackwater points to the difficulty the Department of Justice may be facing in deciding whether and how to bring charges in relation to the Sept. 16 shootings. A Blackwater guard, Andrew J. Moonen, is the sole suspect in the shooting on Dec. 24 of a bodyguard to an Iraqi vice president.
Investigators have statements by witnesses, forensic evidence, the weapon involved and a detailed chronology of the events drawn up by military personnel and contractor employees.But nearly 11 months later, no charges have been brought, and officials said a number of theories had been debated among prosecutors in Washington and Seattle without a resolution of how to proceed in the case.
Nathan will not adhere to his own standard of rationability.
If he did he would have to admit that the actions of Blackwater constitute terrorist activities as defined by the FBI. (see above post).
The FBI definition includes “social goals” as well as political goals. Blackwater has a social goal of making as much money as possible while keeping the Iraq people a quiet as possible.
Shoot first and ask questions later is just a terrorist as planting a bomb in a market.
Ben and Poster Boy,
Show me where the FBI called the actions by Blackwater the actions of terrorists?
They said they were criminal actions.
Once again, you are talking about one specific incident.
How is that an indictment of the entire organization.
The people killed may not have been a threat, but neither you nor I can say for sure why exactly the Blackwater group fired at them.
You ASSUME it was to cause terror and to gain some political objective.
Where is your proof of that?
Where did the FBI say that Blackwater ADVOCATED the unlawful killing of these people?
You stated that the political goal of their employer was to make the Iraqi people submit.
WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE?
You keep making assertions, but you offer no evidence or facts to back them up.
Nathan always loves to play the semantics game and talk around the issue. I just want him to answer one direct question.
My question is really simple, if Blackwater was hired by the Iranian government to operate on their behalf inside the US and their “protection” services resulted in the murder of innocent American civilians would they be considered terrorists or heroes? As a followup would you agree that relying on the Iranian government to render justice would be the right thing to do for the families of the murder victims?
Nathan – can you PROVE that the reason alQuada flew those planes into the Trade cenyter was to terrorize? Maybe it was just an engineering study.
/sarcasm off
Ben
It’s easy for you, the press and the FBI to judge the level of a “threat” in hindsight. Ever been in a combat situation? Ever had to make critical decisions that have life and death results not only for yourself but for those who count on you and make them in a fraction of a second? Ever been under fire? It’s easy to armchair and judge from a distance. It’s a whole different ballgame once the first round is fired.
We have laws that protect our soldiers and contactors for these reasons. Mistakes happen, and in battle they happpen more than everyone would like. That’s the nature war and while unfortunate, I would rather our soldiers and contractors err on the side of THEIR safety and not the opposite.
I have a suspicion that the majority of those demanding “justice” have never been in a situation where their own mettle and split-sescond decision making has been put to the test.
How about Moonen Nathan? Why should he not be brought to justice?
Maybe someone should have thought about that BEFORE invading and making millions of enemies that we must now try to subjugate.
Subjugate? Since when have we decided to subjugate either the Afghannis or Iraqies?
It’s the same tired old argument. “The more you fight over there the more terrorists you create”….except that, wait…if that were true than we’d still be fighting raging insurgenices in Japan wouldn’t we?
Nathan:
What has Jesus told you about all this blackwater fuss?
Don’t you know, Poster Boy? The Ten Commandments state you can’t MURDER people, it doesn’t directly forbid KILLING them..otherwise how could we fight all these wars, knowing that God is on OUR side?I find it so weird that those who profess their love for God so fevently are usually the ones who proudly can’t wait to kick ass on other people and love their guns as much as they love their God.The world makes no sense to me, I guess it’s not supposed to.”Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition”.
“it’s the same tired old argument. “The more you fight over there the more terrorists you create”….except that, wait…if that were true than we’d still be fighting raging insurgenices in Japan wouldn’t we?”
Maybe it’s the difference in the culture, “not a whatever”, I don’t think the Japanese declared a holy war on the rest of the world…when god directs people to terrorize and destroy their enemies…how do you control that extremism? It’s an honor for them to die as a martyr…how do you negotiate with people who don’t want to live? That’s the difference between this war and WWII..you’re comparing apples to oranges. You can’t use the WWII model and apply it to what going on in the Middle East today…that’s the big mistake that the Bush administration made…how’s it working out so far? Not so good I think.
“Probably over 90% of Blackwater missions do not involve any hostility.” — Nathan –==========================
OK Nathan, you always want PROOF from everybody else… Where is your PROOF for this cockamamy statement??
BTW, WHO hired those individuals who killed the civilians?? And does the Organization who hired them have to meet a definition of terrorist action, or can the individuals meet that definition by their own actions??
Be careful how you answer that!
I say be careful how you answer, because you have already condoned and defended the actions of these civilians in the same manner as you would if they were military officers or soldiers, which, obviously, they are NOT!!
Yo Chas, some Wichita Police shot some people too.
Are the Police in Wichita Terrorists as well?
If you want to call the State Department a terrorist organization, then welcome to the “Yassir Arafat” school of ideological rhetoric.
You passed with an “A” Chas. No doubt you will be doing post graduate work at “Fidel’s” school of higher learning.
Kansas,
You hit the nail on the head.
I suppose when the police have to shoot someone in self defense or to protect someone else, what they were really doing was terrorizing us into their political ideology.
I notice that not one of the liberals even tried to answer my questions.
Only further validates the fact that they don’t have anything on their side to support their claims that Blackwater is not a terrorist organization.
Last month they were calling them mercenaries, this month they are calling them terrorists.
Next month Ben and the others will be saying that Blackwater is the most evil organization on earth and is bent on world domination…
Not turning over the Blackwater personell to Iraqi justice is at odds with our mission there Nathan.
Argue against that.
Nathan – i answered you relevant questions. I have no clue what Blackwater ‘claims’ to me their mission; only the trail of dead civilians that are the reality. The bodyguard for the Iraqi official killed almost a year ago – nobody brought to justice. Another guard murdered by a drunk Blackwater who was spirited out of the country by his employers. Now this massacre. Never anyone brought to justice and nobody ever will.
They did not shoot those civilians in the back in self-defense – the FBI made that clear. So your police self-defense analogy is false.
Go ahead and support your mercenary friends; just realize that they are hurting our troops’ efforts. Iraqis justifiably resent murderous cowboys gunning people down with complete immunity from prosecution.
Even some of our State Department officials are finally realizing that these guys are a liabilty.
JR – you are wrong. It simply shows the truth about what our mission is – subjugation of Iraq to our proxy rule. There is no sovereignty. As nathan stated clearly – we just invaded them.
Ben,
You have no idea what they claim their mission to be, because if you took even half a second to stop calling them terrorists and to actually look at the facts you would see how wrong you are.
It is not that hard to see this.
Blackwater was training people before the Iraq war.
They are a protection service. People hire them to protect important people.
That is what they were contracted to do.
It just so happens that now they are doing alot more of it in Iraq for the DOD.
Once again, of all the thousands upon thousands of missions and protection details they have in Iraq, you dredge up the worst examples to judge the entire organization by.
That is not logical, it is not rational, and it is not reasonable.
My analogy is false in only that specific instance.
You can’t have it both ways Ben. Either we are talking about the specific individuals involved in this one bad action or you are calling the entire organization terrorists.
So which is it? When you are condemning all of Blackwater you don’t get to turn around and then claim that my analogy doesn’t apply to just the one action at hand and dismiss it all together.
Nathan – they have established a pattern of action in the field. It’s not just an isolated incident. Add to that the shielding of the perpetrators from justice.
If these were isolated incidents then I would think that Blackwater would WANT the bad guys brought to justice. We have them going back at least a year with zero done about it.
i’m not Ben.
Didn’t stop Nathan weighing in for Max on another thread.
Ok Nathan. It’s individuals.
What is their fate?
I say hand them to Iraq no holds no conditions.
And you?
Ben,
That is not true. The individuals in Blackwater who do not follow the rules or have done something bad are fired.
Blackwater does internally punish those who do these things.
I have already stated several times that if they have done criminal wrong doing they should be held accountable in our justice system as well.
But to say nothing is being done is not true.
Is Blackwater very aggressive? You are damn straight they are.
I believe they have a 100% success rating and if not they are really close.
They have that because they take no chances in protecting the people they were hired to protect.
I don’t fault them for that.
They are in a war zone. It is not a walk in the public park.
Once again, the shooting of those civilians is an isolated incident. There have been a couple of others as well.
So out of 3-5 years of running thousands of missions a few mistakes have been made. Now you want to call the entire organization terrorists.
That makes no sense.
“Blackwater does internally punish those who do these things.”
How? By giving them a pink slip, two-week’s pay, a recommendation letter and a group hug for better luck next time? Show me the PROOF, Nathie, that these people are being punished. Or you ARE just a “terrorist’s lap poodle.”
Do us all a favor, and SHOW THE ACTUAL PROOF! (Do I have to spell it too? P-R-O-O-F!)
“So out of 3-5 years of running thousands of missions a few mistakes have been made. Now you want to call the entire organization terrorists.”
They are protecting a TERRORISTS of their own, so HELL YEAH, they’re a terrorist organisation!
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-scahill15nov15,0,5359110.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
Ah, to be outside the amputated arm of the law!
The piece linked by Roo-Ster raises the question of why Order 17 is still effective, IF there is a functioning, independent and sovereign government of Iraq. If lawfully (international law, that is, and the laws of war) the Coalition is still an “occupying force”, then there would not be to me any question of the continued efficacy of the order. Should this be the case, then in my limited understanding of the laws applicable, there is no independent government of Iraq.
In the case of an independent government of Iraq being in place, as has been alleged, the provisions of Order 17 should not have any continued validity, IMHO, and in the absence of a treaty, inter-governmental agreement, or similar instrument, the Iraqi courts should have jurisdiction over the Blackwater operatives who are implicated in the investigations to date.
If the assertions of Mr. Kennedy as cited by the author are correct, the linked piece demonstrates the legal vacuum in which Blackwater, and other private security contractors, operates. A sorry state of affairs, again IMO.
“Blackwater does internally punish those who do these things”
So, the only punishment Dennis Rader (BTK) should have gotten might be to have lost his job? Or maybe just a letter of reprimand?
VT – according to Bush the ‘occupation’ ended in 2004. Are you suggesting that he is a liar?
Ben, I am merely noting some inconsistencies in the official position on the status of Iraq and its government, in light of the continued viability of Order 17 issued by the Coalition Provisional Authority on the day before Mr. Bremer left Iraq.
And add to that the fact that the only punishment they will ever get here is MAYBE a traffic ticket.
I wonder if the Iraqi people consider their ‘government’ to be sovereign?
The average Iraqi must think, ’so it’s fine if we prosecute our former president, convict, and execute him, but we can’t do any of the above to an American?’.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6Z1tevub9I IS Bush really that Dumb?
Classic bush.