Saturday, December 06, 2008

Blackwater indictments

The Washington Post reports here that five Blackwater Worldwide Security guards were indicted under MEJA on Thursday for a September 2007 shooting incident that killed 17 Iraqis. The article sets out potential difficulties in the prosecution, including jurisdictional problems under MEJA because the Blackwater guards were directly supporting the State Department and not the Department of Defense.

Here's a follow-up piece from WaPo's web site.
Posted by Dwight Sullivan at 5:21 PM

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm amazed that the feds have decided to try this under MEJA. I don't see how a federal court is going to buy the argument that a contractor for the Dept of State is "supporting" the Dept of Defense mission. Seems like a stretch to me. That said, it seems like the feds would clearly have juridiction here under the War Crimes Act, and civilians taking a direct part in hostilities certainly seems to qualify as a violation of the law of armed conflict. Anyone know why the feds would choose not to go that route?

Mon Dec 08, 01:39:00 PM EST
Anonymous said...

Other than the DoS employment of the individuals for just that very reason, to engage hostiles while protecting the DoS interests, I can't think of one.

Mon Dec 08, 07:39:00 PM EST
Anonymous said...

Sure, but the contractors were employed for defensive purposes, which would not violate the law of armed conflict. The allegation is that they used force for some reason other than self-defense, which would not be permissible for a civilian.

Tue Dec 09, 02:47:00 PM EST
Anonymous said...

So jurisdiction only attaches once the allegations are proved true?

Wed Dec 10, 06:25:00 AM EST
Anonymous said...

The mission for Blkwter was to get ppl from point A to point B without any harm without any delay.
The incident in question occurred in a combat zone and with different engagement rules. There is no way a LEGAL process could move forward. What is prompting this activity is pure POLITICS. There are hostiles all over the place and for someone to move forward with this does not understand the enviroment nor appreciate what these guys do. They violated no R.O.E. but saying that watch the dirty politics move forward....

Mon Apr 06, 03:10:00 AM EDT
Anonymous said...

To go to court ??? How...where's the evidence ? The crime scene was NOT preserved therefore no evidence avail at the scene therefore no evidence for trial. Are we to take the word of hostiles over the contractors all of whom have sworn loyalty to the USA.
This reminds me of the border patrol officers where they took the word of a dope smuggler over 2 BP Officers...

Mon Apr 06, 03:14:00 AM EDT
Anonymous said...

IN this zone people are to follow directions and when told to back out of the area and not keep moving forward towards the principles lethal force may be used... there is a no go zone all arouond when transporting diplomats and other vips's...locals know it and are warned to stop...this is NOT an area where you stop and discuss why ... there is no room for the ACLU here..

Mon Apr 06, 03:17:00 AM EDT

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)