« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
Remember that recently-impaneled grand jury looking at Blackwater's Nisour Square shootings? Turns out it's not just about Blackwater.
Four years into the occupation, prosecutors are attempting to build the first criminal case against private security companies -- who up until now worked in a system rigged to ensure unaccountability.
The Washington grand jury has issued subpoenas to several private security firms, including Blackwater, a legal source briefed on the probe said yesterday. Authorities are seeking company "after-action" reports and other documents that may shed light on specific incidents, he said.The source, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the probe, declined to say which incidents have been targeted, but he said the investigation ranges well beyond Blackwater. Private security companies in Iraq "have been shooting a lot of people," he said.
That's an understatement.
There's no word from the piece about which non-Blackwater firms are in the grand jury's crosshairs, nor which incidents are potentially criminal. As the paper reports, the Iraqi government claims it knows more than 20 potential criminal incidents involving private security companies -- most of which it lays at the feet of Blackwater -- but whether that list has anything to do with the grand jury's focus is unknown.
Also unknown is the specific law which the security firms could be accused of breaking:
But the U.S. government's ability to prosecute remains hampered by the lack of clarity over what laws may apply. For instance, contractors were immunized from Iraqi laws under a June 2004 order signed by the U.S. occupation authority. That ruling remains in effect.In addition, investigations are complicated by questions about evidence, jurisdiction and the availability of witnesses. "If they're going to try to indict, they've got a lot to overcome," said Patricia A. Smith, an Alexandria lawyer who represents two former employees of Triple Canopy, a private security firm based in Herndon, in a civil lawsuit. The former employees say they were wrongfully terminated after reporting that their Triple Canopy team leader fired shots into the windshield of a taxi for amusement last year on Baghdad's airport road.
Comments (28)
1oldlady wrote on November 20, 2007 9:36 AM:DC Washington? Wow, isn't that were Paulose new post is?
Is there a connection here? Maybe not or is there?
lambert strether wrote on November 20, 2007 9:56 AM:Let's be reasonable about this.
How on earth can we use mercenaries to suppress domestic insurrection if they don't get some practice shooting people?
Move along, move along. There's no story here.
Anonymous wrote on November 20, 2007 10:07 AM:"The former employees say they were wrongfully terminated after reporting that their Triple Canopy team leader fired shots into the windshield of a taxi for amusement last year on Baghdad's airport road."
And this was their team leader?
So what were they training these guys to be, gangland-style killers or security guards?
At least we know there are some of these former mercs with a real conscience, hopefully the "good guys" will get together, and protect each other (and the truth) against the inevitable threats that will come from the "bad guys."
Henry (The Gavel) Waxman needs to get these guys together in a secure location and let them all spill their guts, it is more than likely that they saw enough to make us all sick, and more than enough evidence to prove that our tax money was spent to send psycopaths and sociopaths on gleeful killing sprees.
Like the song says, "Who are the Nazis now?"
Me_again wrote on November 20, 2007 10:08 AM:Yes, more evidence that Bush is and was so incredibly interested in Iraqi democracy, seeing as how he took care to provide "justice for all" via making security firms immune to liability even for the act of murder with the many random shootings of innocent Iraqis with security firms that out-number US troops.
Ether Bush is an incredibly mentally challenged person or a cold-blooded, indifferent thug. The Bush administration’s chilling indifference to the people of Iraq, entitles Iraqis to tell Bush that they do not wish to do business with Western Contractors.
Bush is in a very public display of giving real meaning to word “infidel”.
JEP wrote on November 20, 2007 10:13 AM:Forgot to sign that last post, and wanted to add one more thought..
Apparently, from what we read about the civil lawsuits being promulgated by former Blackwater ops (or their survivors), there is a group of ex- mercs who were converted from their former wild-west-warrior ways by their Iraq experiences, maybe their collective story would make a good expose' book?
One chapter per shooter?
That book might end up being a long one...
phil wrote on November 20, 2007 10:20 AM:I have to agree with Lambert Strether (second post). I think it would be obvious that the returning troops would not enforce a bush declared martial law and the mercs would be more than happy to oblige the corporate boss in doing so. Not saying that I believe this is a probable scenario, but I wouldn't for one second be surpised, especially if another election goes against the exit polls and results in a win for the 24% party. This, I think, would be the last straw, so to speak....
W Action wrote on November 20, 2007 10:29 AM:Declaring that laws against murder don't apply because you're the good guys makes perfect sense to me! That and failing to competently rebuild and run the infrastructure are sure steps to building democracy. Medals of Freedom to all!
Worst. Administration. Ever.
Barringer wrote on November 20, 2007 10:33 AM:"Either Bush is an incredibly mentally challenged person or a cold-blooded, indifferent thug."
Why can't it be both?
sixtyy-four wrote on November 20, 2007 10:52 AM:Isn't that convenient that an order was signed in June 2004 immunnizing security companies from laws governing their action? Does anyone else get the feeling that security companies were put in place by the administration (more like Cheney) as a shadow army, only they could bring order to Baghdad giving the appearance that the surge of the military was successful.
Our soldiers are making pennies, benefits are being withheld, but the security companies are making billions. It's so wrong!!
SteinL wrote on November 20, 2007 10:53 AM:A mentally challenged cold-blooded indifferent thugh? Sounds like the GWB I know.
Of course, Rumsfeld's hidden army, comprised of mercenaries and privateers, achieved a triple-whammy:
1. Kept down the real number of soldiers required to "pacify" Iraq.
2. Sent considerable monies into the coffers of Rumsfeld and Cheney's enablers.
3. Allowed numerous actions, against Iraqis, that were slimed in "plausible deniability" -- while keeping the US forces from committing the worst of the atrocities perpetrated in-country.
Utterly dishonorable, delinquent and criminal -- but with a president of Bush's mettle what would you expect?
Frank wrote on November 20, 2007 10:54 AM:In our name murders were committed in Iraq. The only accountability there was to restore self respect as a nation was taken off the table by Pelosi..So live with it my fellow americans, live with it.
"Who are the Nazis now?" is the new meme permeating our cultural perspicacity. I wish it would sink in to other politicians besides Kucinich.
Dennis wrote on November 20, 2007 10:54 AM:"So what were they training these guys to be, gangland-style killers or security guards?"
You can bet and win that some of them will be, if not already are.
But NOTHING is going to happen to these people, especially if they are charged while Bush is still in office (I'm refering to presidential pardons).
And even after that, the blanket immunity given by the Bush administration will cover them.
What's serious is that these guys shot other human beings in such a manner as they would shot a dog - without any feelings at all.
You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
Haddie wrote on November 20, 2007 10:59 AM:Hmmmm, I'm still suprised that no one has yet to ask the Dem candidates whether they would be docile & accept the results of a fraudulent 2008 election. I guess candidate Edwards' responce is self evident, given his "outrage" over 2000. Would candidate Clinton call for tak'n it to the streets? Would candidate Obama rally "no justice, no peace" protests?
TheraP wrote on November 20, 2007 10:59 AM:Remember, once impaneled, a Grand Jury has powers of its own, that can even exceed what the Prosecutor may have in mind. These citizens have subpoena power. They can decide to look deeper, to extend their investigation wider.
I am hoping that this jury will do a great deal of digging. And we never know where it may lead...
GKAM wrote on November 20, 2007 11:04 AM:Nothing has changed, only gotten worse. In 1967, I volunteered for the war of my generation, got there and realized that we were the bad guys, acting like Nazis.
My complaints were unappreciated.
GKAM wrote on November 20, 2007 11:07 AM:"Remember, once impaneled, a Grand Jury has powers of its own, that can even exceed what the Prosecutor may have in mind."
Yes, but they have no investigative staff, and must depend on the local US Attorney, who may deny the resources, or the AG's office could deny the request.
Alguien wrote on November 20, 2007 11:21 AM:Frank wrote on November 20, 2007 10:54 AM:
In our name murders were committed in Iraq. The only accountability there was to restore self respect as a nation was taken off the table by Pelosi..So live with it my fellow americans, live with it.
"Who are the Nazis now?" is the new meme permeating our cultural perspicacity. I wish it would sink in to other politicians besides Kucinich.
That's right Frank! And keep in mind that of all the atrocities these hags are comitting every day, only a FRACTION has been reported (by a few fellow merenaries that still have a trace of integrity),
Anonymous wrote on November 20, 2007 11:48 AM:My question is: after all this can you blame the insurgents that kill the Americans that are ocuppying their country???
I don't blame them one bit. I think they are heroes! And by the way, why do we call it "insurgency"? It's RESISTANCE to an occuppying army that invaded their country on false premises and has been pillaging them for five years! Glory to them and shame on us!
Please refer in all future posts to prosecutions under the War Crimes Act.
18 U.S.C. S. 2441 War Crimes Act of 1996:
(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.
(b) Circumstances.— The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).
(c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party and which deals with non-international armed conflict; or
(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.
kenga wrote on November 20, 2007 12:17 PM:"Yes, but they have no investigative staff, and must depend on the local US Attorney, who may deny the resources, or the AG's office could deny the request."
True, that.
Can someone state whether a Grand Jury's term expires with the administration that empaneled it? Or could it extend into the next administration?
brian wrote on November 20, 2007 12:44 PM:I hope the grand jury goes up the chain of command to find malefactors. I do not care so much about a few 'bad apples' as scapegoats, as at Abu Ghraib.
We need to find out how much cash is being kicked back to the Republican party. What Prince does should be illegal - is it ?
Rick B wrote on November 20, 2007 2:08 PM:Hey Me_again,
Of course Bush, Cheney, and the movement conservatives have no empathy for other people, or even any interest in what happens to them. Movement conservatism is focused on the Conservative and fundamentalist Christian ideologies, not on people.
People are just anonymous cattle to be herded around or disposed of if they step out of line. When does anyone really have empathy with the cow when they eat steak?
Conservatives in general have about the same interest in what happens to people they don't know personally as the rancher has in the individual cattle or the farmer has for his wheat.
Roberta wrote on November 20, 2007 2:45 PM:Here's some info about federal grand juries:
Grand jury's term
Federal grand juries are of two types--regular and special. Regular grand juries sit for a basic term of 18 months, but that term can be extended up to another 6 months, which means their total possible term is 24 months. Special grand juries sit for 18 months, but their term can be extended for up to another 18 months; a court can extend a special grand jury's term for 6 months, and can enter up to three such extensions, totaling 18 months.
Take a look at http://campus.udayton.edu/~grandjur/fedj/fedj.htm for more information.
This grand jury can get an awful lot done, and grand juries have subpoena power. Of course, the way that this Admin seems to think that subpoenas are there for use when the TP roll runs out, it's hard to know how much this will matter.
palli wrote on November 20, 2007 3:43 PM:Private Armies terrorize communities. Private armies have more than guns, body armor and electricity.
John Wilson wrote on November 20, 2007 9:47 PM:Read Robert Parry's article at Buzzflash.com. Irag is a testing ground for the new world order.
These well-paid mercenaries will come home with the taste of blood and the righteousness of home-grown patriotic KKKlansman. Divide Americans into "sects" or classes and terroize them. That top 6% of the American population is going to need protection.
Reading these posts, as I do every day
I find that it's better than going to a
scary movie.
Something bad happened but you just
know it's going to get worse.
Listen to Murtha.
Read about Black Water
Read about the former press sect'y
admitting his lies
God, but it's easy compiling a list...
I realized I don't have time...
I'm not yet scared concerning the U.S.
but I certainly am embarrassed.
A Yank in Vancouver...
parrot wrote on November 21, 2007 1:14 AM:So...why did Impeachment get removed from the table? Tell me again.
Evadt wrote on November 21, 2007 2:19 AM:Within American armed forces, there is deep simmering resentment running against PSCons: count on it.
jonerik wrote on November 21, 2007 7:37 PM:RE: War Crimes Act prosecutions.
"Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War
Adopted on 12 August 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of
International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, held in Geneva
from 21 April to 12 August, 1949
entry into force 21 October 1950:
Article 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict. "
thomas wrote on November 27, 2007 3:09 PM:just hang them all. god will sort the guilty from those who were only in it for the money