Page 7 of 17 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 164

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

  1. #61
    cynical class clown
    Luftwaffe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    CONNECTICUT
    Last Seen
    11-18-17 @ 10:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    10,499

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

    Quote Originally Posted by braindrain View Post
    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
    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.
    -----MOS 19D = cavalry scout = best damn MOS there is

  2. #62
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

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

    >" 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

  3. #63
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

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

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    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............
    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/project...eyresults.html

  4. #64
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    the high desert
    Last Seen
    01-10-15 @ 11:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,337

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

    Quote Originally Posted by year2late View Post
    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.
    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

  5. #65
    cynical class clown
    Luftwaffe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    CONNECTICUT
    Last Seen
    11-18-17 @ 10:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    10,499

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

    "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.
    -----MOS 19D = cavalry scout = best damn MOS there is

  6. #66
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

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

    Quote Originally Posted by radioman View Post
    Most people here would agree with this.
    Have you read any of Excon's posts?
    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."

  7. #67
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

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

    Quote Originally Posted by radioman View Post
    Most people here would agree with this.
    Have you read any of Excon's posts?
    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."

  8. #68
    Guru

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    4,947

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Luftwaffe View Post
    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.
    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.

  9. #69
    Guru

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    4,947

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Luftwaffe View Post

    PMCs are jokes, trash, scum, mercenaries.

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

  10. #70
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,580

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

    Quote Originally Posted by radioman View Post
    I dunno.....if we had a trial involving a gangsta-thug, would you opine that his jury should consist of his fellow gangsta-thugs?
    Are soldiers on the battlefield judged by a different standard that gangsters here in the states?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

Page 7 of 17 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •