Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
US Judge Dismisses All Charges in Blackwater Iraq Killings
WASHINGTON - A federal judge dismissed manslaughter charges Thursday against five Blackwater security guards in the 2007 deaths of Iraqi civilians in a Baghad square, finding that prosecutors wrongly used the men's own statements against them.
In 2007, an Iraqi traffic police officer inspected a destroyed car in Nusoor Square in Baghdad, where Blackwater guards killed 17 people in an incident that stirred outrage among Iraqis. The September 2007 shootout in Baghdad's Nusoor Square left 17 Iraqis dead and two dozen wounded. The killings led Iraq's government to slap limits on security contractors hired by Blackwater, now known as Xe, and other firms.
U.S. District Judge Ricardo Urbina found that the government's case was built largely on "statements compelled under a threat of job loss in a subsequent criminal prosecution," a violation of the Fifth Amendment rights of the five men charged.
"In their zeal to bring charges against the defendant in this case, the prosecutors and investigators aggressively sought out statements the defendants had been compelled to make to government investigators in the immediate aftermath of the shooting and in the subsequent investigation," Urbina wrote in a 90-page decision.
Federal prosecutors "repeatedly disregarded the warnings of experienced, senior prosecutors assigned to the case" in doing so, he found.
Urbina also sharply criticized prosecutors and federal agents who developed the case, calling their explanations for using the guards' statements "all too often contradictory, unbelievable and lacking in credibility."
"In short, the government has utterly failed to prove that it made no impermissible use of the defendants' statements or that such use was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt," he wrote.
There was no immediate response to the decision from the Justice Department, which can appeal Thursday's ruling or seek new indictments against the men.
The men were guarding a State Department convoy moving through western Baghdad when the shooting began. The company said its contractors came under attack, but Iraqi authorities called the gunfire unprovoked and indiscriminate.
Each of the now-former guards -- Paul Slough, Evan Liberty, Dustin Heard, Donald Ball and Nicholas Slatten -- faced 14 counts of manslaughter, 20 counts of attempted manslaughter and one count of using a firearm in the commission of a violent crime.
Prosecutors requested that charges against Slatten be dropped in November, but Thursday's ruling dismisses the counts against all five.
"We're obviously pleased at the decision dismissing the entire indictment and are very happy that these courageous young men can begin the new year without this unfair cloud hanging over them," said Slough's lawyer, Mark Hulkower.
A sixth guard, Jeremy Ridgeway, pleaded guilty in 2008 to voluntary manslaughter and attempted manslaughter.
92 Comments so far
Show AllHitler would be proud.
Reminds me of the trial of Hitler after the Beer Hall putsch in 1923 when he got sent to a cushy jail where he and Hess wrote Mein Kampf, instead of kicking him out as an undesirable alien (he was Austrian). I smell a rat.
Gary
This is truly disgusting. Apparently the same burden of proof does not obtain for people with Arab names accused of thought crimes (cf. Hedges' article of a few days ago about Al-Hashmi). Actually, let me correct myself. With "preventive detention" there is no burden of proof at all. And down the tubes we go.
I wonder if the rulings will be impartial if/when these thugs eventually come marching down American streets after some disaster, natural or manmade, and the "civilians" actually DO defend themselves against these jackbooted intruders. No. Of course not. These shitbags will be heralded as heroes and defenders of "freedom" by the corporate press while those who defend their homes from being looted by these professional criminals will be called, as always, "insurgents."
The Black Shirts and the Brown Shirts win again!
Duce!, Duce!, Duce!
Seig heil!, Seig heil!, Seig heil!
This ought to improve our standing in the Middle East.
Yeah. I can see them waving American flags and cheeering. Wait. is that a torch? OHMYGOD they are buring Old Glory!!!
• Wait and see if I am right.
Gary
decisions may be analyzed, upheld or overturned...appeals may be made, and made again...
bullets do not remove themselves from dead bodies and dead bodies do not reanimate to rebuild gaping wounds and devastating structural trauma...
somebody's really getting screwed on this deal, and it ain't the guys that pulled the triggers...
the truly cynical might suspect intentional errors on the part of the prosecution...toleration of incompetence, at this level, would be difficult to understand...
My instinctive reaction was to go on a diatribe about the fact that O, in all the time he's been in office, has replaced only a handful of the bush-appointed judges.
But upon reflection I realize any judges O might have appointed would have ruled the same way. What a relief!
thanks for clarifying that i sweating and couldn't sleep over that one! haha
jm, Urbana was appointed in 1994. That makes him a Clinton appointee, and as unpopular as his decision is on this site, it was the right thing to do. Those were essentially coerced confessions. The prosecution blew it. I want to see them brought to justice, but I don't want civil rights trashed to do it.
Much as I dislike some of the cases ACLU takes up, they are fighting to protect all our civil rights. What are we if we start deciding who gets to have civil rights and who doesn't? Don't we become that which we abhor?
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
I agree with BeForKids that I do not want civil rights trashed to bring these people to justice. If we want civil rights we must support them even when it is uncomfortable for us. The law is based on precident. When we are in court and coerced evidence is used against us we have the precidenct of this Blackwater case to use in our defense. I hope that the powers that be will soon successfully use "habius corpus rights" to defend their own so that we have a recent precident on this to use.
Wonder if this same judge would render the same decision for all those kidnapped, tortured, incarcerated in Guantanamo who hadn't done a damn thing, but be turned over by their brother Afghan bounty hunters to the U.S. military? But under relentless torture they might have admitted whatever they were told was necessary to admit.
Maybe the judge was right in this instance using a legal technicality. But it just seems that our justice system is slick and biased at judicial convenience when all these suspected furriners are concerned.
A perfect world it isn't,
... with more to come.
/cm
What the Arab world will see is that the US can murder people at will and get off scott free -- and that the 'rule of law' is meaningless: that the only justice will come from their old codes of vengeance such as the militant resistance (AKA 'terrorists' mete out), and all the talk of 'democracy' is a web of lies (as if they didn't already know that).
This is where the old codes of vengeance largely came from --members of other nomadic tribes who commit crimes but don't stick around to answer for them, so that the only deterrent was to make the tribe pay, inducing them to keep their members in line -- a type of collective punishement, true, but that's the best they had at the time. This will also induce Iraqis to insist that offending Americans be judged and/or punished within the Iraqi legal structures.
*** Message deleted by administrators for using all capital letters. ***
well said...I would only add that there is alot of profit to be made off of unjust laws...not that such a thing would have any influence...
" In other words, it was "unconstitutional" for the Blackwater murderers to be threatened with the possibility of losing their high-paying "
I do believe that there used to be a such a thing as a Bill of Rights and that the 5th amendment to the Constitution prohibited self-incrimination. Thus it is self-incrimination and not the threat of job loss that is unconstitutional.
I know it is hard to follow this logic since that piece of paper is so quaint and rarely used.
the operative word here - for all the world to see about american "justice and truth" is:
US JUDGE.
AMERICAN judge.
he cites prosecution based on testimony by the blackwater AMERICANS "under duress"........
excuse me - but the USA has extracted "confessions" and even NON-confessions by TORTURE..."under duress" in other words......
shall one have to repeat the word to describe this judge and "american justice?"
it's called HYPOCRISY - and the entire world, as well as iraqis - see it.
it will come back to haunt america.
"Yes, but they didn't use those confessions in the criminal prosecution of a US citizen."
The American government has imprisoned U.S. citizens while denying them fundamental constitutional rights, and has subjected them to horrific abuse and torture.
For a start, you can read about Jose Padilla at these two sites:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/greenwald1.html
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/11/padilla-torture-just-when-you-thought.html
and you can read Chris Hedges' recent CD article on Fahad Hashmi here:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/12/28
Even if the U.S. government had not committed such acts against U.S. citizens, the widespread use of torture and imprisonment without rights should elicit disgust in all U.S. citizens, as it is antithetical to the foundational principles of our society.
Aren't those same "unconstitutional" tactics used routinely in the U.S. to obtain confessions from suspected common criminals every day? Beatings, tasings and even shootings of "suspects" are regularly documented by squad car video cameras. More of the same in interrogation rooms. Every year judges wrongly convict hundreds, if not thousands, based on such evidence.
Someone please explain why this dismissal is not hypocrisy.
It should, but you should go to www.ksl.com someday when there is an attack. All the good christian mormons advocate bombing that country and letting god sort them out. I could not understand how people could keep electing horrible congress critters, or stand behind McCain, let alone Bush intil I started 1) reading their comments, 2) I watched No Country for Old Men. That movie to me told me how illiterate, uneducated (stupid) more than half of this country is.
When the majority of Americans find Torture is acceptable.
When the police engage in beatings, and using that sound generator against protestors, or have no problems shooting them, oh locking up journalists like what happened to Democracy Now's staff, or the many other things they do.
When the Majority of citizens want better health care, and the stupid people come out to protest against better health care, because Rush told them so...
and on and on and on.
America has lost it's way many decades ago. We will blow apart a country if it tries to attack us and claim we are defending ourselves against terrorism. Why isn't it terrorism if we bomb the shit out of people that can't defend themselves?
If China dropped Predator bombs on us, would we be insurgants if we fought back?
The irony of what the US says and what it does is incredible.
But, Wizard's First Rule.... People are Stupid. They will believe a lie because they think it is true or they are afraid it is true........ From the Sword of Truth Series by Terry Goodkind.
Off topic, but a great series about the Old World that wants to wipe out magic and freedom and will use every horrible way to do it. And the people of the Old World think that is just ok
America says that it is spreading democracy by killing MILLIONS of INNOCENT people, and it's people think it is ok. God is on our side.................
jm, maybe they didn't screw up, but gained a desired end.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
Agree with you --
And the many others here expressing their disgust at anyone calling
this "justice" --
It's long been gone --
Until we restore a people's government -- if ever -- the injustices will
continue to only pile up.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
.
"According to all myth, the female - not the male -- gives life"
conscience, I was referring to the prosecutors, not the judge. Those prosecutors were repeatedly warned not to use the confessions. They had to know the judge would have to throw out the case or get overturned on appeal.
No, we don't have a fair system of justice. Starting with the police, on to the prosecutors, and judges who are lenient with upper middle class white kids and throw poor kids - especially black kids - into the slammer for the maximum allowed by law. It's not about justice, but about controlling the masses. I think the prevailing philosophy is lock them all up.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
What a crock! Shitwater thugs get off massacring 17 Iraqis. I wonder what the outcome would have been had an Iraqi judge heard the case? Chalk up another victory for the corporate-mercenary SS.
When do we declare the party officially over?
The party has been over for a long time now.
We're still in the hangover stage.
The cringing, vomiting and moans for a god of mercy are little further down the road.
But it is coming.
WHO SAID DURESS? the whole thing smells like a fix.
both sides play a game to keep these criminals out
of jail. next time the iraq's attack americans in
iraq it will be the "terrorists". our government will
never learn. imperial govt. has always in human history
been arrogant and because of this arrogance been a hard
learner! nothing has changed whenever this mentality
takes control.
The judge was scrupulous about protecting the rights of mercenaries. However, these guys aren't serving up pizzas in Iraq. They aren't "contractors" in the usual sense.
Of course, Iraq was illegally attacked. Is that not a consideration for this judge? How can any contractor have civil rights under military rule?
Blackwater guards aren't following a United Nations mandate. They aren't subject to local Iraqi laws because the occupying power says that they aren't - clearly a gross injustice. Now, the judge has released them from facing U.S. prosecution for murder.
The judicial branch of government appears to be equally corrupt along with the executive and legislative branches. It's a total meltdown.
-TIA
jm37219: I agree with you, surprisingly enough. The rule of law is the rule of law for everybody, and you can't properly complain because it has been applied to "undeserving" (in your view) persons. That of course is the complaint of the right-wingers about "due process" for terrorist detainees, that being "terrorists" (without benefit of conviction), that don't "deserve" the rights of other accused persons. I first noticed this conflict among people of otherwise civil libertarian sensitivities at the time of the O.J. Simpson trial back in 94. Noting the persistence of Simpson's lawyers in challenging the validity of every piece of evidence offered against him by the prosecution, many asked bitterly if rhetorically: "would the poor yokel on the street facing the charges O.J. was facing get this kind of advantage in an American court?" The answer ("obviously not") seemed to them some kind of warrant for resentment that O.J. DID get that treatment; while my reaction was to argue that this only showed what kind of defense a defendant COULD (and should) get in an American court, if the rule of law was being properly implemented. So here again: I detest the brutal acts of which the Blackwater agents were accused as much as anyone; but whatever my feelings they are innocent until proven guilty and to assume otherwise is to start down that slippery slope that leads to a de facto removal of that vital presumption of innocence which will land even more innocent people into prison if not into being executed. That way lies totalitarianism.
"The rule of law is the rule of law for everybody"
Not in this country.
Should read;
The rule of law is supposed to be the rule of law for everybody
Was it "in their zeal to get a conviction" or on purpose? I think they threw the case on purpose, on orders from higher-up.
Also, I don't know that I buy "against advice of seniors." I'll bet most of those guys do what their bosses tell them to do. I think that "against the advice of seniors" line is just PR they're feeding us.
Well, let's not argue about something that is absurd. The mercenaries should have been subject to Iraqi law, but they are there as part of an illegal invasion by a foreign power, which says they are above Iraqi law. Next, a U.S. court decides the matter narrowly based on U.S.contract law, which should be irrelevant.
No, this is not real law. This is made-up law.
Civil penalty? In what country? It's not a matter of it going my way. It's a matter of a lawless state trying to cover its ass after a mass murder.
-TIA
So Murder Incorporated walks free. It's up to the ICC or Al CIAdah to administer justice now.
Support the Empire send your children..
I was waiting for this to happen. No surprise but Christ is there no self respect in this country.. The rest of the world must be shocked at the behavior of this country. Actually
I suppose that it is really no surprise to the world and the Amerikan people don't have a clue.
Most of the people that I talk to still think the contractors are over in Iraq building schools.
Just goes to show that you can not have a democracy with stupid population, but wait that is the
reason they keep the schools the way they are.
I wonder when they are going to understand that the obomber is still in Hawaii in a $5000 a night house. I guess he is doing just what he was hired to do.
I generally agree with the comments, and especially that the outcome sucks.
However, I think that laying the blame at the judge's feet is shooting the messenger.
Don't groan right away, but of all things I hearken back to the unnamed intelligence officer played by Donald Sutherland in "JFK", allegedly an analogue of Fletcher Prouty.
The character points out the naïveté in insisting upon explicit evidence of "conspiracy", insofar as complex and far-reaching operations emerge from UNspoken words and minimal explication among participants with a common understanding.
IMO, both mercenary and regular military operations presently permit, if not encourage, the commission of war crimes and atrocities. Self-serving amorality has Total Spectrum Dominance over military and paramilitary operations.
As the trenchant phrase attributed to Groucho Marx goes, "military justice is to justice what military music is to music". But since 9/11 changed everything, this century has seen amoral, ruthless cynicism and mendacity enthroned in the highest command levels.
This atrocity by mercenary forces, like those committed by US troops at Haditha, Fallujah, and elsewhere, and which occurred in a military theater arguably illegal and illicit in the first place, followed the usual recipe:
• Crimes and atrocities committed in "the fog of war" (which, unlike "the heat of battle", settles over the entire theater of operation) may or may not be treated as such by unit leaders or field commanders-- who, after all, may have ordered, participated in, or permitted the crimes and atrocities, or for whatever reason failed to curtail them;
• Official reports-- which, again, may originate with complicit parties-- are invariably fudged by superiors; the atrocities and crimes are reduced to Merry Mixups, mistakes, unfortunate split-second judgement calls, and are effectively buried as routine;
• Local victims and witnessess are either paid off ("compensated") or intimidated, and otherwise ignored or disbelieved by military officials and embedded media;
• Some time later, long after forensic evidence is obliterated at the unsecured "crime scene", a third party-- e.g., an NGO, an independent non-Amerikan journalist or news agency-- reports the heinous actions, and the report finally requires an official response;
• The military response invariably involves another round of mendacity and obfuscation, the bureaucratic, public-relations version of "nothing to see here-- move along";
• If all the combat-boot dragging and stomping to keep the debacle under the tarp doesn't succeed, the military command finally bites the bullet, admits cautiously that "mistakes were made", and green-lights the military-justice apparatus to "investigate" and adjudicate the matter;
• The prosecutors have next to nothing to work with-- the above-cited process has conveniently disappeared the evidence and testimony prosecutors need to build a solid case. Funny how it works out that way;
• Eventually the criminals, who always claim that THEY'RE the "real victims" and exhibit ferocious self-righteousness at being "scapegoated", cheered on by their attorneys, family & friends, and a patriotic mob of 110% True Believer supporters, get their day in court;
• The judges and advocates, who are after all deeply invested in the military themselves and have every reason to avoid besmirching the Honor of the Service just because of a little collateral damage, are happy to give the defendants every consideration, especially because the prosecution's got nothin' anyway. Juries, even more so; the bias toward troops vis-à-vis some unknown and unseen foreigners is the same bias most juries show when cops are on trial;
• Result: acquittal, "exoneration", or at worst minimal punishment in the rare cases where the military can't help BUT convict. It works out differently once in a while-- mostly in the movies.
Thus, honor is saved!
The above points are made with respect to military courts, but the civil courts take a parallel approach, mutatis mutandis. My point being that the fix is in long before the judge dismisses the charges-- the fix is in before the crime is even committed!
· Yr Obd't Servant
spot on.
This is an absurd ending to a proven case of lawlessness by contractors, mercenaries, call them what you will.
This is what happens when you have armed forces that are not under military descipline and are not responsible to anyone on the ground.
The contempt these mercenaries are held in by our own troops should be reason enough to stop their use by the government.
The majority of these mercenaries served in the Military be it that of the USA or some other nation.
Are they truly held in contempt? What is the difference when they serve at your side in uniform or they serve at your side as a mercenary?
They are the same person doing the same work.
Is it simply the MONEY? The "cause" is the same, that of "Fighting terrorism". So please elaborate. Is the contempt based upon the renumeration or the cause?
I am going to suggest that if the CAUSE is wrong , it does not matter if you do it for money or for duty. Slapping on a Uniform does not suddenly make the CAUSE right.
It is the money. It is simply that that if Blackwater's soldiers get the money, Civic Americanus' / Thomas More's beloved soldiers don't.
Good point. War is immoral.
Killing is immoral.
Uniforms, badges, paychecks; make no difference.
who woulda thunk it? the department of injustice throws another major prosecution. can you say ted stevens?
scooter libby?
the best way to get into the federal pen is to 'conspire' to distribute marijuana...that's one rap they always get right..the rat bastards.
Wholeheartedly agree.
The scary part of all this is that the private mercenary armies, like Blackwater, are going to be patrolling the streets of US in the near future, as they did for a short spell in New Orleans after Hurrican Katrina.
Of course all charges against BLACKWATER were dismissed. I mean if they were found guilty, like they truly are, then that would make Obama guilty as well, since he is still using them to fight in the Middle East. And we can't have our savior, our messiah, Obama being associated with a bunch of guilty mercenaries, now could we?! No, of course not, thats just insane.
It does seem like this was a set-up with the flimsiest of excuses and bad prosecutioary procedures. Perhaps deliberately?
With hundreds of thousands of civilian support stationed in the two wars can we expect the MIC not to protect it's Corporate Masters?
Gary
"In their zeal to bring charges against the defendant in this case, the prosecutors and investigators aggressively sought out statements the defendants had been compelled to make to government investigators...," Judge Urbana wrote in his decision.
I guess the state department interrogators were using the same techniques that US government applied to those they accuse of being terrorists.
In Amerikkka you can have all the justice you can afford.
All it says is that they agressively sought statements.
I believe the Judge is saying they aggressive sought the paperwork that the statements were on.
The Judge is deliberately being misleading so as to cloak his absurd ruling.
Since when is being threatened with job loss for committing manslaughter Constitutionally protected?
Or is it Job loss if you do not confess to manslaugter?
Is manslaughter a Constitutionally protected Civil Right?
Like is it " Admit to murder or you loose your job?
Maybe " Admit to murder or no dessert" also works
This Judge is talking legalese gobbely gook.
what compelled this judge?
he has just granted some more freedom to be hated.
Plain and simple:
"Law is politics by other means."