Jury: Ex-Blackwater contractors guilty in 'outrageous' Nusoor Square shooting

American said:

Sounds like they killed people that shouldn't even have been shooting at. You can't just shoot random people because you think someone is shooting at you.

Click to expand...

Most people here would agree with this.
Have you read any of Excon's posts?

Since there seems to be some confusion as to what a mercenary is, here's the definition:

2. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;

(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;

(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;

(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;

(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and

(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl...t&documentId=9EDC5096D2C036E9C12563CD0051DC30

American said:

Four Blackwater guards found guilty in 2007 Iraq shootings of 31 unarmed civilians - The Washington Post

Sounds like they killed people that shouldn't even have been shooting at. You can't just shoot random people because you think someone is shooting at you.

Click to expand...

I understand that. I heard the audio transmission during the event and read some of the presented evidence and it caused me to wonder about their guilt....

Again, I was not there... maybe it's only my learned skepticism when criminal trials might have political consequences. I'm not taking sides, here. Just wondering.

Have a great day A

Thom Paine

Van Basten said:

You can't be serious. They're just mercenaries with a different name.

Click to expand...

See the post above

Note portion "D"

Yea, that's the hard part.

I don't like them at all, but they have their uses.

Click to expand...

I don't see why it's so hard. We want very specialized jobs done by particular individuals who have a subject matter expertise that is not available from the regular Armed Forces, so we contract it out. For example, a lot of our notebooks and whatnot are made by a particular contractor who hires Blind Americans. I've always thought that was kind of cool, and it keeps us from having to make our own notebooks. We also have contractors who provide specialized logistical, engineering, or computing expertise.

Military members are expected to be more Jack-of-all-Trades. When I was active duty, for example, I had to trade off the time and energy I devoted to my "job" with the time and energy I had to devote to doing "Marine Stuff". I had to learn leadership, mentoring, physical fitness, go through ridiculous amounts of mandatory annual, semi-annual, and quarterly training, conduct off-site training events (rifle ranges, swim qualifications, gas chamber qualifications, NCO course, SNCO course), etc. so on and so forth, and at the end of the day, the more I excelled at my job, the more likely I was to end up doing administration instead.

Some jobs need dedicated specialists.

danarhea said:

At least, when Americans murder women and children, there is an American judicial system that will make them pay for their heinous crimes. Let the title of "baby killers" rest with ISIS, who truly deserve the name. Americans hold themselves to a higher standard, and woe to those who violate it. Excellent verdict.

Article is here.

Click to expand...

This sort of stuff happens when you use mercenaries....maybe we shouldnt be.

year2late said:

You think it was the jury's fault for no conviction?

Seriously?

Click to expand...

"We gots enough black men's in prison already" Sound familiar?

Luftwaffe said:

Contractors are a plague to the US, why we hire them for anything is beyond me.

If they were so patriotic they would join the US military straight-up.

Click to expand...

Apparently you not only didn't read my post but have no idea what you are talking about.
The vast majority of contractors have already served in the military with many having SOF experience. In fact most of the more combat related jobs combat arms military service is mandatory before you can be hired.

But hey don't let the fact that you don't have any idea what you are talking about keep you from having an opinion on the topic

Zyphlin said:

...wait, are you seriously suggesting you never said "quick", "quick to assume" or "these blackwater guys" (the three words/phrases I "put quotes around")?

Do you...do you know that this forum logs all your posts and there's a quote function, right?



last I checked, you are "lifeisshort", yes? Then I didn't put quotes around words you never said.

The above post is you accusing Dana of being "quick to assume" that the black water guys are murders, and asking if he's as "quick to assume" the cop in Fergeson is one as well.

The assumption Dana was so "quick" came SEVEN years after the initial action, after a full investigation and an entire court case. That, apparently to you, is a "quick" assumption :roll:

Click to expand...

Now that I have taught you the proper use of quotation marks we can focus on the question mark and sentence structure.

Van Basten said:

You can't be serious. They're just mercenaries with a different name.



Yea, that's the hard part.

I don't like them at all, but they have their uses.

Hard choices.

Click to expand...

International law says they're not mercenaries. So, yes, I'm serious.

lifeisshort said:

"We gots enough black men's in prison already" Sound familiar?

Click to expand...

Mark Furhman sound familiar?

I think Furhman (and crew) did more to get OJ off than anything.

Di you have any issue with the evidence that was presented?

I recall a few ex-jurors after the trial thinking it was likely that OJ did it, but not with the evidence and witnesses they were given.

braindrain said:

Apparently you not only didn't read my post but have no idea what you are talking about.
The vast majority of contractors have already served in the military with many having SOF experience. In fact most of the more combat related jobs combat arms military service is mandatory before you can be hired.

But hey don't let the fact that you don't have any idea what you are talking about keep you from having an opinion on the topic

Click to expand...

Why are they no longer part of the military?

When you're done, you're done. PMCs are still a plague to the USA.

There is a reason why they're no longer part of the military, whether it's age or something else.

>" The Blackwater guards' account of the incident differed from that set forth in an Iraqi government account. The latter claimed that as the convoy drew close to Nisour Square, a Kia sedan with a woman and her grown son in it was approaching the square from a distance, driving slowly on the wrong side of the road, and that the driver ignored a police officer's whistle to clear a path for the convoy.[17] According to this account, the security team fired warning shots and then lethal fire at the Kia. Then set off stun grenades to clear the scene. Iraqi police and Iraqi Army soldiers, mistaking the stun grenades for fragmentation grenades, opened fire at the Blackwater men, to which they responded.[18][19]
In the account by the Blackwater firm, it stated that the driver of the Kia sedan had kept driving toward the convoy, ignoring verbal orders, hand signals, and water bottles which were thrown at the car, and continued to approach even when fired upon. An Iraqi policeman went over to the car possibly to help the passenger, but the vehicle kept moving and it looked to the guards as if the policeman was pushing it. In their view, this confirmed that they were under attack by a vehicle bomb, whereupon they fired at the car, killing both people in it as well as the Iraqi policeman.[20] In response to the guards' killing of the Iraqi policemen, other Iraqi police officers began to fire at the Blackwater men. Since insurgents in Iraq often disguise themselves by wearing police uniforms, the guards could not be sure they were dealing with actual police. They communicated to the State Department operations center that they were under attack. A State Department employee who, walking into the department's Baghdad operations center on the day of the incident, heard a radio call from the convoy: “Contact, contact, contact! We are taking fire from insurgents and Iraqi police.”[20] According to Blackwater vice-president Marty Strong, the convoy was hit with "a large explosive device" and "repeated small arms fire" which disabled a vehicle.[21] Several sources have stated that the explosion was caused by a mortar round, though this is not reflected in the Department of State incident report.[22][23] Blackwater has denied Iraqi allegations that one of their helicopters fired from the air during the incident.[24][25]
A State Department report stated that eight to ten attackers opened fire "from multiple nearby locations, with some aggressors dressed in civilian apparel and others in Iraqi police uniforms."[22] The report said that as the convoy tried to leave, its route was blocked by insurgents armed with machine guns at 12:08 pm. According to another US government report, "The team returned fire to several identified targets" before leaving the area and a second convoy en route to help was "blocked/surrounded by several Iraqi police and Iraqi national guard vehicles and armed personnel."[23] A US Army convoy, possibly the same one delayed by Iraqi forces, arrived approximately a half hour later, backed by air cover, to escort the convoy back to the Green Zone.[21]
On September 27, 2007, the New York Times reported that during the chaotic incident at Nisour Square, one member of the Blackwater security team continued to fire on civilians, despite urgent cease-fire calls from colleagues. It is unclear whether the team-member mistook the civilians for insurgents. The incident was resolved only after another Blackwater contractor pointed his weapon at the man still firing and ordered him to stop.[26]
Three Blackwater guards who witnessed the incident said that they believed the shootings were unjustified..."<

Blackwater Baghdad shootings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

danarhea said:

War has it's limits. Since you brought up Viet Nam, let me bring up Lt. Calley, who ordered the murder of unarmed women and children at My Lai. The military courtmarshalled his ass, and Calley was convicted. Here's the deal. War might be hell, but the American way is to punish those who commit atrocities and genocide against unarmed civilians. Lt. Calley was not fit to wear the uniform. By the same token, the mercenaries who committed the atrocities in Iraq had no business being over there, and thank god, they were not in uniform, representing the US military. They are a disgrace to everything that is decent about our country.

BTW, why don't you now tell us all about how the political leanings of our soldiers who sat on the jury that convicted Lt. Calley were the reason for his guilty verdict.

Jeez............

Click to expand...

QUESTION: Do you agree or disagree with the decision of the military court which found (Lt. William) Calley guilty (in connection with the My Lai incident) and gave him a life sentence?

Agree 7%

Disagree 78%

No opinion 15%


From a telephone survey of 1,090 adults from across the United States conducted for President Nixon on April 1, 1971.


QUESTION: Do you think President Nixon should free Lt. William Calley, substantially reduce his sentence, or uphold his life imprisonment sentence (in connection with the My Lai incident)?

Free Lt. William Calley 51%

Substantially reduce his sentence 28%

Uphold his life immprisonment sentence 9%

No opinion 12%


From a telephone survey of 973 adults from across the United States conducted by Opinion Reasearch Corporation for President Nixon on April 5-6, 1971.


QUESTION 001: Do you approve or disapprove of the court martial finding that Lt. Calley is guilty of premeditated murder? (If 'Disapprove', ask Do you disapprove of the verdict because you think what happened at My Lai was not a crime, or because you think many others besides Lt. Calley share the responsibility for what happened?

Approve 11%

Disapprove/Not a crime 15%

Disapprove/Others share responsibility 56%

Disapprove/Both reasons (vol.) 1%

Disapprove/Other reasons (vol.) 5%

No opinion 11%


QUESTION 002: Do you think Lt. Calley is being made the scapegoat for the actions of others above him or not (with regard to the My Lai incident)?

Yes 70%

No 12%

No opinion 18%


QUESTION 003: Do you think the (Lt.) Calley sentence of life imprisonment (after his court martial finding of guilty in the My Lai incident) is fair or too harsh, or too lenient?

Fair 13%

Too harsh 79%

Too lenient 1%

No opinion 7%


From a telephone survey of 522 adults from across the United States conducted by The Gallup Organization for Newsweek in April, 1971.


QUESTION 069: (Now let me read you some statements that have been made about Lt. Calley and the My Lai incident. For each, tell me if you tend to agree or disagree.) . . . The soldiers at My Lai were only following orders from their higher ups.

Agree 77%

Disagree 9%

Not sure 14%


QUESTION 070: (Now let me read you some statements that have been made about Lt. Calley and the My Lai incident. For each, tell me if you tend to agree or disagree.) . . . Lt. Calley has been singled out unfairly as a scapegoat.

Agree 77%

Disagree 15%

Not sure 8%


QUESTION 076: How would you rate President Nixon on the way he reacted to the court-martial of Lt. Calley (in the My Lai incident)?

Excellent 27%

Pretty good 31%

Only fair 17%

Poor 18%

Not sure 7%


QUESTION 080: (Let me read you some statements that have been made about the way President Nixon reacted to the court-martial of Lt. Calley (in the My Lai incident) and tell me whether you agree or disagree.) . . . President Nixon has come close to undermining the system of military justice by showing sympathy with Lt. Calley.

Agree 28%

Disagree 58%

Not sure 14%


QUESTION 083: Do you tend to agree or disagree with the Army Court-martial Board the found Lt. William Calley guilty (in the My Lai incident)?

Agree with decision 24%

Disagree with decision 65%

Not sure 11%


From a personal survey of 1600 adults from across the United States conducted by Louis Harris and Associates in April, 1971.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mylai/surveyresults.html

year2late said:

Mark Furhman sound familiar?

I think Furhman (and crew) did more to get OJ off than anything.

Di you have any issue with the evidence that was presented?

I recall a few ex-jurors after the trial thinking it was likely that OJ did it, but not with the evidence and witnesses they were given.

Click to expand...

The quote I gave you says it all. There is no way that jury would have found OJ guilty and that is why I am curious who the jurors were in this case

"Blackwater guards claimed that the convoy was ambushed and that they fired at the attackers in defense of the convoy. The Iraqi government and Iraqi police investigator Faris Saadi Abdul alleged that the killings were unprovoked.[5][6] The next day, Blackwater Worldwide's license to operate in Iraq was temporarily revoked.[7] The US State Department has said that "innocent life was lost"[8] and according to the Washington Post, a military report appeared to corroborate "the Iraqi government's contention that Blackwater was at fault."[9] The Iraqi government vowed to punish Blackwater.[10] The incident sparked at least five investigations, including one from the Federal Bureau of Investigation.[11] The FBI investigation found that, of the 17 Iraqis killed by the guards, at least 14 were shot without cause.[12]"

From your wikipedia citation APACHERAT.

PMCs are jokes, trash, scum, mercenaries.

Rats with no allegiance, no matter what they have to say before being allowed in.

radioman said:

Most people here would agree with this.
Have you read any of Excon's posts?

Click to expand...

Far more important, the laws and courts restrict the use of force to certain situations e.g., self-defense. In general, a reasonable person would have to fear imminent serious harm or threat to his/her life in order to be justified in shooting another person. Of course, that's a general statement and their are nuances.

The Wafer case in Michigan saw the argument of self-defense fail, because the shooter fired through a locked screen door at a woman. There was no imminent threat to the shooter's life. He could have easily closed and locked the door he had opened prior to shooting the woman and called the police.

The Dunn case also saw the argument of self-defense fail. In this case, the targets of the shooting were unarmed. Moreover, they were trying to drive away from the scene of the argument, in effect "disengaging" from the confrontation, when Dunn opened fire on them. Even if a threat had existed, and no witnesses saw the victims of the shooting ever draw a shotgun and the teens were later found to have been unarmed, disengagement would indicate that the threat had ended. Therefore, the kind of imminent threat required to sustain a self-defense argument was lacking. That the shooter failed to contact the police afterward further undercut the self-defense argument, as reasonable people who had defended themselves would have contacted the police to report their actions confident that they had acted lawfully.

IMO, even as the details of the above two cases differ, the principles that define whether a claim of self-defense is justified are shared. Hence, it is no surprise that both cases resulted in the failure of the self-defense argument.

In contrast, if the leaked evidence (witness accounts, autopsy, and forensic evidence) regarding the Ferguson, MO case is accurate (e.g., the victim of the shooting had attempted to seize the police officer's gun), the police officer's argument of self-defense could be sustained. Why would someone attempt to seize a police officer's gun? A reasonable person would conclude that the individual intended to use the gun to cause harm. I don't have all the information that is available to the Grand Jury, just what has been reported. Therefore, I use the conditional words "if" and "could."

radioman said:

Most people here would agree with this.
Have you read any of Excon's posts?

Click to expand...

Far more important, the laws and courts restrict the use of force to certain situations e.g., self-defense. In general, a reasonable person would have to fear imminent serious harm or threat to his/her life in order to be justified in shooting another person. Of course, that's a general statement and their are nuances.

The Wafer case in Michigan saw the argument of self-defense fail, because the shooter fired through a locked screen door at a woman. There was no imminent threat to the shooter's life. He could have easily closed and locked the door he had opened prior to shooting the woman and called the police.

The Dunn case also saw the argument of self-defense fail. In this case, the targets of the shooting were unarmed. Moreover, they were trying to drive away from the scene of the argument, in effect "disengaging" from the confrontation. Even if a threat had existed, and no witnesses saw the victims of the shooting ever draw a shotgun and the teens were found to have been unarmed, disengagement would indicate that the threat had ended. Therefore, the kind of imminent threat required to sustain a self-defense argument was lacking. That the shooter failed to contact the police afterward further undercut the self-defense argument, as reasonable people who had defended themselves would have contacted the police to report their actions confident that they had acted lawfully.

IMO, even as the details of the above two cases differ, the principles that define whether a claim of self-defense is justified are shared. Hence, it is no surprise that both cases resulted in the failure of the self-defense argument.

In contrast, if the leaked evidence (witness accounts, autopsy, and forensic evidence) regarding the Ferguson, MO case is accurate (e.g., the victim of the shooting had attempted to seize the police officer's gun), the police officer's argument of self-defense could be sustained. Why would someone attempt to seize a police officer's gun? A reasonable person would conclude that the individual intended to use the gun to cause harm. I don't have all the information that is available to the Grand Jury, just what has been reported. Therefore, I use the conditional words "if" and "could."

Luftwaffe said:

Why are they no longer part of the military?

When you're done, you're done. PMCs are still a plague to the USA.

There is a reason why they're no longer part of the military, whether it's age or something else.

Click to expand...

Many of them are done because they have done their 20 years serving and sacrificing for our country. Now they are looking for a way to still serve and make good money for a change.

Why exactly should they not try and make a living using their past service.

I like how after it is shown you don't know what you are talking about you simply make up another BS reason to support your uneducated opinion.

Luftwaffe said:

PMCs are jokes, trash, scum, mercenaries.

Rats with no allegiance, no matter what they have to say before being allowed in.

Click to expand...

Most contractors are more patriotic self sacrificing hard working citizens than the vast majority of people in this country including you I would be willing to bet.
But hey don't let the truth slow down your uneducated naive opinion. Keep on showing you don't know what you are talking about. Just forgive me if I don't have to much concern with the opinion of a kid still in high school living of his parents.

radioman said:

I dunno.....if we had a trial involving a gangsta-thug, would you opine that his jury should consist of his fellow gangsta-thugs?

Click to expand...

Are soldiers on the battlefield judged by a different standard that gangsters here in the states?

danarhea said:

At least, when Americans murder women and children, there is an American judicial system that will make them pay for their heinous crimes. Let the title of "baby killers" rest with ISIS, who truly deserve the name. Americans hold themselves to a higher standard, and woe to those who violate it. Excellent verdict.

Article is here.

Click to expand...

I, too, believe that America and Americans are far better than this. I don't know the details, and certainly Baghdad during time of war and its aftermath is likely no picnic, but the killing of so many people in a public square cannot go unpunished.

Perhaps if this verdict had been more timely the government of Iraq would have been more receptive to American forces remaining in Iraq in 2010/2011 and not subject to Iraqi law and courts. If they'd seen that Americans can be trusted to fully prosecute the wrongdoing of their agents they would have agreed to the terms and the issues in Iraq with ISIS/ISIL/IS would not have reached this stage.

CanadaJohn said:

I, too, believe that America and Americans are far better than this. I don't know the details, and certainly Baghdad during time of war and its aftermath is likely no picnic, but the killing of so many people in a public square cannot go unpunished.

Perhaps if this verdict had been more timely the government of Iraq would have been more receptive to American forces remaining in Iraq in 2010/2011 and not subject to Iraqi law and courts. If they'd seen that Americans can be trusted to fully prosecute the wrongdoing of their agents they would have agreed to the terms and the issues in Iraq with ISIS/ISIL/IS would not have reached this stage.

Click to expand...

So in a way it's our fault huh

apdst said:

I would like to see the evidence and find out how many of the jurors are combat veterans. It's supposed to be a jury of their peers, afterall.

Click to expand...

In this quote you seem to state that at least some of the jurors in this trial should be the defendants peers, i.e. combat vets.
I asked if that meant a gangsta thug's jurors should be his peers, i.e. gangsta thugs.
You replied with this......

apdst said:

Are soldiers on the battlefield judged by a different standard that gangsters here in the states?

Click to expand...

Of course soldiers on the battlefield are judged by a different standard.
Which didn't really answer my question.
I guess I'm just wondering how you define a "jury of their peers".
Do accused embezzlers need embezzlers on their jury, accused murderers need murderers etc.
Not really a big deal, just curious.

radioman said:

In this quote you seem to state that at least some of the jurors in this trial should be the defendants peers, i.e. combat vets.
I asked if that meant a gangsta thug's jurors should be his peers, i.e. gangsta thugs.
You replied with this......




Of course soldiers on the battlefield are judged by a different standard.
Which didn't really answer my question.
I guess I'm just wondering how you define a "jury of their peers".
Do accused embezzlers need embezzlers on their jury, accused murderers need murderers etc.
Not really a big deal, just curious.

Click to expand...

When I see comments like this...

Luftwaffe said:

Why are they no longer part of the military?

When you're done, you're done. PMCs are still a plague to the USA.

There is a reason why they're no longer part of the military, whether it's age or something else.

Click to expand...

...I have to wonder how fair and impartial the jury that judged these men really was.

A jury of their peers is obvious. There's no need to use a rediculous comparison. American citizens who commit crimes in America are judged by American citizens who live in America, under normal conditions.

Combat soldiers, who are accused of crimes on the battlefield are judges by other combat soldiers who understand the complications and confusion that exist on a battlefield, especially in a non-conventional environment such as the on that existed in Iraq.

Ultimately, that environment was created by the terrorists, intetionally, because they knew it would create confusion and non-combatant casualties. If you want to blane someone, blame the terrorists.

Let's see if I can respond to this as some of our more addled...oops..I mean illustrious posters might....

donsutherland1 said:

Far more important, the laws and courts restrict the use of force to certain situations e.g., self-defense. In general, a reasonable person would have to fear imminent serious harm or threat to his/her life in order to be justified in shooting another person. Of course, that's a general statement and their are nuances.

Click to expand...

1) That's just not true....the shooters are ALWAYS justified.

The Wafer case in Michigan saw the argument of self-defense fail, because the shooter fired through a locked screen door at a woman. There was no imminent threat to the shooter's life. He could have easily closed and locked the door he had opened prior to shooting the woman and called the police.

Click to expand...

2) The jury was wrong, people only come to your door when they want to kill you. This is why there aren't any more Fuller Brush men or door-to-door encyclopedia salesmen.

The Dunn case also saw the argument of self-defense fail. In this case, the targets of the shooting were unarmed. Moreover, they were trying to drive away from the scene of the argument, in effect "disengaging" from the confrontation. Even if a threat had existed, and no witnesses saw the victims of the shooting ever draw a shotgun and the teens were found to have been unarmed, disengagement would indicate that the threat had ended. Therefore, the kind of imminent threat required to sustain a self-defense argument was lacking. That the shooter failed to contact the police afterward further undercut the self-defense argument, as reasonable people who had defended themselves would have contacted the police to report their actions confident that they had acted lawfully.

Click to expand...

3) But Dunn THOUGHT they MIGHT POSSIBLY be a threat, what with all that loud music---I think it was ABBA--- so yes he was justified in his attack.

IMO, even as the details of the above two cases differ, the principles that define whether a claim of self-defense is justified are shared. Hence, it is no surprise that both cases resulted in the failure of the self-defense argument.

Click to expand...

4) The juries/judges were mistaken. Juries screw up. Just look at the OJ Simpson case. Now that I think of it, OJ should have mounted a self-defense defense.

In contrast, if the leaked evidence (witness accounts, autopsy, and forensic evidence) regarding the Ferguson, MO case is accurate (e.g., the victim of the shooting had attempted to seize the police officer's gun), the police officer's argument of self-defense could be sustained. Why would someone attempt to seize a police officer's gun? A reasonable person would conclude that the individual intended to use the gun to cause harm. I don't have all the information that is available to the Grand Jury, just what has been reported. Therefore, I use the conditional words "if" and "could."

Click to expand...

Agreed.