D.C. Federal District Court Judge Ricardo Urbina has just dismissed all charges against several Blackwater guards, who were accused of voluntary manslaughter and various serious firearms offenses in connection with a September 16, 2007, shooting in Baghdad. A copy of the opinion, which can be found here, chastises the government for improper conduct:
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. In so doing, the government’s trial team repeatedly disregarded the warnings of experienced, senior prosecutors, assigned to the case specifically to advise the trial team on Garrity and Kastigar issues, that this course of action threatened the viability of the prosecution. The government used the defendants’ compelled statements to guide its charging decisions, to formulate its theory of the case, to develop investigatory leads and, ultimately, to obtain the indictment in this case. The government’s key witnesses immersed themselves in the defendants’ compelled statements, and the evidence adduced at the Kastigar hearing plainly demonstrated that these compelled statements shaped portions of the witnesses’ testimony to the indicting grand jury.2 The explanations offered by the prosecutors and investigators in an attempt to justify their actions and persuade the court that they did not use the defendants’ compelled testimony were all too often contradictory, unbelievable and lacking in credibility.
I worked on the case briefly, helping represent the defendants when they were arrested in Salt Lake City. In my view, the charges should never have been filed. The prosecutors made novel use of federal criminal statutes, including charging the contractors with heavy mandatory minimum sentences for use of firearms (i.e., machineguns) in the commission of a crime of violence. The dismissal is long overdue and, given the thoroughness of Judge Urbina’s opinion, seems unlikely to be overturned on appeal (or, for that matter, perhaps even unlikely to be appealed).
Displaced Midwesterner says:
I’m not aware of the supposed facts here, but what exactly is novel about “charging the contractors with heavy mandatory minimum sentences for use of firearms (i.e., machineguns) in the commission of a crime of violence”?
December 31, 2009, 6:08 pmAnderson says:
Prof. Cassell has a professional obligation not to say anything detrimental to his clients, so I really wish he wouldn’t say anything evaluative, period, since it means zilch.
This is just the latest in a string of Bush/Obama DOJ prosecutions that could not play by the damn rules. Much as I loathe murderous mercenaries, I’m glad the judge enforced the law, and I would like to know WHEN, IF EVER, Holder is going to clean up shop there. I’m not noticing the improvement over Alberto Gonzales.
December 31, 2009, 6:17 pmHappy says:
Does this mean that commenters RPT and Arthur Kirkland will finally cease promoting their weird conspiracy theories about Blackwater — baseless theories also peddled by DailyKos and Huffington Post?
December 31, 2009, 6:18 pmAnderson says:
Happy, since the dismissal was not on the merits, and thus exonerates no one, I’m a little slow to take your point. As always, I’m sure.
December 31, 2009, 6:24 pmJagermeister says:
Weapon use enhancements are intended to discourage the “use” of weapons during the commission of a crime. For legal purposes, the possession of a weapon is sufficient to constitute “use” (on the grounds that it is used for intimidation, etc.).
It appears especially egregious to many of us to charge people who must carry weapons as part of their job with a weapons enhancement. As far as I can tell, this is prosecutorial overreach and a “throw the book at them” approach.
Similar enhancements were applied to the convictions of Border Agents Ramos and Compean, the majority of whose sentences were based on weapons use.
These enhancements appear to have become an easy way for unscrupulous prosecutors to run up the tab for defendants who they have difficulty convicting on other grounds. As far as I’m concerned, just another case of unintended consequences from our brain-dead approach to jurisprudence.
December 31, 2009, 6:34 pmChris Travers says:
Maybe we need a Defund Blackwater Act of 2010 ;-)
Seriously, I do think Congress SHOULD, in the future, require that all government contractors which are armed and opening in countries where we have active military operations underway, to be contracted through and answerable to the Department of Defence, and liable to that branch of the government for any reparations the Department of Defence concludes are owed to victims of such violence.
Better yet, we should INCREASE the military budget, hire more SOLDIERS, and stop employing the mercs.
Either that or we can try to get relevant interrim agreements changed so that Department of State armed contractors can be tried by local (as in Iraqi) courts.
December 31, 2009, 6:37 pmDavid Schwartz says:
Unfortunately, it’s not novel. The sole purpose was to get a larger sentence, not to further the logical purpose those enhancements serve. Does anyone think the next contract defense employee is going to leave his machine gun at the office to avoid risking an enhanced sentence should he have to kill anyone?
December 31, 2009, 6:37 pmBob from Ohio says:
They are not “mercenaries”, murderous or otherwise. They were hired by the US government to provide services.
Is the security guard at a bank a “mercenary”?
Its not popular anymore for liberals to spit on soldiers so Blackwater takes its place.
December 31, 2009, 6:39 pmGuy says:
Sounds like the FBI fell into the common trap of ignoring lawyers who tell you things you don’t want to hear, even if listening to them is in your best interest.
Are you sure there isn’t also the possibility that weapons enhancements are intended to acknowledge that the presence of weapons makes crimes inherently more dangerous, and their use makes the crime more violent and extreme? i.e. if you’re carrying a weapon for legal purposes, you are still expected to have a greater burden not to violate the law, enforced through the risk of stiffer penalties.
December 31, 2009, 6:39 pmBill Poser says:
I see little to celebrate here. The defendants very likely committed crimes that were both serious in their own right and damaged the war effort in Iraq. They got off on a technicality. While we can be glad that the rights of the accused have been protected, this has to be balanced by dismay that in all probability violent criminals are going free because the prosecution screwed up.
December 31, 2009, 6:43 pmGuy says:
I agree, any situation in which the Constitution requires exclusion of evidence is a travesty, not because of the use of the exclusionary principle, which the judiciary has a Constitutional obligation to apply, but because of the reckless actions of investigators who allowed their zeal to destroy their own case, and to cause them to ignore their Constitutional duties.
December 31, 2009, 6:47 pmcelticdragon says:
Cool. Mercs can go back to blowing away hajji’s whenever they feel like it. Happy days.
December 31, 2009, 6:50 pmOren says:
Well, that and blackwater spits on our soldiers for 5 times their pay anyway.
December 31, 2009, 6:50 pmcelticdragon says:
They are contracted to perform combat duties in a time of war at a rate of pay far above that of the normal soldiery.
They are mercenaries.
December 31, 2009, 6:52 pmJagermeister says:
I thought that is what “color of authority” prosecutions were for. The additional penalties that adhere to the abuse of authority.
If LEOs, soldiers, and such, are required to carry weapons in the discharge of their duties, it seems morally hypocritical, socially questionable, and legally dubious, to turn around and attach additional punishment to whatever crimes they may commit because of circumstances that were forced upon them. (Not to suggest that they wouldn’t want weapons anyway).
Anyway, I’ve always distrusted the idea that the law should unequally burden people, as in “hate crimes” legislation, and so forth. It is, in my experience, most often a way for unscrupulous people to cherry-pick the law for the purpose of punishing their enemies and rewarding their friends. In short, it seems one of the quickest ways to achieving third-world legal status for the United States. (See “Three Felonies a Day” for more on the topic).
December 31, 2009, 6:54 pmGuy says:
Dictionaries have a well-known liberal bias.
December 31, 2009, 6:55 pmBill Poser says:
The “services” they were hired to provide are those of soldiers. The defendants were not caterers. Your point is not relevant to whether they are mercenaries. In fact, they satisfy what for many people is the principal characteristic of mercenaries, namely that they are (to quote from Article 47 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions (1977)):
In spite of this, it is technically true that most of them are not mercenaries since they are nationals of the US or Iraq, both of which are parties to the conflict. Blackwater employees who are not nationals of either country may in fact be mercenaries under Article 47.
December 31, 2009, 6:56 pmPeteP says:
“I’m not aware of the supposed facts here, but what exactly is novel about “charging the contractors with heavy mandatory minimum sentences for use of firearms (i.e., machineguns) in the commission of a crime of violence”?”
Umm… they were in an active ongoing war zone, acting in concert with / for our military. You may have heard of it ‘Iraq ?
To charge them AT ALL under civilian law as if they were at the local 7-11 is a travesty.
The same concept applies for the 3 SEAL’s that are being prosecuted for punching someone in the mouth.
These anti-war anti-American left wing prosecutors trying to use their offices to enforce their personal beliefs MUST BE STOPPED !!!!
In the meantime, the Detroit airline bomber has ‘lawyered up’ ( at our expense ), and ceased all cooperation. This guy was never even on US soil ( until AFTER his capture in the act ), and yet he’s accorded US citizen and US civilian protections ??? WTF ???
December 31, 2009, 7:00 pmGuy says:
I’m not sure “color of authority”=”carrying a weapon for lawful purposes”, I can think of plenty of examples that fit either category but not the other, and perhaps their intersection does warrant higher punishment. As to the wisdom or fairness of the law, that’s a matter for debate, but I’m not sure it’s unreasonable to say maybe the law was intended to apply in cases like this.
Of course, maybe a better argument could be made that this is just lumping as many harsh charges as possible against the defendants, but that practice is hardly “novel”. U.S. v. Ressam is one of my favorite examples of this practice stretched to its limits.
December 31, 2009, 7:03 pmcelticdragon says:
I’m trying to wrap my brain around that one.
Some people are so utterly wrapped up in their culture war narrative that they MUST assume anyone they disagree with is not only wrong, but anti-American, treasonous and evil.
As the saying goes, you can’t reason a person out of a position that he or she didn’t reason themselves into to begin with.
December 31, 2009, 7:06 pmcelticdragon says:
We should absolutely shoot his kneecaps with .40 S&W hollowpoints while drowning him. That ought to do it, right? Criminal law protections and procedures are for effete “librul” arugula eating “morans”, as we all know.
December 31, 2009, 7:10 pmBill Poser says:
PeteP,
The legal rights of the accused terrorist are not those accorded to US citizens but those accorded to all defendants in US courts. He may not have been on US soil in the narrowest sense, but he was on a US carrier over US soil and therefore was within the jurisdiction of the US federal courts.
Incidentally, what is it you’re worried about? Do you really think he’s going to get off? Unless the widely reported facts are grossly in error, the guy was caught in the act in front of multiple witnesses. Barring a successful insanity defense or incompetence on the part of the prosecution, his goose is cooked.
December 31, 2009, 7:11 pmJagermeister says:
Yikes! You mean that had Ressam not lied on his customs’ form, that the prosecution wouldn’t have been able to charge him?
I’ll agree that the prosecutions logic in Ressam in tying the explosives enhancement to the customs’ declaration is certainly a stretch, and brings up the question of why they couldn’t have tried him for something more germane, like conspiracy to blow up LAX.
December 31, 2009, 7:17 pmBill Poser says:
While we’re on the subject of weapons enhancements, perhaps Prof. Cassell or someone else here can explain a curious aspect of the case of Amanda Knox, the American student recently convicted of murdering her roommate in Italy. She and her co-defendant were also convicted of illegally transporting a weapon, which seems very odd to me. As I understand it, the weapon in question is an ordinary kitchen knife, so in and of itself legal to possess and carry. Furthermore, again as I understand it, the knife came from her kitchen, that is, the house that was the scene of the murder, so the illegal transportation would have been the transportation of the knife from her house to her co-defendant’s house after the murder. Does anyone know what the basis for this charge was?
December 31, 2009, 7:23 pmGuy says:
The prosecutor attached the enhancement to the easiest crime to prove, I’d strongly recommend listening to the oral argument for anyone who thinks this is an interesting issue, all the hypotheticals spun by the Justices are an entertaining list.
December 31, 2009, 7:23 pmSara says:
PROCEDURE QUESTION:
They can now be re-indicted, can’t they?
December 31, 2009, 7:26 pmChris Travers says:
Completely agree.
December 31, 2009, 7:28 pmBill Poser says:
The dismissal appears to be without prejudice, so technically, yes. However, the indictment would have to be based on evidence not contaminated by the prosecution’s misconduct. That makes it pretty unlikely, I would think.
Of course, in theory they could be indicted in another jurisdiction. Another country could indict them for war crimes. I think that they are exempt from Iraqi law.
December 31, 2009, 7:32 pmJohn Fast says:
I’m curious whether the sympathies of the FBI agents and the US attorneys might have been with the defendants and while they were forced to prosecute to appease the public and/or their bosses they decided the best course of action was to go make sure it was so poorly done that the defendants would win. Meaning no disrespect to Judge Cassell!
December 31, 2009, 7:33 pmOctavian says:
Yeah…I’m sure none of the so-called Iraqi “civilians” fired a shot upon these defendants who just strolled into a market square and started firing into the crowd for absolutely no good reason at all.
December 31, 2009, 7:34 pmGuy says:
I don’t, but to hazard a guess, the fact that the transportation was of a murder weapon, not just “a weapon” (you say the transportation was after the murder) may have been relevant to determining whether or not the transport was legal. It is evidence, after all.
December 31, 2009, 7:36 pmSara says:
Bill, Undoubtedly difficult but I just was confirming that double-jeopardy had not attached because the trial had not started.
December 31, 2009, 7:36 pmGuy says:
Well, that’s one of the things the trial was supposed to determine, right?
December 31, 2009, 7:38 pmBob from Ohio says:
They certainly not contracted to perform “combat duties” or “take part in hostilities”.
They were hired by a US government contractor to provide routine security/guard services. Just like a bank guard or a armed guard on a Brinks truck.
Try finding “combat duties” in their contract.
You people oppose the war so you call them “mercs” or “murderous” to make yourself feel filled with virtue.
December 31, 2009, 7:39 pmcelticdragon says:
Yep. All the women and kids were asymetric warfare geniuses who could make their Kalashnikovs and round casings vanish just to embarrass us. Since they are Moosliim tricky types, you can never really tell…
December 31, 2009, 7:41 pmBill Poser says:
Interesting. If that’s the case, I wonder if this is specific to weapons or if in Italy the criminals themselves can be convicted of the equivalent of disturbing a crime scene or tampering with evidence because they take the instruments of the crime with them?
December 31, 2009, 7:44 pmcelticdragon says:
Really? You are phoning it in. Try harder.
http://www.futurefastforward.com/component/content/article/2941
Lots more like that around in news reports if you are even remotely paying attention. Maybe you didn’t see this month where private contractors are now running clandestine combat ops in Pakistan?
December 31, 2009, 7:46 pmgracchus says:
29.John Fast says:
I’m curious whether the sympathies of the FBI agents and the US attorneys might have been with the defendants and while they were forced to prosecute to appease the public and/or their bosses they decided the best course of action was to go make sure it was so poorly done that the defendants would win. Meaning no disrespect to Judge Cassell!
The Court’s opinion makes it pretty clear that the prosecutors were overzealous in their efforts to get a conviction. They ignored clear advice on Garrity from Department experts, and consistently pushed beyond what are pretty clear boundaries. This is a case of abuse and unprofessionalism.
December 31, 2009, 7:47 pmBill Poser says:
Don’t put words in people’s mouths. You have no idea what I think about the war, do you? Nor do you have any idea why I say what I do.
ad hominem arguments have been recognised as invalid since the Middle Ages. You might want to reconsider your reliance on them.
December 31, 2009, 7:47 pmBill Poser says:
Yes, that’s true, though it is also possible for a dismissal to be “with prejudice”, in which case, even if jeopardy has not attached, the charges cannot be brought again.
December 31, 2009, 7:49 pmcelticdragon says:
Thank you. As an ex soldier, I find the use of “contractors” to do a soldiers job repugnant and insulting.
December 31, 2009, 7:57 pmorca says:
As Mark Twain said, the brand of democracy America is peddling in Iraq and Afghanistan is strictly for export.
December 31, 2009, 8:05 pmDr. Weevil says:
Traditionally, a mercenary is someone willing to fight for either side in a conflict in which his country is not engaged, so long as the price is right. I do not believe that these Blackwater employees — or any American contractors in Iraq — would be willing to fight for the insurgents for any price. As an American, I find the use of “mercenaries” to describe them repugnant and insulting.
December 31, 2009, 8:10 pmcelticdragon says:
They are mercs. Consider yourself insulted.
December 31, 2009, 8:13 pmcelticdragon says:
Making up a definition to suit your needs, are you? No True Scotsman indeed.
December 31, 2009, 8:15 pmGuy says:
What if we called them war profiteers? War profiteers have never been understood to necessarily have their allegiance (completely) for sale, just that they are private actors who involve themselves in war for a pecuniary interest. Would that satisfy you?
December 31, 2009, 8:18 pmcelticdragon says:
Art 47. Mercenaries
1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.
2. A mercenary is any person who:
(a) is especially 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.
********************************************************
With this understanding, Americans in Triple Canopy, Blackwater etc are technically not mercenaries because of their citizenship, although the folks from Argentina and elsewhere completely qualify.
Sorry, but when you sign on with a merc outfit, you deserve what you get called…even if one legal rule is all you can hide behind.
December 31, 2009, 8:22 pmorca says:
Mercenaries, war profiteers, murderers or cowards…whatever you want to call them, they are now the faces of American justice to the rest of the world.
December 31, 2009, 8:22 pmwlpeak says:
It is odd that so many who would be the first to shout ‘innocent until proven guilty’ are found here and elsewhere assuming the guilt of the accused, almost a priori.
Confirmational bias trumps principals yet again.
December 31, 2009, 8:26 pmPeteP says:
“We should absolutely shoot his kneecaps with .40 S&W hollowpoints while drowning him. That ought to do it, right? Criminal law protections and procedures are for effete “librul” arugula eating “morans”, as we all know.”
We should treat enemy combatants captured on foreign soil ( such as the plane bomber, who can only really be considered to ‘be’ in the last country he touched ground in, which was not the USA ) as such, subject to military law and protocol, and not treat them as if they were US citizens in the US, caught robbing the local 7-11.
Besides, a .22 would be a much better choice – it bounces around inside when it fragments without actually removing the limb ( which causes excess bleeding ).
“The legal rights of the accused terrorist are not those accorded to US citizens but those accorded to all defendants in US courts.”
He should not be in US courts at all, as above. He is an enemy combatant, captured in time of war while comitting an overt act of war, while not on US soil. This is a military matter, not a federal or civilian one. Further, he is not a POW under the GC, as he does not meet ANY of the qualifications for that protection.
“Incidentally, what is it you’re worried about? Do you really think he’s going to get off? Unless the widely reported facts are grossly in error, the guy was caught in the act in front of multiple witnesses. Barring a successful insanity defense or incompetence on the part of the prosecution, his goose is cooked.”
Kinda depends on how good the lawyers we give him are, huh ? At worst ( for him ), he’ll get a platform to publicize his ideology, and a jail cell in Supermax that beats hell out of most hosues in h is home country.
December 31, 2009, 8:28 pmcelticdragon says:
Fun filled video of “contractors” having some R&R fun shooting up passing cars in Iraq…complete with Elvis soundtrack.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZHqugy_QBw
December 31, 2009, 8:31 pmcelticdragon says:
You truly missed your calling. Pinochet could have used you.
Anyways, Happy New Year to all from Celtic Dragon Chick. Champagne and chocolate mint Irish Cream await!
December 31, 2009, 8:34 pmDr. Weevil says:
Making up a definition to suit your needs is what you have done, ‘celticdragon’. The Geneva Convention definition, already paraphrased by Bill Poser above, specifically excludes those who fight for pay in a conflict in which their own country is involved. The text is given in the Wikipedia article on the Mercenary: note 49.2(d). American Blackwater employees are not mercenaries under international law.
My point is that these Blackwater employees are arguably not mercenaries under 49.2(c) as well. If they were “motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain”, they would be willing to work for the other side, given the right price, wouldn’t they? Are you really so ignorant of the history of the world as you profess? Do you not know that whole armies of mercenaries have been perfectly willing to work for whichever side offered the most pay for the least risk, and even to switch sides on the battlefield when offered more money or lesser risk? Have you never heard of Xenophon’s Anabasis and the Ten Thousand, just to take one example? As Greeks, they didn’t give a damn whether Cyrus or Artaxerxes ruled Persia, they were just in it for the money. So for the Goths in the late Roman army, the Vikings in the Byzantine Army, and (much later) the Swiss Guards in whichever army paid the most. That is what mercenaries are historically, and it has little resemblance to Blackwater employees. Again, I am not the one making up a definition, you are.
December 31, 2009, 8:37 pmP.S. Three minutes later: I see that you conceded my first point while I was composing this. That’s a start.
orca says:
“and even to switch sides on the battlefield”
These guys slaughtered 14 innocent Iraqi civilians.
Considering who we’re supposed to be fighting in Iraq, it sure looks like they were working for our enemies.
December 31, 2009, 8:39 pmOctavian says:
Yawn. As if women and children haven’t been previously used as suicide bombers in this part of the world. Don’t be so naive.
December 31, 2009, 8:41 pmOctavian says:
Assuming one’s innocence before being proven guilty. Now there is a novel concept. Too bad our fellow Americans are not accorded the same courtesy afforded to these so-called “innocent” Iraqis.
December 31, 2009, 8:43 pmLaura Victoria says:
I’m concerned more about the rampant prosecutorial misconduct at both fed and local levels that routinely goes unpunished. More concerned that debates about the technicalities of a mercenary.
Yes, sanctions may be imposed with respect to the case at issue, but the culpable individuals don’t even receive a bar complaint.
December 31, 2009, 8:49 pmorca says:
Octavian,
These proud guardians confessed to their terrorist acts…that’s why our “justice” system let them off.
December 31, 2009, 8:54 pmgreat unknown says:
Has there ever been a conviction of a LEO in the US where the gun enhancement was used?
December 31, 2009, 8:55 pmCornellian says:
I worked on the case briefly, helping represent the defendants when they were arrested in Salt Lake City. In my view, the charges should never have been filed.
I notice your comment, and the quoted excerpt, never say whether the defendants actually did what they were charged with doing.
December 31, 2009, 8:57 pmBill Poser says:
PeteP,
Your reassertion that he was not on US soil is not responsive to my argument that he was within the criminal jurisdiction of the US federal courts because he was on a US carrier and over US territory. Nor do you offer any reason to believe that a trial in civilian courts will result in acquittal.
Not really. He’d only be able to do that if he asserts a justification defense, which the court will surely cut off at the knees.
Nigeria isn’t quite as poor as you think, but in any case not his house: he comes from a well off family. And do you really think that the loss of his freedom, loss of contact with friends and family, and those famously tasty prison meals are an attraction even to poor Nigerians?
December 31, 2009, 9:00 pmAndrew J. Lazarus says:
IANAL, but your analysis that one is ‘in’ the country of your last airport seems quite wrong to me. If this were a routine case of air rage or a couple having sex in the last row, you wouldn’t be surprised at the USA jurisdiction. Our airspace, our jurisdiction.
I could see more merit (although perhaps not to the point of accepting it) to your argument if the plane were over international waters, but it wasn’t.
December 31, 2009, 9:03 pmJagermeister says:
Thanks for the link. I certainly found the arguments interesting, but didn’t expect the affirmation after listening to what the justices had to say.
During the course of arguments the justices seemed to hint at differences in between the enhancement for explosives versus the enhancement for firearms (specifically in reference to 18 USC 924(c) ), with the suggestion that differences in the firearms enhancement may have had to do with the specific use cases we discussed – of the use of firearms by those otherwise authorized to use them, such as LEOs, etc.
I went and read 18 USC 924(c), but was unable to detect any exclusion to which the justices alluded, and was thus left no more enlightened.
If anyone knows of any statutory protection for LEOs etc., from the firearms enhancement provisions of the code, I would be very happy to read of it.
December 31, 2009, 9:05 pmSurrogate says:
Thanks for the link. I certainly found the arguments interesting, but didn’t expect the affirmation after listening to what the justices had to say.
During the course of arguments the justices seemed to hint at differences in between the enhancement for explosives versus the enhancement for firearms (specifically in reference to 18 USC 924(c) ), with the suggestion that differences in the firearms enhancement may have had to do with the specific use cases we discussed – of the use of firearms by those otherwise authorized to use them, such as LEOs, etc.
I went and read 18 USC 924(c), but was unable to detect any exclusion to which the justices alluded, and was thus left no more enlightened.
If anyone knows of any statutory protection for LEOs etc., from the firearms enhancement provisions of the code, I would be very happy to read of it.
I only follow up on this because I see the weapons enhancement as a especially egregious misuse of the law, in this case.
December 31, 2009, 9:09 pmMonty says:
The Geneva Convention only defines what a mercenary is under the Geneva Convention. I think the general definition of mercenary can and should include nationals of a party to the conflict under the right circumstances. I would consider contractors who took offensive action to be mercenaries, regardless of nationality.
There is a spectrum extending from rent-a-cop security, to armed security, to mercenary. Many of the armed contractors in Iraq are probably in the armed security camp, guarding an installation, or riding along to repell an attack. The contractors here were called out in response to a bombing to secure a route, presumably the security of which was in doubt prior to their deployment. Its not an outright offensive operation, which would clearly make them mercenaries, but its also no a conventional defensive security role. I think it is fair to call these particular contractors mercenaries, though they are in a bit of a grey area.
December 31, 2009, 9:10 pmGuy says:
“Confessed” under coercion, the Fifth Amendment is relevant here.
The relevant question is whether the U.S. had jurisdiction, not some silly rule in which soil literally means “ground”.
December 31, 2009, 9:11 pmOctavian says:
Yeah, Orca, I’m so sure there is a signed confession by all five of these defendants that states unequivocally that “we five defendants do hereby confess to our terrorist acts.” Sounds like someone has been memorizing DailyKos talking points again.
December 31, 2009, 9:11 pmorca says:
Funny Octavian,
You don’t have to be a Lefty to realize the shit stain these cowards wiped on our flag. If you’re going to wet your pants and start gunning down women and children, please do it where there are no cameras to record your heroism.
December 31, 2009, 9:15 pmTwirip says:
I don’t know. I get the impression that many of the commenters here already “know” that they are guilty. We don’t need no stinkin’ trial!
December 31, 2009, 9:24 pmwlpeak says:
The only stain I see around here is in your posts. You continually argue that these defendants were/are guilty without even the courtesy to start from a presumption of innocence to making a case against them. And now you throw in profanity as if it bolstered your point. It doesn’t.
That Blackwater employees could perpetrate crimes in Iraq is of course plausible. That they necessarily did so because they fit your idiosyncratic definition of a mercenary is preposterous and scandalous.
December 31, 2009, 9:34 pmGuy says:
The difference is that the firearm enhancemant says during and in relation to the offense, but the explosives enhancement just says during. the “in relation to” creates more than just the necessity that the firearm be in your possession during the commission of the offense, but that there was actually some connection (like use, either by firing or in order to intimidate, etc.) Specifically, I think the rule is that you need to use it in order to aid and abet the offense (the issue in Ressam is that the explosives were very loosely related to the offense, but didn’t help him to commit the act). It’s basically a mens rea requirement.
December 31, 2009, 9:42 pmPeteP says:
GUY – “The relevant question is whether the U.S. had jurisdiction, not some silly rule in which soil literally means “ground”.
The son of a bitch tried to kill 300 people by blowing up an airplane. I’m not terribly damned concerned about interpreting ‘niceties of phrase’ in his favor.
Further, I find it repulsive that he could, very easily, plead insanity, be found insane, sent to a nice comfy American nuthouse for 10 years, and then let go. Or, that he could be sentenced to 40 years in prison ( at our expense ), and get out ( with ‘good time’ ) when he’s 50 years old ( younger than me ).
December 31, 2009, 9:44 pmGuy says:
To clarify, there isn’t an exemption for LEO’s that I’m aware of (anyone let me know if I’m mistaken, please), it’s just that if an LEO commits a crime without using his or her weapon, they don’t face a strict liability sentencing enhancement just for having a gun on their person. However, if they used their weapon to commit a murder or robbery while on duty, I believe they would be subject to the same penalty as any other armed robber or murderer.
December 31, 2009, 9:57 pmGuy says:
Because the judge would be nice enough to let him serve his sentences concurrently? I had no idea our parole system was that lenient.
December 31, 2009, 10:00 pmRyan Waxx says:
Who here is actually surprised that Sarcastro isn’t here with a wisecrack about people who just know someone’s guilty based on media reports?
That would be making fun of the wrong side, after all.
December 31, 2009, 10:07 pmGaryC says:
What I am most disturbed about is the claim that there are 25 other prospective bombers who were in training in Yemen at the same time. I would like him to be in military custody so we could at least ask him to supply information, if he has any. There is an online poll that shows 58% of respondents want him to be waterboarded. (Insert standard warning about online polls.)
I’m not sure that his information rises to the level where that would be warranted, but interrogation without a defense lawyer seems entirely appropriate.
December 31, 2009, 10:10 pmjccamp says:
I think Laura has reached the central point. From the decision:
“…the prosecutors withheld from the second grand jury substantial exculpatory evidence…”
“DOJ guidelines require prosecutors to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury.”
“The government also redacted exculpatory portions of the testimony of…”
“Furthermore, the evidence summaries presented to the second grand jury presented distorted versions of the testimony on which they were based.”
There was also evidence that the crime scene was searched and swept (by Iraqis) prior to the crime scene search by American authorities.
BTW, the defendants never “confessed” to anything. They described a gunfight, in which they claimed to have been attacked and to have returned fire. Their statements were used to determine in which direction each defendant may have shot and at which victims. They were charged with voluntary manslaughter, under the theory that they grossly overreacted to an attack by shooting in directions from which no hostile attack came. The government used the defendants’ immunized statements to search for physical evidence (or better, lack of same), which would purportedly show that no attack came from several areas, which had been shot at by the defendants. The defendants were essentially accused of grossly overreacting, not committing intentional murder. The government, as noted above, ignored statements which agreed with the defendants that they were under heavy fire, and also ignored statements that the scene may have been cleaned up of evidence of insurgent fire before the American crime scene search.
There was far from an overwhelming case against the defendants. This occurred in a politically charged atmosphere, and there was considerable pressure to make an example (of the defendants). They may have been guilty as charged, but the government egregiously violated their rights, and then lied to the judge about it. That’s pretty scary.
And, although I’d love to be able to blame the new AG for this, in the main, it occurred prior to November of 2008, the date of the 2nd grand jury. Holder had nothing to do with this way this one was handled (although the DOJ did try to defend all of this well into 2009, under Holder’s regime).
December 31, 2009, 10:34 pmDavid Nieporent says:
I’m not sure what’s wrong with being a mercenary, but they are not contracted to perform combat duties; they’re contracted to perform security duties.
December 31, 2009, 11:07 pmorca says:
Um, they did it on camera.
They confessed.
Guys like this are to the crazy Right what Roman Polasnski is to the crazy Left.
The example that exposes your moral bankruptcy.
December 31, 2009, 11:22 pmmemomachine says:
Hmmmm.
As usual a liberal sewer.
December 31, 2009, 11:23 pmQwinn says:
It wasn’t an online poll. It was a national telephone survey conducted by Rasmussen.
Qwinn
December 31, 2009, 11:25 pmmemomachine says:
Hmmmm.
“They confessed.”
Didn’t you read the article? They were forced to make statements, “confess” to you, by the military without having any rights otherwise and then the civilian prosecutors used those “confessions” against them.
That’s not a confession in the literal civilian sense.
December 31, 2009, 11:26 pmptt says:
Well, regardless of all the bickering here, I’m sure it warms the hearts of Iraqis to know that someone has received justice under the full protections of American law for their actions in Iraq…
December 31, 2009, 11:31 pmjakecollins says:
Blackwater murders should rot in jail. But if the post is accurate, I can’t disagree with the ruling. Two cheers for the rule of law!
December 31, 2009, 11:31 pmgerbilsbite says:
Contracted with WHOM, David? When they were contracted with the State Department, they were assigned to do security for high-value targets in a combat zone–not necessarily combat duty, but pretty damn close. When they were contracted with the CIA to load armaments onto UAVs (a contract that only ended earlier this month), they sure as hell weren’t doing “security duties,” and regardless of the fact that they weren’t employed by the Pentagon at the time, what they did assuredly counts as “combat duties.” The only one of their DoD contracts I can think of offhand is for transporting personnel and materiel around Iraq via their helicopter fleet–again, ambiguous, but more “combat” than “security” depending on what they’re transporting (I’d say moving soldiers or arms around a combat zone on behalf of one side counts as “combat duties”).
Let’s stop pretending this is Allied Barton or Wells Fargo. Whether these individuals were assigned combat duties or told to hang out and look tough in front of a diplomatic office, Blackwater/Xe most assuredly does perform combat duties, and anyone saying otherwise is blowing smoke (to put it politely).
December 31, 2009, 11:34 pmMatt O says:
With innocence presumed and a dismissal ordered, exoneration has indeed occurred.
December 31, 2009, 11:36 pmMonty says:
The problem is that there is not a clear line between ‘security duties’ and ‘combat duties’.
If you assign people to guard an installation that is at a low risk of attack, its a security duty; but is it still a security duty as the risk of attack increases? If you expect the installation to be attacked twice, by sizable insurgant forces, in the next year, are the people you assign to protect it still doing security duties? What if, as was the case here, the contractors are on alert, and are called out to ‘secure’ an escape route after a target under guard by another unit was attacked?
December 31, 2009, 11:38 pmTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » All Charges Dismissed Against Blackwater Contractors -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Popehat and Bryan Beel, PostRank – Law. PostRank – Law said: All Charges Dismissed Against Blackwater Contractors http://bit.ly/7Itkeh #postrank #law [...]
December 31, 2009, 11:39 pmR. Brown says:
They aren’t out of the woods yet. INTERPOL can pick them up off the street and fly them to another country for trial.
December 31, 2009, 11:45 pmjccamp says:
Guy –
There have been instances of law enforcement officers being charged with use or possession of a firearm in the commission of a crime (or an enhancement for being armed), when the crime itself may not have involved the use or threat of the weapon, but where some force was alleged, such as an officer committing an alleged simple battery (or a better example, domestic violence) while armed (as a condition of his employment). A similar example (of abuse of well meant statute) might be enhancements intended to stiffen penalties for burglary where there was an assault or a battery inside, but instead can be used to aggravate an instance of someone reaching inside a car window and punching another motorist.
FWIW, there is a trend for the mere possession of a firearm during a crime, but which is not used in the crime or is not an integral part of the underlying offense, to no longer be the basis for an enhancement. This is not true in every jurisdiction. The original intent of such statutes was to raise the stakes for those who chose to arm themselves, with a range of enhancement roughly corresponding to the type of weapon carried or used (stick, knife, revolver, bomb, etc). So, to enhance the potential penalties of the defendants in this case, who as a matter of employment, carried automatic weapons and explosives, and who stood accused of, in effect, failing to control their response to hostile fire and placing innocents in jeopardy via willful negligence, seems a little outside the spirit of the law. In this case, there was no underlying offense. Without their weapons, the defendants did not have the ability to commit the crime of voluntary manslaughter.
It was a misuse of the enhancement ability of the government.
December 31, 2009, 11:49 pmMatt O says:
I would have thought the transportation of the weapon TO the crime scene would me more germaine.
December 31, 2009, 11:49 pmMatt O says:
Which is an act of war, not simply a crime. He should have been interrogated to discover who paid for his ticket, who provided the explosives, how he communicates with his superiors and peers, who else has been trained and directed to perform such acts, etc.
Our administration, who failed mightily before this act have now failed mightily after the act.
Absolutely thrilling, he said dryly.
January 1, 2010, 12:02 amB Smith says:
JCamp,
Thank you for making a point I wanted to make. The Blackwater Guards were protecting a convoy that was attacked. The prosecutors and their political supporters who have never had to make split second decisions while under fire, are holding the Blackwater guards to impossible standards. Insurgents in Iraq ROUTINELY fight while hiding behind women and children. They ROUTINELY target women and children. Our military and groups like Blackwater, which consist largely of ex-military, make every effort to avoid civilian casualties and to protect women and children. It is shame that the media and the left wing can not acknowledge this.
January 1, 2010, 12:03 amMatt O says:
Mercenaries rank right up there with grunts and snipers, in my opinion. Professionals at the Art of War. Icky stuff, huh?
January 1, 2010, 12:05 amMatt O says:
So if being fired upon by combatants hiding behind women and children, a professional soldier should not return fire? I wonder how many women and children would be drafted for shield duty if such were the case?
January 1, 2010, 12:14 amGuy says:
Is this under federal or state law? I was speaking of federal law, where the “in relation to” language still stands, to my knowledge. In either case, I would appreciate cites so I can better familiarize myself with the realities of how these laws are applied in courts.
January 1, 2010, 12:17 amTravis Ormsby says:
As a question to any international legal types out there, supposing that as a matter of fact some American contractors had fired indiscriminately on a crowd of innocent civilians just for fun, is there any way that they could be found guilty as a matter of law?
January 1, 2010, 12:19 amFrank says:
Thanks to jccamp for the in-depth background on the “confession.” It certainly puts the lie to the notion that the Blackwater people “confessed” to intentionally murdering people. I hope it cools the passions of the lynch mob.
January 1, 2010, 12:20 amorca says:
It sets a dangerous precedent to allow people accused of murdering civilians to go free because the military said boo to them. Might as well not bother trying the remaining detainees in Gitmo.
January 1, 2010, 12:25 amMDC says:
“Blackwater spits on our soldiers”? Having worked with Blackwater a few times, been flown in their helicopters and knowing a few… what are you talking about? Their being paid more than me in no way lowers MY pay… I might as well resent the State Department guys getting OT, or the next higher pay grade getting a bigger paycheck than me.
Blackwater has its own issues and challenges, as does the military or any other organization, but it was Blackwater that was flying in ammo and leaving men behind to help in Najaf back in 2004… but I hadn’t heard about any spitting.
So, was there a legal opinion in your statement anywhere?
January 1, 2010, 12:31 amDave N. says:
A post that surely proves “Orca’s” troll bonafides.
January 1, 2010, 12:37 amRichard Wagner says:
I’m torn … Not a big fan of Blackwater. But, as a criminal defense attorney love to see the prosecutors get held accountable. It seems this case, Ted Stevens, and Henry Samueli are examples where Federal judges are trying to make sure that justice actually occurs in their courtrooms rather than sit back and have it be a lofty goal.
January 1, 2010, 12:42 amorca says:
Nothing says, “I surrender” like stooping to calling someone a “troll.”
January 1, 2010, 12:46 amBob from Ohio says:
Well, yes, I do:
So, my point stands.
January 1, 2010, 12:52 amHamiii says:
1)The idea that the definition of merc hinges on offensive or defensive is flawed.
a) They could be used in either capacity.
b) Telling where offense begins and defense ends is near impossible. Even with a routine conventional defensive perimeter one would use patrols and probes to locate the enemy with reaction forces to engage. the concept of defense in depth pretty much wipes out the notion of offense and defense. Combine defense in depth with Longstreet’s mobile defense obliterates the idea completely.
c) The word you are searching for is support though it gets pretty murky awfully fast too.
2)Paid substantially more could also be debated.
a) The experience level of contractors is much higher, especially early in Iraq, than the average troop in the armed forces.
b) Life insurance, health insurance, retirement plan, catastrophic injury plan… come out of the contractors pocket.
c) For most enlisted in the US Armed forces 30 years is retire time. If you want them to work again you better double the 60k they make for being retired at least.
d) If you’re not willing to pay for it in peace time it costs more in time of war. Blame the “Peace dividend.”
e) If extra pay is the definition then what about doctors, lawyers, pilots, explosive disposal… They all get additional pay. Doesn’t that make them mercs?
3)Split second decisions of competence under fire should be tried by peers not in a civilian court.
4)If you are driving a school bus down the road and a sports car running from the police side swipes you. You respond by jerking the wheel to avoid running over the sports car which results in you hitting a bus stop full of people. Are you responsible? Were you criminal?
January 1, 2010, 12:52 amJim Owen says:
celticdragon obviously knows so little about mercenaries as to be not worth arguing with. Gotta wonder what would happen if celticdragon were confronted by one of them. Since I know more than a few Blackwater people – and a few mercs as well – it would be an interesting “conversation”.
I think celticdragon isn’t much of a dragon.
January 1, 2010, 12:58 amArthurKirkland says:
At least some friends or relatives of any of the slaughtered civilians, upon learning that the Bush administration’s mishandling of the prosecutions likely immunized the shooters from accountability, might be reasonably expected to assemble the appropriate resources and information and address those shooters directly and privately.
This is the type of revenge cycle American missteps are generating in Iraq and Afghanistan. When the blowback reaches American soil, it will be difficult to take seriously expressions of surprise or outrage.
Care should be exercise when hanging out with low-grade people — some say scumminess can be contagious.
(Not that I am accusing Blackwater’s killers-for-hire of being scum — that would unfairly disparage congealed algae.)
January 1, 2010, 1:32 amBill says:
Hooray! Now when can we get these brave heroes out into the field so they can kill some more innocent Iraqis!
They were all innocent angels, of course, which is why one of them has already pleaded guilty and is continuing to cooperate with prosecutors.
The second person to die was al Rubiay’s mother, Mahassin Mohssen Kadhum al Khazali, who was in the front passenger seat. She was killed by Blackwater guard Jeremy P. Ridgeway, 35, who pleaded guilty Friday in the case. According to Ridgeway’s proffer, which outlines what he will testify to as part of his plea agreement, he opened fire on the car after seeing another member of the Blackwater team firing into it. He said he intended to kill al Khazali.
The Kia then became the target of several Blackwater guards, including one who fired a grenade into it, setting it on fire, according to Ridgeway’s proffer..
This story ain’t over by a long shot, bub.
January 1, 2010, 1:33 amBill Poser says:
Bob from Ohio,
I think you’re missing the point. The blog posts you cite give you evidence as to my views of the basis for the war in Iraq. It is quite true that I opposed attacking Iraq both because the reasons for doing so were poor and because I did not believe that the Bush Administration would do a decent job either of the war or of rebuilding the government and the country afterward. In both, I think that the correctness of my assessment has been amply confirmed. How the war should be conducted given that we are there is another matter. You will find no evidence of my advocating immediate withdrawal or of any sympathy for the insurgents, nor will you find any evidence of antipathy toward the average US soldier.
By the way, be honest, did you know even my views on the justification for the war before your earlier post? I bet you didn’t.
In any case, as I also pointed out, ad hominem arguments lack probative value. Even if you had correctly discerned the motivation for my posts and those of others, that would be irrelevant to any assessment of the argument. Motivation is only relevant when assessing the truthfulness of the testimony of witnesses.
January 1, 2010, 1:39 amcranky says:
How do you know they were Blackwater? Did they show you the secret handshake? Something tells me they might not have been as impressed by you as you were by them.
Hate to break it to you guys, but the commie pinkos at the FBI determined that 14 of the 17 people who died that day were killed without cause.
The three victims whose shootings may have been in accordance with the rules of engagement included a young physician and his mother, who failed to stop for the convoy of Blackwater vehicles. Obviously, they were not a real threat, only an imaginary one. Most of the others were running away when they were killed.
In other words, the Blackwater mercs were frightened by a couple of doctors, then panicked and shot everything that moved. Hardly admirable behavior from a group of professional secret squirrel uber-tactical war fighters. But that’s reality for you.
A decent man, faced with the realization that his mistake had caused the death of innocents, would do the right thing and eat his gun.
January 1, 2010, 1:42 amOren says:
In that case, it’s hard to argue for any jurisdiction for the US at all, since his crime was not within our territory.
January 1, 2010, 1:58 amgerbilsbite says:
It’s a shame the media and the right wing cannot acknowledge this:
Our soldiers, airmen, and Marines are members of a proud and honorable tradition of service to the country that deserves our respect, and that presumption of respect and honor should not be automatically granted to the employees of one of the nine divisions of Xe Services LLC.
When we hear about soldiers, airmen, and Marines in situations where they have to “make split second decisions while under fire,” we should act with a presumption that they were acting with an honorable motive for a legitimate purpose, because they are the service members of our nation and deserve that deference. There are over two hundred years of honor and tradition backing them up.
Xe/Blackwater didn’t exist until after the First Gulf War had been over for five years. So when we hear that employees of one of the nine divisions of Xe Services LLC (or its prior incarnation) fired on a crowd killing more than a dozen innocent civilians for some reason, we shouldn’t give them the same presumptions of honorable motives and conduct that we give to our servicemen and women as a matter of course.
(That goes double for instances when our actual soldiers on the ground reported Blackwater’s conduct to be unjustified and excessive.)
Many of you are according respect to Xe/Blackwater as though they were the same thing as the United States military. That is wrong, and it ought to stop.
This may be the worst example so far:
Xe/Blackwater is a civilian company. It is not the United States Military. In this particular case, it wasn’t even working on a military contract, but a State Department one. In this case it isn’t subject to the UCMJ. And it isn’t buttressed by the respect due to those institutions that liberated the colonies, reunited the states, stormed the beaches, and saved our nation time and again.
A civilian court is exactly where we should try civilian defendants for crimes allegedly committed under US law and outside military jurisdiction. Surely that is something all sides can agree on, isn’t it?
January 1, 2010, 2:12 amArthurKirkland says:
Personnel of the United States armed forces are properly trained, properly commanded, properly motivated, altruistic and honorable volunteers shaped and governed by a centuries-proven system of discipline, accountability and military justice. They deserve respect, support and benefit of doubt.
In other words, they are nothing like mercenaries (or killers-for-money).
January 1, 2010, 2:35 amrpt says:
Yes, it’s not as if Eric Prince was a CIA agent or anything like that. You should visit northern North Carolina.
January 1, 2010, 2:40 amrpt says:
Too bad the defendants cleared the crime scene of all the Iraqi bullet casings and any other evidence of any such shooting.
January 1, 2010, 2:45 amMidlantan says:
Wow, Prof. Cassell, who owes a duty to his clients (whether or not they are paying him) thinks the prosecution should never have been brought. Wow. Seriously Paul, why even bother mentioning this, since in this context your opinion is worth, shall we say, less than it might otherwise be worth? The defendants in this case are accused of illegally killing over a dozen people, and the evidence shows that they actually engaged in this bloody massacre. To those VC commenters who are intimating that Blackwater and its mercenaries are somehow vindicated by this ruling, might I (a) express doubt that you express such glee when other illegal killers escape punishment based upon mistakes made in the prosecution (and note I refrain from using the term “murderers” precisely because that legal fact remains to be shown), and (b) you should be ashamed of yourselves; the (at best) reckless conduct of these mercenaries casts the US presence in Iraq in an even poorer light than it already enjoyed, and further endangered the lives of those men and women faithfully serving their (our, my) country in Iraq. It is not to excuse any problems with the prosecution of these defendants to point out that these defendants royally screwed up, to the detriment of the soldiers fighting a tougher battle, at greater risk, for a fraction of the defendants’ pay. Leaving aside whether calling someone a “mercenary” is a bad thing, actually being a *bad* mercenary is certainly a bad thing.
January 1, 2010, 2:57 amAndrew J. Lazarus says:
I’ve never heard you (or, for that matter, anyone including the ACLU) say that about a domestic Exclusionary Rule case. Indeed, at the same time you are claiming this is a total vindication of Blackwater your allies are worried (or, for political benefit, pretending to worry) that Abdulmattib will be released on some Constitutional technicality. Which is it: technicality or exoneration?
January 1, 2010, 3:16 amJones' Cell Mate says:
It’s always fun to watch the “progressive” fascination with Due Process go right out the window when the defendants are “evil-doers.”
I thought Bob from Ohio’s 6:39 post was unfair when I initially read it- I was wrong.
January 1, 2010, 3:25 amTopsecretk9 says:
I read the Vanity Fair article on Eric Prince and all I came away with is Blackwater was a better Military, a better CIA and a better DIA, FBI, NSA and NTA all wrapped into 1. Or else why would the US Govt’ be paying Blackwater?
Nimble is what blackwater is, US unionized gov’t bureaucracy? Nimble is not.
January 1, 2010, 4:16 amRicardo says:
Nope. He was on a U.S. commercial airplane which is legally treated the same as a U.S.-flagged vessel on sea — as being part of U.S. territory. Additionally, U.S. airspace is treated as part of U.S. territory and U.S. airspace is defined as the air above the U.S. extending out a certain number of nautical miles (is it 12?) to sea. The focus on “soil” is a red herring.
See this for more information.
To put it in simpler terms, if you are under 21 years old, you cannot be served alcohol on board a U.S. carrier even if you are in the middle of the Atlantic or Pacific because you are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. for the entire flight. If it is a foreign carrier, you can be served as long as you are outside U.S. airspace.
January 1, 2010, 4:48 amGuy says:
Is it true that one of the advantages of Blackwater is that they don’t legally have to follow the same rules as the military because they’re not strictly “government”? Doesn’t it also gives the government a degree of plausible deniability when they go off and do something legally questionable; “It’s not our fault! they’re a private contractor, not completely under our control!”
January 1, 2010, 5:05 amRicardo says:
That’s not really an issue of “international law” as much as an issue of U.S. law. American law does indeed sometimes apply to U.S. nationals for conduct they engage in outside the U.S.
For instance, the statutory prohibition of crimes of war is covered by 18 U.S.C. 2441 and applies to all members of the U.S Armed Forces and all nationals of the U.S. no matter where the alleged war crime took place. One of the acts the statute explicitly defines as a war crime is murder of a person not taking an active part in hostilities.
January 1, 2010, 5:07 amTopsecretk9 says:
Sure, it does and it makes sense in this perverse politicization of intelligence by democrats.
January 1, 2010, 5:35 amJason Van Steenwyk says:
It’s threads like this that demonstrate to me why soldiers typically have a low opinion of lawyers.
January 1, 2010, 7:42 amFury says:
Having talked with several soldiers including a 2-star general who were in Iraq, they indicated one of the major problems with the American civilian contractors was unity of command and the contractors not always informing the military of their movements and routes to be taken. They re-counted several incidents where blue-on-blue fire almost became a reality due to the problem of unity of command issues between civilian and military forces.
January 1, 2010, 8:04 amNoah David Simon says:
I’m all for paying people to fight Jihadists. thank goodness the courts agree
January 1, 2010, 8:04 amInge says:
To all you progressives here, opining:
What is it with your so-called hypocracy? Why is it rooting for enemies of america’s your position? I would like to hear why you feel the need to continously denigrate the USA? If you don’t like your own country, get out of it, and live in your beloved Europe, or the Middle East!!!
Now to the subject at hand:
January 1, 2010, 8:05 amLet’s hope that the Obami admin,doesn’t use Interpol to go after these guys!!
Jim N. says:
I would say its novel because they were in a WAR ZONE using weapons they were authorized to use by the government to protect………..government officials.
January 1, 2010, 8:14 amnathaniel says:
First Richard Reid. IE the shoe bomber who was treated the exact same way by the Bush Administration.
Second in your desire to elevate this person and make him a warrior (by the way exactly how he wants to be viewed)you are ignoring the actual facts. From what I can tell he is talking quite freely and providing all sorts of information. Why again do we need to do anything different?
January 1, 2010, 8:43 amChris Smith says:
Re: Murderous Mercs…
I’m not some high falutin law student or lawyer, and what I know about how prosecutors are supposed to operate could fit on my thumbnail. But I do know this about supposedly “murderous mercs” to which you cocktail circuit liberals are willfully blind — and that is that the ones I know personally are some of the finest salt of the earth men it has ever been my privilege to know. (How many of you assholes actually KNOW any of the fine men you choose to slander from the safety of your ivory tower and behind your Internet anonymity?)
One of my friends served 15 years in the Marine Corps so you jerkoffs could sit in your ivory tower and pretend to know things. During that time, he served 3 combat tours in Iraq… …while you limpdicks were prancing around pretending to be grownups. He was wounded twice in the service of his nation — a rifle round through a leg, and a pistol round through his side — while you all minced off somewhere to learn how to make life more expensive for the rest of us. After all of that, he found employment with Blackwater, where he served 3 more years in Iraq helping to implement his nation’s foreign policy, while you feckless children sat on your asses and learned how to pin patriots like him to a board like bugs in your displays of pseudo-intellectual prowess. You all don’t know shit.
Was he well paid during those final three years? Yes, he was; VERY well paid (by Marine Corps standards). But he now lives in daily pain from injuries sustained in battle, and he made a damned sight less than most of you bastards will make over your lifetimes by cynically twisting the Founders’ original intent into whatever corrupt fantasy you hold forth as truth. And he was certainly paid less than any politician, diplomat, or prosecutor — whose jobs consist primarily of sending guys like my friend into harm’s way, making it more difficult for him to do his job while he’s there, and then putting him in fear of what will happen to him when he returns home. Not one single one of you is worthy to carry his jockstrap. No, not one.
“Murderous mercs” my aunt Tilly’s ass…
January 1, 2010, 8:57 amTwirip says:
The “mercenaries” are all former US military. Which is to say, they are “properly trained, properly commanded, properly motivated, altruistic and honorable volunteers shaped and governed by a centuries-proven system of discipline, accountability and military justice”.
January 1, 2010, 8:58 amTwirip says:
Hate to break it to you, but the commie pinkos at the FBI are not in the business of determining such things. They’re not a court of law.
January 1, 2010, 9:01 amOctavian says:
Of course, you have evidence that it was these five defendants, or anyone at their direction, who cleared the crime scene of all the bullet casings, etc. Or is this another instance of presumption of guilt until proven innocent that you and your fellow anti-American liberals love to apply to anyone who is tasked with protecting American lives or interests?
January 1, 2010, 9:05 amOctavian says:
Funny, that’s exactly what my wife advises me with regard to some of my friends who voted for Barack Hussein Obama in November 2008. (Not that I am accusing Obama’s supporters of being scum — that would unfairly disparage congealed algae.)
January 1, 2010, 9:12 amTwirip says:
The quality of the left-wing posters on this site has declined of late.
January 1, 2010, 9:14 amOctavian says:
Right, because under the Saddam Hussein regime, if anyone had fired a shot at his troops, then every living soul in the entire city and surrounding countryside would have been gassed to death.
January 1, 2010, 9:25 amOren says:
January 1, 2010, 9:27 amjccamp says:
Reading over the actual statements, it does seem like some of the Blackwater people heard outbound fire from their own team, interpreted it as incoming and started shooting themselves. No one is ever going to be able to determine how this started. An insurgent bomb had gone off, thus the presence of the team. That there were insurgents around, with hostile intentions, is pretty evident. Someone else mentioned a car which approached the Blackwater team at high speed and refused to stop. The car and the occupants were blasted, under existing ROE, and it later turned out they were probably not hostile. In this environment, it’s very difficult after the fact to really decide factual issues, because there are no unbiased or unpressured witnesses. There is anecdotal suggestion that the scene was swept of casings which would have been suggestive of AK-47 fire, leaving only the U S manufactured shell casings. Despite the rhetoric, I don’t think anyone (in government) suggested that the Blackwater people were shooting civilians for fun. They perceived deadly peril and reacted. The issue is whether they reacted correctly or whether they used excessive force, thereby unnecessarily wounding and killing civilians.
At least several of the Blackwater detail immediately complained that others had used too much force without control. The first few U S military officers on the scene were likewise critical of the Blackwater fire control. We can at least agree this (the shooting) was not an example of how to do things the right way, and that it was problematic. However, the government completely mishandled the investigation, played absolutely dirty with the interrogations and subsequent charging decision, and then lied to a grand jury and the presiding judge. So, if we will never see the facts at issue hammered out in a court, that’s the DOJ’s fault.
It would seem like there were problems with the command and control of at least this Blackwater team. But the young men involved were just trying to do their job and protect themselves, not commit murder. If there was a failure, it was in the leadership somewhere. We should keep that in mind.
January 1, 2010, 9:28 amMichael Reinhard says:
On the issue of calling the Blackwater guards mercenaries: I think it is worth keeping in mind that 244 foreign private security guards have been killed in Iraq. If my memory serves, about 40 of them worked for Blackwater. There is another number I am certain about because it was so striking. The number of people that have died while being protected by Blackwater either in Iraq or Afghanistan: 0.
January 1, 2010, 9:29 amOctavian says:
Don’t you mean that guys like this are to the crazy Right what Bill Ayers (POTUS friend and frequent visitor to the White House) is to the crazy Left? The example that exposes the liberals’ moral bankruptcy.
January 1, 2010, 9:29 ampublic_defender says:
Professor Cassell,
Congratulations on your new found respect for the exclusionary rule!
Either that, or congratulations on making the transition from academic to a criminal defense lawyer arguing whatever theory is best for your client, even if that means hiding otherwise relevant information from the jury.
January 1, 2010, 9:33 amjccamp says:
BTW, I’ve known any number of people who worked for Blackwater and other contractors in Bosnia, the Sinai, Iraq and Afghanistan. A couple of companies have tried to recruit me for similar functions. Some of these people were dedicated professionals who retired from active military or law enforcement service and then joined a private corporation to bolster their pensions or put children through college. Others were complete morons who couldn’t be trusted to the simplest of everyday tasks, let alone issues involving deadly force. You know, sort of like the rest of the population. So, posters likening the private contractors to pond scum are just showing their own ignorance and bias. It would be no more fair, Arthur, were I to compare every attorney here with the ambulance chasers in 1984 Bhopal who dressed up as priests in order to gain entry to the hospital ER so they could sign up lawsuit clients.
January 1, 2010, 9:42 amTwirip says:
This is really a clueless thing to say. It’s not disputed that several people were shot. It is disputed whether the shooting was justifiable or not. The true answer to that question will probably never be known now.
I was thinking of you as an example of the non-crazy left-wing commenters. Don’t prove me wrong.
January 1, 2010, 9:49 ammadprof44 says:
To JF: read the ruling, little chance this was thrown. The head of the gvt trial team, Kenneth Kohl, comes out of this looking too shabby to rise any further than he is now (and where I can’t imagine he’ll be for long). A little creative misconduct might have raised his marketability , but Urbina left a real mark, came as close as he could to charging him with dishonesty, egotism, and stupidity . Just a taste of his sins: deceiving an old hand charged with preventing him from doing the very thing that sunk him, lying under oath to blame his own failings on his boss (trifecta!), an inability to argue his way out of a carp pool.
No sympathy for these guys from me. Whatever happened, they killed a lot of people, some at least innocents, the first reaction was to lie, and some of their own people were disgusted. But there’s always been something wrong about this case, not least why the IP quickly turned the traffic circle into the cleanest place in the Middle East. That’s a little weird. No, that’s so weird I wouldn’t have wanted to see these people convicted without knowing more.
And please, enough already, get off the mercenary rants. They’re tiresome so many years on, too many CAPS!!!, too much dysphemism.
January 1, 2010, 9:52 amTwirip says:
The only people hiding relevant information from the court were the prosecuters. If you bothered to read the judges verdict you might have known this already. You’d have read that the prosecution withheld “substantial exculpatory evidence” from the grand jury, for instance.
Would it really kill some of you to read the judges findings before pretending you know what happened?
January 1, 2010, 9:56 amHarvey Silverglate says:
There is not likely to be any improvement under Holder, because the Department of Justice operates under a rotten culture that has been in place long before Holder, and will likely remain in place long after. That culture was deepened and broadened, indeed, by Holder during his earlier stints in the DOJ hierarchy (remember “the Holder memorandum” that was part of a long-standing DOJ attack on the right to counsel?). The only chance we had in recent memory to do something about changing the culture was when Gerald Ford appointed Edward Levi as his attorney general. But when Ford lost his presidential bid, that opportunity disappeared in a flash. The notion that under Holder that is a “new” DOJ is as absurd as the fiction that the FBI now is substantially different than it was under the directorship of J. Edgar Hoover. It is the conquest of wishful thinking over reality. Harvey Silverglate, Cambridge, MA.
January 1, 2010, 10:09 amSara says:
Does anyone know anything about ADA Kevin Kohl? What’s his background?
January 1, 2010, 10:12 amTwirip says:
Since some people clearly cannot be bothered to click through to the link, I’ve excerpted some of it here.
========================================================
The second grand jury was convened in late November 2008. Agent Powell, the sole live witness presented to the second grand jury, summarized evidence from Iraqi witnesses, as well as information from cooperating witness Ridgeway, who by this time had entered a guilty plea, and summarized portions of the prior grand jury testimony of Frost, Murphy and Mealy. See generally Govt’s Ex. 1. In addition, the prosecutors presented the second grand jury with redacted transcripts of the prior grand jury testimony of Frost, Murphy and Mealy, along with summaries prepared by the prosecutors of the evidence against each defendant. See generally id.
By proceeding in this fashion, the prosecutors withheld from the second grand jury substantial exculpatory evidence that had been presented to the first grand jury. For instance, Raven 23 team members Thomas Vargas, Jeremy Skinner, Daniel Childers and Edward Randall all testified before the first grand jury that the Raven 23 convoy responded to incoming fire. Vargas testified before the first grand jury that approximately “five seconds after we pulled into our positions, we started taking fire” and that he “could hear AK-47 fire” and “immediately saw two insurgents.” Hr’g Tr., Nov. 3, 2009 a.m. at 10. Skinner likewise testified that he heard gunfire and saw “two distinct separate muzzle flashes” fired by insurgents at the Raven 23
convoy. Id. at 12. Childers testified that he heard incoming gunfire coming from his seven to eight o’clock position. Id. at 17. And Randall testified that the Raven 23 convoy took fire from the south and southwest and that he saw a round impact the side of one of the vehicles. Id. at 18-19.
Although Malis acknowledged that this testimony corroborated the defendants’ self-defense theory, none of this testimony was presented to the second grand jury. Id. at 10-19. Indeed, Malis testified that he chose not to present the testimony of these witnesses to the second grand jury because the testimony indicated that the witnesses were “hostile” to the prosecution. Hr’g Tr., Nov. 2, 2009 a.m. at 22. DOJ guidelines require prosecutors to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury. United States Attorneys’ Manual § 9-11.233 (stating that “[i]t is the policy of the Department of Justice . . . that when a prosecutor conducting a grand jury inquiry is personally aware of substantial evidence that directly negates the guilt of a subject of the investigation, the prosecutor must present or otherwise disclose such evidence to the grand jury before seeking an indictment against such a person”).
The government also redacted exculpatory portions of the testimony of Frost, Murphy and Mealy. For instance, Murphy testified at the first grand jury that even though he was positioned close to defendant Ball, he never saw Ball fire his weapon and that Ball certainly “wasn’t just shooting wildly” if he was shooting at all. Hr’g Tr., Nov. 2, 2009 p.m. at 115-16. The prosecutors redacted this testimony from the transcripts presented to the second grand jury, even though Malis acknowledged that it was exculpatory and had nothing whatsoever to do with the taint issue. Id. at 116.
=======================================================
This was Nfong style prosecuting, and the people involved should spend their next career slinging fries.
January 1, 2010, 10:14 amJ says:
My bet is that this was a trial balloon for the attack that is coming on our military by the left.
January 1, 2010, 10:23 amMatt O says:
Not at all. You suggest that a professional soldier operates on principles that are somehow different from those of the ‘hired guns.’ Assumptions are required if we are to accept that premise.
An act of war is generally determined by the motives of the actor and the target and nature of the act. If an act of war was committed, than the actor is indeed a warrior. There are those warriors who openly declare their intentions and who narrow their field of activities to targets of military importance. These, I think we agree, are honorable warriors in as much as they obey the edicts of the ‘Just War Doctrine’.
Then there are those warriors who do not openly declare their intentions and worse yet, do not limit their activities to military targets. These, I think we agree, are not honorable warriors.
We cannot, in good conscience, equate an act of war to that of a crime if for no other reason (and there are many other reasons) the warrior plays only the role that a weapon would play in a crime. That is, we don’t convict the murder weapon and allow the murderer to go free.
We must, if justice is to be had, unravel the organization behind the warrior.
In the case of the honorable warrior, we know whom he serves, we know his organization and we know his intentions. In this case, there is no need for punishment, questioning, etc. We simply hold him for the duration of hostilities.
We know none of these things in the case of the dishonorable warrior. Here, because the actor purposely places at risk the innocent, we are obligated to uncover whatever we can of his organization, its intentions and its targets. We ought also destroy this ‘weapon’ (the actor) as his actions have proven that he cannot be trusted. He has, intentionaly and with full knowledge, surrendered his rights as a warrior.
January 1, 2010, 10:47 amAffe says:
I don’t see what all the fuss is about regarding mercenaries. The death toll since the rise of “nation at arms”-type forces under Napoleon was orders of magnitude greater than that during the time of the highly professional armies retained by Enlightenment-era rulers.
Painting with a VERY broad brush, in my view the trend back towards greater professionalization of military forces – evidenced by repeal of the draft, implementation of the AVF, and now the rise of security contractors is, on balance (and with due regard for horrific individual instances), a positive. Forced to choose, give me Fontenoy over Passchendaele any day.
January 1, 2010, 11:04 amDave N. says:
Do you have any evidence Paul Cassell ignored or refused to apply the Exclusionary Rule as a federal judge?
As an aside, since you claim to be a Public Defender, do you believe the Exclusionary Rule only applies to your clients, and not to people you oppose for political reasons? Who exactly is showing contempt for the Exclusionary Rule? Professor Cassell? Or you?
January 1, 2010, 11:13 amJim Owen says:
1. How I know is none of your business. But I’ll give you a clue – “Birds of a feather….”
2. I have no need to impress them – or you.
You trust the Fibbies that much? Even though the case never went to trial, even though you’ve never been in a combat situation, you’re willing to convict them without actual proof? Really? You’re quite the humanitarian.
That’s an unwarranted assumption. I’m not impressed by the logic. And YOU are the reason why this kind of case should never be tried in a civilian court.
That attitude is no longer a surprise to me – it’s an attitude that’s apparently the sole prerogative of the progressive left. Unfortunately, they don’t apply the same standard of “the right thing” to themselves. As I said – “quite the humanitarian.”
January 1, 2010, 12:22 pmlrC says:
Conceptually the Blackwater contractors more closely resemble “contractors” per Geneva III 4.(4) than “mercenaries” per Additional Protocol I 47. Legally they seem to be in a unique niche: armed persons who are mostly nationals of the country which hired them. Which department of government holds the contract should be irrelevant. I don’t see a reason to shoehorn them into the more tainted category of “mercenary” just because Geneva drafters didn’t foresee conflicts in which the contractors would not just be caterers and construction workers.
January 1, 2010, 12:39 pmArthurKirkland says:
That issue (or, at least, argument) seems to come up periodically when the decision-makers ignore or forget the rules.
January 1, 2010, 1:00 pmPeteS in CA says:
“I would like to know WHEN, IF EVER, Holder is going to clean up shop there.”
Perhaps because he’d have to take himself out of the “shop” first.
“… since the dismissal was not on the merits”
You might want to rethink that comment: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/01/update_on_the_federal_judges_d.html “Update on the Federal Judge’s decision to throw out charges against Blackwater defendants”. If there was “exculpatory evidence” to be withheld, the government’s case had problems with its “merits” unrelated to the government’s usage of immunized statements.
January 1, 2010, 1:12 pmaziz says:
When you are on the winning and stronger side, you make your own rules. (THIS IS QUITE OBVIOUS IN THIS CASE. USA and its agents are free to do what they like and get away with MURDERS. No one is under any illusion this was a case of mass murders by power crazy cow boys. The law that lets them go free is geared up to protect the murderers and not the victims. SHAME on you all who consider this to be fair.
January 1, 2010, 1:13 pmAndrew Sullivan (2002 version) says:
Aziz: Nice to hear that we’re on the winning side. For quite a while, people were telling us Iraq was lost.
January 1, 2010, 1:28 pm11-B.2O/B4 says:
None of this is aimed at this particular case, just the general epithets being thrown about by posters. I like the nice bright distinctions people are able to bring between soldiers and contractors, because the difference between the two is mainly a term of enlistment and a giant pay raise. After the shameful treatment of soldiers in conflicts past, it is now politically and socially unpalatable to disparage the armed services in aggregate, at least. And that’s as it should be. Some people, however, still need their poster child for “war crimes”, and PMCs fit the bill. But let me ask you this, given that the Blackwater (and other PMCs) are almost exclusively recruited from the elite ranks of the armed forces…..do you really think the employer makes that big a difference? The men are the same, just older, more experienced, and better paid. Now, I’ll admit that the contractors can be cocky, and it stung me a bit the sheer monstrosity of pay differential, but the second part isn’t their fault. They’re being paid market wage to work in a hostile environment with a very specialized skill set. And almost to a man, they’re veterans of the Army and Marines. If nothing else, I think that should provide relative space from direct accusations of the whole profession being some sort of underclass. Make your arguments on this case if you must, but don’t disparage the whole group because you find it politically expedient. I know more than a few, served with dozens, and they are among the most honorable men I know. If you don’t know the people involved, refrain from making personal attacks.
January 1, 2010, 2:05 pmpublic_defender says:
I don’t know whether he followed the law in court, but he has strongly opposed it in his writings and in his victims’ advocacy. Here’s an example:
(See here for an example of academic writing.)
I don’t know if Judge Cassell applied the Exclusionary Rule as the law required. I have only one report from a lawyer who practiced in front of Judge Cassell, and the report was that the judge was not impartial. The quote from the lawyer was something like, “It’s good the the judge has decided to do his victim’s advocacy from the other side of the bench for a change.” That’s one lawyer’s opinion, and I have no personal experience to say whether it was a fair comment or not.
I’m also not saying that the exclusionary rule applies only to my clients. I’m pointing out that if the courts had adopted the professor’s views about the exclusionary rule, his client would have lost. It would be interesting to see him post about whether he has changed his mind about the rule.
My guess Cassell is doing what any good lawyer does. He’s arguing the plausible legal theory best calculated to help his client. Good for him. But my question for Professor Cassell, as opposed to Advocate Cassell, is whether he thinks that the Exclusionary Rule is now correct as a matter of law, or whether he argued what he thought was incorrect law to help his clients.
This points out one difficulty lawyers have when they write outside of court documents. When I sign a brief or motion, no one thinks I’m expressing my personal belief. But when a law professor writes a law review article (or posts on a blog), we all expect that the professor is expressing the truth as he or she sees it. It would be perfectly fair to quote a professor/lawyer’s own writings against him or her. It would also be perfectly fair for a judge at oral argument to ask a professor/lawyer if the contradictory legal position in a law review article was a correct statement of the law.
January 1, 2010, 2:09 pmPappadave says:
SOMEONE on the left surely must have at least one functioning brain cell! When you’re at war and someone shoots at you or runs at you and refuses to halt, you do whatever you can to “neutralize” the threat…period. Not to coin a phrase, but “War is Hell!” If one is going to war one is OBLIGATED to do whatever one can to WIN, because the alternative is death and/or defeat. Our problem is that elements of Islam have been at war with US for several decades now and we’ve just not acknowledged it…at least not publicly. For MOST of that time, the left has been in decision-making positions and have simply refused to provide the necessary funds to both wage and win the war.
January 1, 2010, 2:12 pmArthur Kirkland says:
do you really think the employer makes that big a difference?
January 1, 2010, 2:22 pmAndrew J. Lazarus says:
OK, for the moment I buy that. But it doesn’t sound like good practice to subsequently go Tarantino on the surroundings.
The third-highest recommended diary on Daily Kos right now is pro this decision. I don’t see the left having any problem with consistent application of Constitutional Rights. Professor Cassell, not so much.
January 1, 2010, 2:27 pmrpt says:
You are aware that it was a different “Bill Ayers” on the WH visitor list?
January 1, 2010, 2:30 pmArthur Kirkland says:
In fairness to Professor Cassell, his criminal procedure analysis might distinguish (1) the propriety of the exclusionary rule as applied to run-of-the-mill junkies and street hoodlums from (2) the propriety of the exclusionary rule as applied to heavily armed persons who act in concert to massacre innocents in bunches.
It’s the type of high-end academic theorizing that most people can not understand.
January 1, 2010, 2:34 pmSean says:
Hiring out for wartime services is a proven asset. All of you who bark “Mercenary! Mercenary!” at Blackwater forget one simple thing: that word means nothing now. You have deluded it. Your argument will not stick because you’ve used it too much. Most of us do not care if they are forward operating, support-only, latrine cleaners or librarians. They are effective and that is what really bothers you.
You use this word and I know your entire political philosophy. You have become entirely predictable. Sorry, just the way the world has worked for the last ten years. I also suppose that the current ‘Non-Cowboy’ administration is still using the dreaded “Mercenaries”?
January 1, 2010, 2:36 pmAndrew J. Lazarus says:
At what?
January 1, 2010, 2:40 pmgeokstr says:
If nothing else, they are most spectacularly effective at inducing pathological moon-howling, spittle-flecked, foaming at the mouth rage from some of the commenters here, right up there with Palin.
January 1, 2010, 2:51 pmRyan Waxx says:
Anderson’s reprehensible behavior brings to mind a quote:
“They’re not antiwar… they’re just on the other side.”
January 1, 2010, 3:20 pmRyan Waxx says:
Ahem. Have you actually read this thread?
January 1, 2010, 3:22 pmMike Schilling says:
Killing unarmed civilians. Military personnel would risk court-martial, but “contractors” bear no such risk.
January 1, 2010, 3:31 pmAndrew J. Lazarus says:
Yes. The majority of liberals appear to believe that the exclusion of the evidence and dismissal of charges is correct because of the way the evidence was obtained. Even at Daily Kos.
The right, on the other hand, seems to view this as a vindication of the practice of mowing down unarmed civilians, a practice which a number of war supporters seem to find vicariously exciting.
January 1, 2010, 3:59 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Prof. Cassell’s views on victims’ rights appear to be as curiously nuanced as his treatment of the exclusionary rule. His website emphasizes concern about victims but does not mention the “exclusion” of innocent, massacred Iraqis from the rights he purportedly champions.
I don’t fault the Professor for representing the killers. But his public statements about the case seem foolish, in several ways.
January 1, 2010, 4:12 pmDave says:
Absolutely
January 1, 2010, 4:13 pmPerseus says:
Quite ironic coming from the hired guns of the legal profession.
January 1, 2010, 4:17 pmTatil says:
Let’s have an online poll to see how many respondents want to waterboard the bankers who managed to bankrupt their companies, got bailout money from taxpayers, but still had to audacity to award themselves large bonuses. We can even come up with a list of questions to ask them just so it does not look like punishment or revenge, but just an interrogation.
January 1, 2010, 4:26 pmTatil says:
Killing unarmed civilians.Military personnel would risk court-martial, but “contractors” bear no such risk.
Sure, but that risk is fairly low to begin with, especially if they get their pictures taken in the crime scene giving high fives.
January 1, 2010, 4:28 pmRuss says:
Too many on here seem to think the enemy would never clean up a crime scene or use our own rules against us. Having been to Iraq twice, with a third time coming up this Summer, I can state as fact that the enemy does clean up after themselves, especially when they fire from inside crowds of women and children. Whether they did sdo here, I can’t state unequivicolly as fact, as I wasn’t there. But I have seen insurgents pick up quickly and then run.
Combat is not you on your Wii where you can hit the reset button if something goes wrong. Yes, believe it or not, mistakes happen. The wrong people get killed sometimes. A person in the grip of fear for their lives, something most here have never truly experienced, do things that look poor in a more comfortable setting. Kinda one of the reasons war sucks to begin with.
January 1, 2010, 4:28 pmRyan Waxx says:
I don’t recall ever seeing such a stunning feat of selective reading. I bet you could read a Washington Post editorial, be asked to write an essay on it, and come out with something that would be accepted by the old Pravda.
January 1, 2010, 4:31 pmnick says:
they should have been turned over to Iraq for execution
you sound like Goebbels defending SS killing of Jews!
January 1, 2010, 4:45 pmRyan Waxx says:
Godwin’s law: thread is over. Everyone out of the pool.
January 1, 2010, 4:57 pmChris Travers says:
I think that is also the most compelling reason that all armed soldiers and guards in war zones should be under the direct control of the Department of Defence.
Hiring private soldiers (mercinaries, really) and then placing them under the control of diplomats is a recipe for disaster.
Fire the mercinaries. Hire more soldiers. Use the UCMJ appropriately.
January 1, 2010, 5:21 pmgerbilsbite says:
It might be irrelevant if we focus only on international law (but c’mon, this is Volokh’s blog we’re talking about!). It’s relevant when determining which US laws to apply, however. Contractors hired to accompany active duty personnel on combat missions are, IIRC, subject to the UCMJ (as are all of our service members). Contractors employed by the State Department, obviously, would not be. So there’s a huge difference in the process due to them under those separate instances, as well as punishments available in the event of conviction.
These guys weren’t “at war,” they were at work. And they are not the armed forces of the United States with hundreds of years of honor and tradition, but employees of one of the many divisions of
January 1, 2010, 5:33 pmXe/Blackwater, a private group involved in its first war ever. The only conclusion I can come to as to why you would blur that line and deny the distinction between professional soldiers in the US military and private contractors working a contract is because you don’t care so long as it was Western guys shooting at Muslim guys. Be honest: that’s the real distinction that you’re trying to draw, isn’t it? Especially since our soldiers who were first to arrive on the scene categorically declared that the Blackwater guards were telling a false account and lying about the conditions that led to them killing over a dozen innocent civilians without any cause (and yeah, they had no cause–the FBI report and the military one agree on this point, and only the corporate PR operation behind Xe and knee-jerk right wingers have even tried arguing the opposite). This isn’t about respect for our troops: it’s about presuming that the Christian guys were right to shoot and the Muslim victims deserved to die. That’s truly sick.
Arthur Kirkland says:
Let’s have an online poll to see how many respondents want to waterboard the bankers who managed to bankrupt their companies, got bailout money from taxpayers, but still had to audacity to award themselves large bonuses. We can even come up with a list of questions to ask them just so it does not look like punishment or revenge, but just an interrogation.
January 1, 2010, 5:40 pmEli Rabett says:
Great outcome, now we can extradite them to Iraq.
January 1, 2010, 5:50 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Great outcome, now we can extradite them to Iraq.
January 1, 2010, 6:27 pmEH says:
No one is ever going to be able to determine how this started.
Lucky, that.
January 1, 2010, 6:39 pmGuy says:
I have to admit that I also seem to be a victim of this selective reading. Do me a favor and point out some of the comments on here where liberals are denouncing the exclusionary rule.
January 1, 2010, 6:48 pm11-B.2O/B4 says:
Couple things, dingus.
1: I’m not a friend of the military. I AM the military. We don’t have friends, we only have those who belong and those who do not. I don’t feel the need to prove my loyalty to the organization.
2: I did not “assert a resemblance”, I asserted overlap. Blackwater doesn’t “resemble” the military, it’s made up of veterans. Men who served their nation and moved on to greener (monetary) pastures. They deserve better than to be tried in the court of public opinion based on partial records and partisan politics.
3: Your incredibly partisan and ill-informed opinion aside, you might hesitate to monday-morning quarterback situations you have no experience with. You know, if you had any intellectual honesty. Wait, never mind.
4: This is for everyone. If you want to judge a situation like this, you need all the facts, and you also need a frame of reference, which most civilians lack. If you’ve never extracted from an ambush kill zone, you don’t know what’s involved, how chaotic it is etc. You really have no concept. This shouldn’t be news.
Lastly, my read on this whole case: The Bush administration had to show the Iraqis that we were prosecuting these guys because it was a political hot potato (the security treaty and all), and we obviously weren’t going to extradite. So they just bungled the job badly enough that the whole case could fail later on. What with two wrongs making a right and all……
January 1, 2010, 6:48 pmEH says:
If you’ve never extracted from an ambush kill zone, you don’t know what’s involved, how chaotic it is etc. You really have no concept.
Oh blah blah blah. Sorry, but the logic of “unless you’ve experienced X, you’re unqualified to talk about X” is so misguided and unrealistic that you betray your own bias. And I know, “once a Marine, always a Marine,” but contractors are not Military. They may help with military objectives, but they are not military. Opinions will certainly differ, but unless they are going to *be* members of the military, they do not enjoy the benefits of being military. Can’t have your cake and eat it, too.
We now do not get to know the facts and that is a problem. Like dirty police officers sullying the public’s opinion of all officers, it would have been good for the public *and* the contractors if this trial had been handled competently.
January 1, 2010, 7:26 pmrpt says:
Several questions:
Would anyone on this thread oppose increasing the military deployment so as to make the Blackwater/Triple Canopy, etc., contingents unnecessary? Use the money to increase military pay, support, benefits and after service care, for which, at least in recent years, D’s have provided much more support than R’s.
What about putting the non-military contractors under military command?
Finally, we really have no idea of the true extent of Blackwater’s involvement and activities over the last eight years, as evidenced by the recent disclosures of their combat related activities and Prince’s role as a covert CIA agent (even while testifying before Congress.) He probably has a practical graymail veto (as a result of the information he could disclose) over any future prosecutions.
January 1, 2010, 7:29 pmSara says:
Ryan: Can you point to the comments that denounce the exclusionary rule? Thanks.
January 1, 2010, 7:55 pmAndyC says:
Having been a PSD contractor with a British team (2004-2005) in Iraq, I’ve been watching this case with interest.
I have to say right up-front that I don’t know the truth any more than any of you, of course – I have no secret PSD-insights which may shed some light on this whole incident, but I do have some observations on the whole contractor/mercenary label.
Now, I don’t know who of you here have ever been on a PSD team before, but I would first remind you that we did serve honorably and professionally in our respective militaries back home (I just happen to have been a 2nd Lieut). We were hugely dedicated to the mission in Iraq, to our protectees (or principals in PSD-speak) and to our team-mates as well as to the success of the larger strategic mission as a whole. Try to cast doubt on our patriotism by insinuating that, simply because we get paid, we’d happily whore out to Al Qaeda if the money was right – well, you’d need to bring a whole lot of big ugly friends to pull you from the beating you would deservedly receive.
Yes, the money is good – so what? It’s a free-market economy, the laws of supply-and-demand at work – and Skills Cost. The peculiar set of skills required of a PSD operator is not something the typical soldier knows unless specifically trained to do so. Why? A soldier is trained to engage the enemy and will instinctively do so on contact in order to destroy them; a PSD team has a different goal: get the principal safely from point A to point B while avoiding a fight – but if needed, have the skills to engage defensively in order to extract the principal to a safe location (pay attention to the word “defensively”, kids – you will see this material again shortly).
We get to do this with the minimum of resources – typically a 3-vehicle convoy with light weaponry – as opposed to a huge military convoy with heavy weapons, top-cover (helicopters) and artillery support. However, we look cool as fuck doing it, so we get to enjoy some prime babes on-base sometimes – no doubt that’s another reason for the envy we get from the younger military guys. To them I would say “Suck it up, boys – we paid our dues to get to this point, just as you’re currently doing.”. That said, we support our military 110% – we never forget that we too were soldiers, and we’ll lend a hand any day of the week to them.
To the grumpy lawyers here – how much would you want to get paid to get your butts out of your chair and swan around Iraq in a 3-car convoy sticking out like the dog’s bollocks for the IED dickers and the throat-slitters? A whole lot more than they paid me, I’ll bet.
Mercenary. Well, of course we get paid, dim-bulb – I’m not risking life and limb for nothing. Now, I don’t know about Blackwater, but we were anything but offensive forces – our role was purely defensive (told you) in that we had to get the principal(s) from A to B and fight only if someone tried to stop us from delivering; in other words, in self-defense. From what I understand, a mercenary gets paid specifically to fight – fight being the operative word, not just the paid part.
Those poor, benighted folks with 11 fingers and double-digit IQs are easily-confused by the fact that we’re civilian, well-paid, decently-armed and skilled operators – which automatically means that we’re a fearsome fighting force for there for offensive-purposes. That we are if prodded; however, that’s missing the point – if left alone, we’ll happily leave everyone alone as well.
Mercenary – my ass.
January 1, 2010, 8:02 pmmariner says:
Bill Poser:
If these people very likely committed such dastardly crimes, prosecutors could very likely have made their case without resorting to overcharging and misconduct.
Since they did not, I’m left to conclude that the case against these men was very likely very weak from the beginning, and was very likely brought for political rather than law enforcement reasons.
January 1, 2010, 8:03 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Right, because under the Saddam Hussein regime, if anyone had fired a shot at his troops, then every living soul in the entire city and surrounding countryside would have been gassed to death.
January 1, 2010, 8:25 pmChris Smith says:
No, what most people can’t understand is a purported lawyer convicting a defendant without the benefit of a guilty verdict, without the benefit of having seen the actual evidence himself, without the benefit of having heard the witnesses himself, and without the benefit of having consulted either defense counsel or the prosecutor. In other words, you’ve arrived at a conclusion because it is the conclusion you desire to be true, regardless of the actual truth, and regardless of the fact that a judicial system which presumes innocence first and requires the prosecution to prove their case, actually did just that. That is justice dude. You don’t like it, go put your big-boy pants on.
Now, there are three Navy SEALs awaiting trial for “brutalizing” a terrorist they arrested. The brutality consists of the suspect receiving a fat lip during the scuffle to arrest him. There isn’t a cop alive who hasn’t accidentally injured a suspect in the tussle to arrest him. Incidentally, the terrorist in question is the guy who led the insurgents who killed four contractors in Fallujah, mutilated their bodies, burned them, and then hung their charred and partially dismembered carcasses from a bridge.
My guess is, given your demonstrated tendency to convict your betters without an informed understanding of the facts, that you think the SEALs should be hung by their short-hairs and whipped, while the scumbag they arrested should be set free to kill more Americans.
January 1, 2010, 8:48 pmGuy says:
Without claiming specific knowledge about the general character of Blackwater employees, the fact that they are largely drawn from the military doesn’t mean much because of the serious possibility selection bias. Soldiers, by and large, serve with honor, but some people, regardless of whether they are farmers, factory workers, college students, or soldiers, are psychopaths, some are lazy, some are incompetent, some have poor discipline. I don’t know one way or the other, but it’s entirely possible that Blackwater isn’t as selective as the army in who they hire/recruit, and it’s also entirely possible- indeed, likely, that they don’t try as hard to maintain discipline as the army does. I think it’s telling that employees of Blackwater have chosen to remain in positions similar to the ones they held in the military instead of trying to rise through the ranks of the military itself.
January 1, 2010, 9:15 pmRyan Waxx says:
That’s a ridiculous request, and you know it. Let me counter with a challenge: For every “hurray for the exclusionary rule, prosecutor misdeeds did not go unpunished!” quote you find, I’ll give you a “those murderous swine were guilty and got off on a technicality”.
Lets see who runs out of examples first.
January 1, 2010, 9:18 pmGuy says:
I don’t see Arthur saying these people should be put in jail, or that the judge was wrong, so I’m not sure I understand how he has “convicted” them. All I see is him pointing out the obvious hypocrisy of Paul Cassell trumpeting as a victory for justice an application of the exclusionary rule when applied to a defendant he likes even though he has in the past, much to the dismay of supporters of that rule like myself, denounced that very same rule.
January 1, 2010, 9:19 pmGuy says:
I made the same request, and don’t know it to be “ridiculous” at all, but never mind, let’s discuss your challenge:
First off, which does this count as:
He calls it a technicality, but clearly supports the application of the rule here. Let’s look at one of my comments:
I call it a “travesty”, not because the exclusionary rule, which I support, was applied. But because the exclusionary rule is always symptomatic of prosecutorial misconduct that forces a judge to dismiss the case, because there is no other Constitutional option.
Unless you construe statements like these to be anti-exclusionary rule, I don’t see how you can win your proposed challenge.
January 1, 2010, 9:24 pmRyan Waxx says:
Well, lets see:
Consider yourself informed.
January 1, 2010, 9:29 pmGuy says:
That post was admittedly inflammatory, calls for vigilante justice, whether rhetorical or literal, should be engaged in with caution. But absent an explicit statement from Arthur that he would support such an extrajudicial killing in fact, my instinct is to read it as rhetorical.
January 1, 2010, 9:37 pmRyan Waxx says:
How noble of you to “admit” that calling for murder is “inflammatory”… subject of course to confirmation, since it’s entirely conceivable that the author of:
Not that I am accusing Blackwater’s killers-for-hire of being scum — that would unfairly disparage congealed algae.
really meant that he wouldn’t be sending them chocolate-chip cookies next christmas!
January 1, 2010, 10:21 pmSara says:
Ridiculous, Ryan? It was unclear who you were saying was denouncing the exclusionary rule. Now I know that you were referring to Arthur Kirkland. If you didn’t want to respond, you did not have to.
January 1, 2010, 10:32 pmnick says:
BW couldnt even protect itself!
January 1, 2010, 10:36 pmRyan Waxx says:
Yes, ridiculous. You made the demand so specific that no one could logically meet it… not because the specificity was actually germane (you demanded proof for a tiny sub-sliver of the actual claim), but because you were intentionally playing games.
January 1, 2010, 10:47 pmSara says:
Ryan: I didn’t demand anything. So, denouncing the exclusionary rule is not germane to any claim you’re making. Got it.
January 1, 2010, 11:24 pmjccamp says:
I don’t know Paul Cassell’s entire history of writings on the exclusionary rule, but I did take the time to read the single cite from public_defender @ 2:09. Judge Cassell specifically took to task the State of Utah version of the exclusionary rule. Among other arguments, Judge Cassell says that a Utah exclusionary rule is redundant, given the expansiveness of the Federal exclusionary rule which is also applicable to state prosecutions if the issue involves the 4A. Judge Cassell nowhere in that article claims that the (Federal) exclusionary rule is anything but settled. He argues against expanding the exclusionary rule for violations of a state constitution which do not simultaneously offend the U S Constitution, a fairly small subset I would think. He bases his argument on a number of both historical and practical factors.
I don’t think that a state court would have jurisdiction for alleged crimes committed inside a foreign country. Judge Cassell’s objections would not apply to the instant case.
I fail to see the hypocrisy that the usual suspects are accusing the OP. Did you guys bother to read the article before coming to your conclusions? Or this? “I don’t know if Judge Cassell applied the Exclusionary Rule as the law required.” A little hyperbole? Do you really think a U S District judge could/would ignore the exclusionary rule and somehow that would slip by unnoticed?
January 1, 2010, 11:53 pmLeo Marvin says:
Wouldn’t that be “the mercenary formerly known as ‘Prince’?”
January 2, 2010, 12:09 amChrisTS says:
Good Night, Leo. :-)
January 2, 2010, 12:35 amArthurKirkland says:
I prefer — perhaps even crave — accountability. It would be best if the shooters were tried in a criminal court in the United States. It would be acceptable if their conduct were addressed in a civil court in the United States. It would be reasonable to conduct a legitimate civil or criminal proceeding in Iraq. It would be unacceptable for them to skate without any accountability.l That type of injustice would understandably infuriate most men of good will. In the case of those directly affected by the killings, it might spur an understandable drive for accountability in the form of revenge. That type of blowback from misguided violence — unaccompanied by accountability — has generated and continues to generate huge problems for the United States in at least two foreign countries. The predictable consequences of counterproductive conduct continue to surprise or elude the perception of many people.
Were the survivors of the Baghdad butchery to pursue private revenge after observing a lack of accountability, that conduct would be understandable — place yourself in a circumstance in which trigger-happy, private cowboys from another country killed your spouse in your town’s square, then headed home, where the shooters were never held accountable for killing your spouse — and predictable, but wrong.
The outrage and surprise expressed in reaction to such revenge, however, would be similarly wrong, but far less understandable. Some goobers would even consider it a dastardly provocation reflecting the moral bankruptcy of the avenger, and take it as a ticket to escalate the cycle of unnecessary, counterproductive violence.
Or, as warmongers and war profiteers call it, good times.
January 2, 2010, 12:48 amGary says:
Mr. Kirkland’s hate-mongering has no place in civil discourse.
January 2, 2010, 1:07 amLeo Marvin says:
Good night, Gracie.
January 2, 2010, 1:31 amDave N. says:
Jccamp,
Thank you for your post regarding Professor Cassell and the Exclusionary Rule. I had not had an opportunity to read Public Defender’s link until now.
Having clerked in the Utah Attorney General’s Criminal Appeals Division while in law school (and having taken a law school class on State Constitutional Law which discussed the Utah approach), I can attest that the Utah Supreme Court has found broader protection under the Utah Constitution than the United States Supreme Court has found in the federal constitution.
Specifically, if I am remembering correctly, Utah requires search warrants for certain automobile searches that the U.S. Supreme Court has held are not required. According to the link, Utah also apparently finds state constitutional protection from the seizure of evidence otherwise in plain view when police enter a dwelling under exigent circumstances.
As the link notes, Utah imposes an exclusionary rule for evidence seized in violation of the Utah Constitution, even if the evidence was legally seized under the U.S. Constitution (as the evidence in the linked case almost assuredly was if the case had been tried in federal court). Professor Cassell criticized this particular aspect of the Utah Exclusionary Rule.
January 2, 2010, 1:39 amMatt O says:
Ahh yes, the evil corporations that bought and sold the mislabled mortgages sourced by the government sponsored ‘corporations’ Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae. Let’s be sure to punish those who agreed to forego their careers for a year to unwind the bloody mess for a yearly salary of $1 with bonus of $1 million if successful.
“The Treasury Department said Thursday it removed the $400 billion financial cap on the money it will provide to keep the companies afloat. Already, taxpayers have shelled out $111 billion to the pair, and most analysts hadn’t expected the companies to hit the limit”
Now the gentlemen who run these companies are receiving their bonuses with the government blessing.
January 2, 2010, 1:47 amRicardo says:
I’m glad to hear you have such a high opinion of people like Jimmy Carter, Wesley Clark and John Kerry. I’m sure even you have to draw the line somewhere before Terry Nichols and Tim McVeigh, though.
Surely the point here is that if these guys want the prestige and respect associated with the armed forces of the United States, they should have stayed there.
January 2, 2010, 1:50 amRicardo says:
Why is that? It was lawyers who got the charges against these guys dismissed. Are you suggesting this result is somehow repulsive to most soldiers? Or did you have another interpretation in mind?
January 2, 2010, 2:01 amMatt O says:
Your outrage isn’t convincing. If you were being targeted by one actor hiding behind a crowd of 150 women and children is it your responsibility to shoot through that crowd of women and children to kill the attacker?
Are you aware that most combat is conducted blindly? That is, the combatants do not actually see who they are shooting at? And if they do see the enemy it is but a fleeting view? That under most circumstances, it is the side that can apply the heaviest fire that survives the engagement?
Is it truely your contention that combat should not be conducted under such conditions? That combatants should withstand withering fire without returning fire simply because they cannot see their attackers?
Do you realize the only way to survive an ambush is to attack the unseen attackers with the intent of suppressing their attack with your superior firepower?
None of these issues can be addressed in civilian courts. ‘Yes your honor, I was just in the neighborhood with my machinegun looking for somebody to kill or a building to destroy. Somebody in the crowd took started firing and I suppressed the fire with a couple of grenades and a few bursts from my M60. Is there a problem with that?
There is nothing wrong with men and women who cannot act in this fashion (however few though they may be) aside from the fact that those self-indulgent few will be forever dependent upon those who can.
Your suggestion that members of the military will stoically submit to their deaths simply beacuse they could not identify their attacker within a tenth of a second is absurd. You seem to propose that a 19 year old kid from Podunk Iowa is somehow less innocent than the crowd masking his attacker.
Pacifism is a parasitic philosophy that can thrive only as a minority within a non-pacifistic majority. It is, however, a grave and unfair burdon that pacifists place upon those who must forever live with their experiences while at war.
January 2, 2010, 2:44 ameyesay says:
GaryC wrote
(Insert standard warning pointing out that this would be wrong on so many levels.) Waterboarding is torture and is prohibited by the Geneva Convention. Even if one believes in exceptions for a “ticking time bomb” there is none here; the “claim” of 25 prospective bombers is just that — a “claim” about 25 prospective bombers — and not a ticking time bomb. (If you believe that a claim or even the actuality of 25 prospective bombers is a ticking time bomb then anything is a ticking time bomb and there is no longer any ticking time bomb “exception.”) There is no reason to believe anything he says as a result of torture; he may say anything to get it to stop. He may name 25 people he does not like, for example, Muslims who favor peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims, as “prospective bombers.” Israel, which has a lot of experience dealing with terrorists, knows well that you can get more useful information from prisoners by being nice to them than by torturing them. Waterboarding is torture and it is against the the law, against treaties, against morality, and does not work.
January 2, 2010, 3:32 amBob from Ohio says:
Its not an online poll, its a regular Rasmussan poll.
The waterboarding question is interesting because it points out the minority status of the moralists here but the key result is that 7 of 10 think the BVD Bomber should be in military custody.
There is zero reason for him being in civilian custody. Leaving waterboarding aside, at the least, he could be interrogated according the the sacred Army Field Manual. Who cares if none of his statements would be admissible at later trial. We have plenty of evidence for conviction, what we need is information about future attacks.
You would think that Obama’s people would want to do this if for no other reason than politics. If one of those 25 people actually does a terrorist act, the political storm will sink Obama.
January 2, 2010, 10:25 amGuy says:
Finally, someone who has the guts to say what we all are thinking: all military decisions and court outcomes should be based on public opinion polls, not so-called “experts” or “government officers” or “judges” or “laws”.
January 2, 2010, 10:57 amBob from Ohio says:
Why do you hate democracy Guy?
Its the right decision and the people seem to agree.
January 2, 2010, 11:10 amAndrew J. Lazarus says:
Let’s see. Ryan Waxx accuses me of selective reading, based on my accurate summary of liberals’ attitudes towards even-handed application of the exclusionary rule. Ryan Waxx previously claimed that his opponents were not “anti-war”, but “on the other side”. That would seem to me to require very selective reading, but hardly surprising from the collection of bullies and cowards to which he belongs, who can’t bear the thought of the Rule of Law interfering with their violent fantasies.
Sen. Joe McCarthy, and his modern echo Bill O’Reilly, spent some time complaining that the US Government had gone too hard on the perpetrators of the Malmedy massacre, and they really were on the other side. I suggest that the common denominator is pro-massacre, gussied up by, say, Matt O with his vicarious [no combat experience of your own, right, Matt? Lucky guess on my part there!] musings on how the Blackwater personnel should have handled the (non-existent) ambush.
The US military who arrived on the scene seem to have a less generous opinion of the Blackwater behavior, don’t they?
January 2, 2010, 12:16 pmSara says:
Hmm. It maybe the right decision here or not, but is their any procedural or more importantly institutional check on this power? Do we merely entrust the Commander-in-Chief with declaring any enemy of the state, or do we check it with positive law?
Also, if what we hear is true, this man is singing, so what is gained by someone else doing the questioning?
January 2, 2010, 12:18 pmAndyC says:
That is the most ridiculous strawman argument I have ever read – who says we want that?
At least we *have* served our country – have you? Also, you seem to imply that one should be forced to stay in the military for life, once having joined. Does that mean that you would happily stay with your firm for the rest of your life, come what may?
January 2, 2010, 2:00 pmAndyC says:
I tend to agree, but good luck with that. Now, train those soldiers in executive-protection (to the same level as we contractors) and see how much it costs to get them up to speed ;)
You mean like Danny Fitzsimons?
“Iraqi authorities have charged a British contractor, identified as Daniel Fitzsimons, with the murders of Mr Hoare and another colleague, Briton Paul McGuigan.”
Shall we then hand an American soldier over to Iraqi authorities for the same reason? “A civilian contractor (Lucas Vinson) was shot and killed Sunday on an American military base in the Iraqi city of Tikrit and a U.S. soldier has been detained in connection with the incident, the military said.”
January 2, 2010, 2:09 pmMatt O says:
Pro-massacre? Let’s examine this. That a Blackwater group planned an operation to surround and kill women and childen is the charge? Or was it simply an opportunity, a fortuitous happenstance in which these fortunate men could express their inner selves?
Or perhaps the guards should have called a ceasefire so they could police the brass, identify the witnesses, exchange insurance information and establish the chain of evidence? That is how wars are conducted? Is is perfectly safe to fly a white flag and negotiate with an actor shielding himself behind a crowd of women and children?
There is little doubt thany there are many of us whose consciences are not so finely tuned as others; nor have all consciences been tested equally.
January 2, 2010, 2:22 pmArthurKirkland says:
What about courts-martial?
The point is accountability.
January 2, 2010, 2:36 pmMatt O says:
Excellent question. It is difficult enough for the US to declare war when a Germany attacks a France or a Britain; what does a country do when the actor is more of a diaspora than a nation-state?
The Bush/Obama administrations, with the backing of their respective legislatures, have opted to hold selected nation-states accountable for the actions of the ‘diaspora’ within their borders.
This approach has failed to garner widespread support. I think most in US, if not the West, beleives that we do have an obligation to defend ourselves. From there, the picture is not so clear.
Here in the US, we spend 20 to 25 percent of our total budget on defense. That is obviously, not sufficient to address the problem we face. Our ‘leadership’, past and present, have found themselves engaging our nation in seemingly interminable actions with little chance of success.
Our leadership truly reflects our divided culture. It is as if we no longer have the will to exist. Is this a failure of leadership or a failure of culture?
January 2, 2010, 2:55 pmArthurKirkland says:
In assessing issues of propriety and accountability, it seems worthwhile to note that the Iraqis neither invited nor provoked the attack that sent heavily armed and armored invaders onto their streets.
January 2, 2010, 3:07 pmMatt O says:
Courts-martial are the appropriate avenue. The military, rightly so in my opinion, is extremely reluctanct to bring charges in cases such as this. Were there shots fired by an enemy actor, even just one? Or was there an unexpected movement, or a loud noise, or a car door slamming? These do not appear as sufficient causes to civilians, but they most certainly are to those in combat.
Simply put, there is very little time to ascertain the true nature of a situation. Yes, it takes only one man to panic, all the others will assume there is just cause and they will join in the attack. Are mistakes made? You bet, but they are mistakes, not criminal acts.
January 2, 2010, 3:16 pmAndrew J. Lazarus says:
The problem is not their reluctance, but that IIRC under the law as it stood then, contractors were not liable to courts-martial. The military has shown itself willing to bring charges, at least in some extreme cases.
Do you remember when The New Republic ran a piece by a soldier who wrote about aiming at dogs while driving the tank down the street? You guys went ballistic, accusing him of lying. One hero wannabe even went down to the toy store in an attempt to prove you can’t see dogs in the street from that model tank, at least, not in the scale model at the store. His sergeant write in calling the story lies, saying that American soldiers would never do that. The self-same sergeant was later convicted (props to the American military) for executing Iraqis in cold blood, a crime he had already committed at the time. (Of course, I imagine executing handcuffed prisoners will have its defenders on these threads.)
January 2, 2010, 3:58 pmTHESMOPHORON says:
The Constitution of the United States of America is not a technicality.
January 2, 2010, 4:54 pmArthurKirkland says:
It appears courts-martial were unavailable in this context because of poor or absent judgment among those who developed the operational structure — an unusually pernicious bug that, I fear, is viewed as a feature by some.
January 2, 2010, 5:41 pmDuracomm says:
Andrew J Lazarus,
The soldiers story (Scott Beauchamp) you write about (running over dogs, etc.) were false and he said so himself.
His story about running over dogs was most reliably falsified by an interview with the maker of the vehicle that was supposed to be running over the dogs.
When Hidden Experts Are Found
IIRC Scott Beauchamp’s articles in the new republic did not mention the murders you talk about.
Baghdad Diarist Was On Guard When Questioned by Editors
January 2, 2010, 6:21 pmAndrew J. Lazarus says:
Given that this unit was later implicated in a war crime, I wouldn’t rely on their statements much. And if you go over to Balloon Juice and have better Google luck than I did, you can find John Cole saying he’d driven tanks. According to him, it has an external camera to improve driver vision. The Tonka version at Toys R Us didn’t, hence the confusion.
January 2, 2010, 7:38 pmjccamp says:
Dave N -
You’re absolutely correct, plus the article was written in 1993, an eon ago when considering jurisprudence. I have no clue as to Judge Cassell’s thinking on the exclusionary rule, within or without state courts, these days.
The gross violations occurring in this case (causing the dismissals) rise to a level that almost requires an inquiry into those committing the violations. What could they have been
thinkingsmoking (to borrow an OK device)?I’m sympathetic to the young men who found themselves in this position, but a significant portion of the same Blackwater team immediately complained about uncontrolled and unnecessary shooting. I think that is very telling. However, I neither understand nor agree with the vituperation coming from those here who have probably never had to face their own mortality in ambiguous, violent circumstances.
On a regular basis, somewhere in this country, accused criminals walk away from potential consequences of their actions because a cop screwed up and inadvertently caused evidence to be suppressed. The normal reaction in these threads is to criticize the investigator/prosecutor. No one suggests that we cannot live with the consequences of the exclusionary rule, yet somehow, this case is different. The defendants apparently have lesser rights, the prosecutors greater authority to flaunt the Constitution, and the victims are not supposed to learn to deal with it.
Our greatest civil libertarians (within these threads) have somehow become the lynch mob in this circumstance.
January 2, 2010, 8:11 pmDuracomm says:
Andrew J. Lazarus,
The link you provided said three people have been tried and convicted for murder of Iraqis. Three soldiers does not equal the entire unit.
There were a lot of other soldiers in the company and the actions of the three murderers does not impeach the testimony regarding the veracity of beauchamp’s stories given by every soldier in the company.
If you followed the links I provided you would find that the statement on the bradley tracked vehicle capabilities was provided by a spokesman from the company that makes them. This makes your comments about the tonka version at toys r us particularly nonsensical.
Furthermore, beauchamp himself would not defend any of his stories.
January 2, 2010, 8:21 pmArthurKirkland says:
If “screwed up” is short for “engaged in intentional acts that violated the constitution,” the point seems valid.
If “inadvertently” is intended to mean “did not expect to be called to account for it,” I’ll buy it.
Otherwise, the libertarian in me says “no sale.”
January 2, 2010, 8:46 pmjccamp says:
Arthur,
My meaning was that cops, typically ill-preprared and oft poorly trained, make a mistake – unintentional, ill-considered certainly, foolish, even stupid, but not usually intentional – which results in evidence suppression. In those cases, I would expect a segment of those posting here to vehemently criticize (perhaps correctly) the cops for those mistakes. In the case cited, trained attorneys intentionally flew close to the wind – read the judges decision and you might conclude actual bad faith – resulting in dismissal of charges, and you’re criticizing…the defendants? Read the decision again, and you might conclude that there was a considerable weight of evidence consistent with the defense contention, said exculpatory evidence being hidden from the grand jury, presumably because had it been presented, there may have been no indictments.
An ugly situation all around, no doubt. But spare me the one-sided outrage so atypical had the victims and defendants been of a different type.
January 2, 2010, 9:47 pmAndrew J. Lazarus says:
Dura, you need to google a little more. Beauchamp’s “retraction” was coerced with his superiors in the room. And we know what a fine guy his sergeant was. Thirteen members of the company participated in or were direct eyewitnesses to the executions. The soldier who snitched on them was threatened, including by the sergeant’s attorney. Quite a crew.
I’m still looking for John Cole’s post on driving over a dog. The gist was if he couldn’t do it, he shouldn’t have been allowed to drive a tank. As far as the comments that officers wouldn’t permit such behavior, that’s somewhere between backwards and circular reasoning under the circumstances.
January 2, 2010, 10:50 pmArthurKirkland says:
I criticize the defendants for killing many innocents, not for the system that has enabled them to avoid accountability. The system was flawed, likely
January 2, 2010, 10:54 pmintentionally (maybe at design, perhaps as implemented, maybe even both). That was not the defendants’ fault.
Duracomm says:
Andrew J. Lazarus,
I am using the links you provide. The link you provided specifically mentioned 3 defendants, not 13. If you have additional information kindly provide a link.
You provide unlinked, third hand anecdotes on tank driving.
I provide links to statements from the company that makes the vehicle beauchamp talked about being used to run over dogs.
Furthermore, you have not made it clear if cole is even talking about the same vehicle beauchamp is. The vehicle beauchamp talked about being used to run over dogs is is a bradley fighting vehicle not an abrams tank.
Sorry but on the record statements about vehicle capabilities from the company that makes the vehicle are clearly far more credible than your half remembered anecdotal statements from cole.
January 2, 2010, 11:41 pmjccamp says:
OK, sorry, I misunderstood.
Having said that, I must add: the system wasn’t flawed, the DOJ team’s methodology was – and I do not believe for one second it was done intentionally to somehow free the defendants. It was an arrogant abuse of prosecutorial authority, of the same type you have decried on other occasions. There was never going to be a happy ending to this tale, but it is perhaps the least satisfying result to have no public trial – except from the defendants’ perspective, of course. However, had the defendants prevailed, how would you have felt about an acquittal? Looking over the judge’s summary, a sympathetic jury could easily have gone that way.
January 2, 2010, 11:43 pmAndrew J. Lazarus says:
Not all of those present were charged.
On running over the dogs, I’ll send John an email to see if he can describe how you run over a dog with a tank. Can we at least agree that the moral argument against killing dogs looks weak here?
January 3, 2010, 12:24 amjukeboxgrad says:
andrew:
It’s here.
==========
duracomm:
Cole’s statement is not “third hand.” He is describing his own experience.
The former is far more agile. Which means that if it can be done in the latter, it can certainly be done in the former.
January 3, 2010, 12:30 amDuracomm says:
jukeboxgrad,
Thanks for the link. Cole’s comment is not third hand but andrew’s citing of it was.
Got link to support that assertion?
January 3, 2010, 1:28 amjukeboxgrad says:
The Abrams is more than twice as heavy. You should give some thought to the laws of physics, and you should also learn how to do your own googling.
January 3, 2010, 3:05 amGuy says:
I never understood the big deal over the dog thing. Civilian teenagers in the U.S. intentionally do that kind of stuff sometimes, why so hard to believe a soldier could do it? More importantly, why the shock at the possibility it could have happened? Why all the intense focus? There are documented instances of things that were much worse, like Abu Ghraib, or the 14-year-old girl who was gang raped and murdered. Why the big deal over a dog? Is it just because National Review “betrayed” the conservative cause by reporting on it? Even if the story weren’t true, why the conservative outrage? It was hardly damning evidence of military misconduct compared to other stories out there.
January 3, 2010, 4:24 amDuracomm says:
jukeboxgrad says,
Which illustrates one of juke’s most endearing traits.
1. First he makes a bald faced assertion with no backing documentation
2. When requested to provide supporting evidence for his bald faced assertion he demands that someone else do his work and dig up evidence supporting the accuracy of the bald faced assertion he made.
One other thing Juke, you really need to give some thoughts to the laws of physics. Mass is only one variable that impacts a vehicles stability, there are a number of other variables.
Here is a helpful tutorial on one of them, enjoy!
Center of mass
January 3, 2010, 10:44 amDr. Weevil says:
Guy:
January 3, 2010, 10:55 amSo you think it’s OK for the New Republic (not the National Review, which is an entirely different journal) to print stories about military misconduct that are entirely made up, as long as the misconduct is not as bad as rape or murder, and as long as his sergeant is later convicted of worse crimes? The point was that Scott Beauchamp lied and the New Republic printed his lies and was very slow to retract them when they were shown to be lies. That’s when a lot of readers moved it from their list of ‘honest journals worth reading even when you don’t agree with them’ to their list of ‘partisan rags that will lie to support their party’. Here is a link-filled starting place for anyone who wants to rehash the Beauchamp affair, starting from the pathetic end and working backwards. Anyone who still thinks Beauchamp was telling the truth is ignorant or deluded. I’m still waiting for Andrew J. Lazarus to admit that there’s a difference between buying a toy tank at Toys ‘R’ Us and consulting the armored vehicle manufacturer’s representative.
In other words, Guy, Beauchamp’s stories were not “damning evidence of military misconduct” because they were lies. And those lies were damning evidence of gross journalistic misconduct on the part of the New Republic.
Andrew J. Lazarus says:
I have a feeling Duracomm knows full well that the Bradley is more maneuverable than the Abrams (and easier to steer at a dog), but in case he doesn’t, he should compare the descriptions of the vehicles at the Army web site. The statement of the manufacturer is irrelevant: first, because, like the Powerline blog experiment, it discounts the periscopes; and, second, because it relies on moral thinking about what would be the best use of the vehicle. The latter discounts the boys will be boys effect, compounded by our knowledge that this particular unit included boys who would be monsters.
As to the importance of running over the dog, Guy, IMO it got so much publicity because the dextroblogosphere has been convinced since Rathergate that there is a magic bullet against every argument appearing in the liberal media. Of course, soldiers do worse than run over dogs in a war zone, but with their trips to Toys R Us, the bloggers believed they could repeat the humiliation of a liberal icon. (Someone should tell them that the guy who started the Rathergate font stuff had been tipped off by the White House in advance, not an amateur.) It also got press (on the right) as part of their campaign to show that liberals are “on the other side”, to quote Mr Waxx above.
IIRC, one of the incidents Beauchamp stated took place in Iraq, he later admitted was in Kuwait. Other than that, it’s his word against an investigation that was set up as a whitewash. But to give the Army credit, when that unit went much too far over the line, they stepped up. Sergeant Hatley, who said what a bad soldier Beauchamp was, is eligible for parole in 20 years. Beauchamp, AFAIK, is still serving.
January 3, 2010, 11:54 amjukeboxgrad says:
duracomm:
Do you mean like what you did here? Hopefully you realize that quoting someone who is making a “bald faced assertion” is essentially the same thing as doing it yourself.
Are you willing to give me a dollar for every time you have made “a bald faced assertion with no backing documentation?” Because that would pay for a nice lunch.
We were discussing maneuverability, not stability. Do you realize that those two things are not the same?
Increasing the mass of a vehicle generally makes the vehicle less maneuverable. If you’re in a position to show that an Abrams is more maneuverable than a Bradley, even though the former weighs more than twice as much as the latter, feel free to do so. There’s no time like the present.
January 3, 2010, 12:22 pmDuracomm says:
Andrew J. Lazarus, reading my mind says,
I don’t know one way or the other. The link you provide has a general description on the vehicles but no real information on their maneuverability.
Andrew also says
Which periscopes?? Apparently the bradley does not have periscopes.
This is the important part of the manufacturers statement. It is all technical, no boys will be boys adjustment required.
The focus on the running over dogs is because it is a technical question, not a moral or ethical one. If beauchamp said the bradley did things that other bradley drivers and the manufacturer says it can’t do well that makes the rest of his stories suspect.
Some of his statements simply defy common sense.
If you have ever been around bone or skull fragments the idea of wearing one under a hard hat let alone a combat helmet is ludicrous. Skull fragments have sharp edges and the idea of leaving one under a tight fitting, heavy combat helmet all day does not pass the smell test so to speak.
If a pebble in a boot is bothersome a skull fragment between a soldiers helmet and the head would be a real attention getter.
The magazine that published beauchamp comments on his stories
Mighty slender reed you folks are hanging your hat on.
January 3, 2010, 12:52 pmDr. Weevil says:
Andrew J. Lazarus:
January 3, 2010, 12:57 pmCould you provide some evidence that any critic of Beauchamp ever made a trip to Toys R Us or any other toy store part of his argument? You’ve said it twice now: please name the critic and provide a link or withdraw your accusation.
Duracomm says:
jukeboxgrad, once again illustrating his technical ignorance says,
Juke, really sorry to break the news to you but stability is a crucial component of maneuverability.
January 3, 2010, 12:58 pmDr. Weevil says:
Just to spell out the implications of what Duracomm wrote, it is very likely that the lighter Bradley can swerve more quickly than the heavier Abrams, but can it do so without rolling over? That is the question you need to answer, jbg.
January 3, 2010, 1:02 pmDuracomm says:
Beauchamp’s stories had too many technical mistakes to ever be taken credibly. Hatley’s murder conviction does not change that particular fact set.
Hatley Convicted of Murder; Beauchamp Still a Fantasist
January 3, 2010, 1:06 pmAndrew J. Lazarus says:
John Cole says the periscopes on the Abrams were good enough to run over a dog; then he goes on to say, “And for the record, vision is MUCH easier in a Bradley than an M1.” The Army web site describes the Bradley as “maneuverable”.
I’m somewhat loathe to introduce first-person statements from anonymous sources claiming to be soldiers, but in the same thread linked above,
Most of the argument above is a modern version of the man on trial who tells the judge, “For every man you find who saw me rob the bank I can find ten who didn’t.”
Here is a report from an American officer who subsequently died in Iraq.
Arguments that something (dog, tire change) didn’t happen because to do so looks foolish are empty. It didn’t make sense on most readings of “sense” for the Third Reich to give death trains priority over troop transports, but it’s a well-documented fact. So let’s skip the speculation about what makes sense.
January 3, 2010, 2:20 pmDr. Weevil says:
Congratulations, Andrew J. Lazarus. You’ve shown that Beauchamp critics may be wrong in thinking that he couldn’t have run over dogs in a Bradley, though a HMMV is quite a different vehicle, and your anonymous witness is (as even you admit) highly dubious. Now you might try attacking the Beauchamp critics’ stronger arguments, conveniently available here, among other places.
Meanwhile, we’re still waiting for a reply on the Toys R Us story. Did you just make that up?
Nice Nazi allusion at the end, by the way — it really underlines what a creep you are.
January 3, 2010, 3:02 pmjukeboxgrad says:
duracomm:
Wrong. It does. As I said, you should learn how to do your own googling.
And thanks for that nice example of “a bald faced assertion with no backing documentation.”
Can you provide us with a copy of “the manufacturers statement” that doesn’t require us to trust that “Confederate Yankee” is honestly and accurately conveying what the manufacturer actually said?
Whether or not a skull fragment has sharp edges depends on various factors, such as how long it’s been exposed to weather, and whether or not someone has used some abrasive technique (like sanding) to remove the sharp edges.
Baloney. The Eiffel Tower ranks very high for stability and very low for maneuverability. Other things being equal, as the mass of a vehicle is increased, it will become more stable and less maneuverable.
Still waiting for you to show evidence that an Abrams is more maneuverable than a Bradley, even though the former weighs twice as much as the latter.
==============
weevil:
It would be no more likely to roll than the Abrams, unless the COG is higher, and there’s no reason to suppose that it is.
And if you think it’s easy to flip a Bradley by swerving, feel free to demonstrate that such a thing has ever happened.
An ‘analysis’ involving “a 1/32nd scale model of a Bradley” was cited here. Let us know why a toy store would not be the most obvious place to acquire such a thing.
January 3, 2010, 5:17 pmAndrew J. Lazarus says:
I must confess, I do not know if the toy tank referred to by Stuart Koehl was obtained at Toys Я Us. That was my embellishment; it might have been a Walmart, or even an independent locally-owned store. But it’s a toy. It doesn’t have the optics of a real tank. (If it were so hard to see out of a Bradley that you couldn’t swerve to hit a dog, you couldn’t swerve to avoid an IED, a human, or anything else, either.)
Mr. Koehl later showed his further reverse-acumen by claiming Obama was not telling the truth about a captain who complained about his platoon in Afghanistan being depleted to supply Iraq. Once again, the search for the mismatched font to discredit the liberals completely: in this case, that a captain commands a company, not a platoon. The possibility that the captain had been promoted, and had been a lieutenant leading a platoon, seems not to have entered his head. Just another Keyboard Kommando, probably without a shred of military experience (or he would have known a Bradley first-hand), looking at the chain-of-command as laid out in his favorite video games. Reality? Something else.
(I don’t have any military experience, either, but I’m not a wannabe playing with tanks in a sand box.)
January 3, 2010, 5:56 pmDr. Weevil says:
jbg:
Of course, “a 1/32nd scale model of a Bradley” is a very different thing from the “Tonka version at Toys R Us” mentioned by Andrew J. Lazarus. The former would allow one to estimate how much the driver could see of the right side of his vehicle at ground level, and would be the next best thing to getting in the driver’s seat of an actual Bradley. I haven’t played with a Tonka toy in over 40 years, but to judge from their website, their vehicles are not to scale — not even close. You’re going to have to do better than that if you want to defend the honesty of Andrew J. Lazarus.
As for your own, have you dealt with the manufacturer’s representative’s point that a Bradley, being a tracked vehicle, can only swerve to the right by stopping the right-hand tracks, which would make it very difficult to catch a dog that wasn’t already dead or sedated? Have you mentioned his other point that the tracks are so wide that a dog that was run over would not be ‘cut in half’, as Beauchamp claimed, it would be more than half crushed? Have you noted that the driver periscopes mentioned on the site you link are all in front or on the left, and would therefore provide no help in running over things on the right side of the vehicle?
It is quite obvious that neither of you has bothered to consider the actual case against Beauchamp, which is cumulative and devastating, even if some of the objections can be countered, but just selected the few small points you can make specious arguments against. A pair of common trolls, in other words, though we all knew that long ago.
January 3, 2010, 6:08 pmDavid Nieporent says:
Can you provide us with a copy of the tape of Dick Cheney saying “deficits don’t matter” that doesn’t require us to trust that Paul O’Neill is honestly and accurately conveying what Cheney actually said? Or are you selective in your demand for original source material?
January 3, 2010, 6:49 pmAndrew J. Lazarus says:
If you Google 1/32 Bradley, the very first hit is Toys R Us. It is, I do admit, a broken link. It is no longer sold by Toys R Us. And, indeed, it is not made by Tonka. Tonka doesn’t appear to make models of real vehicles any more. I’m crushed. (Does that mean my Tonka 1963 Ford P/U is valuable?)
The other hits are all different toy stores. It is a toy tank. It is 8 inches long. You are trying to argue about the Bradley capabilities on the basis of a toy intended for six-year-olds.
You guys insist that since you can’t see out of the hatch of a toy tank, the real driver with his periscopes can’t see either. Go back to your Legos and leave the Internet to grown-ups.
January 3, 2010, 6:58 pmDr. Weevil says:
I don’t insist anything about a toy tank, moron. What I insist is that you cannot defend Beauchamp’s honesty without looking at the whole case against him. This case was built by dozens of people working independently. Some of their arguments have been refuted, some are inconclusive, but there is enough left to make anyone who professes to believe Beauchamp a liar, a fool, or a madman. Which are you?
You seem to think that if one of the dozens of people arguing against Beauchamp looked at a toy tank, that refutes his argument and all the others, too. The fact is that someone who looks at an accurate scale model (not a Tonka toy) of something knows a lot less about its shape than someone who has sat in one or driven one, but quite a bit more than someone who — like you and me — has neither seen the real thing close up nor even seen an accurate model of one. And you still haven’t explained how periscopes on the front and left allow the driver to see the right side, or why the manufacturer’s representative should not be believed.
Finally, “I’m crushed” is an odd way of saying “I lied”, but I suppose it’s the most we can except from a troll.
January 3, 2010, 7:13 pmDr. Weevil says:
David Nieporent:
It’s worse than that. It’s not just blogger Confederate Yankee who quotes “Doug Coffey, head of Communications, Land & Armaments, for BAE Systems”, it’s the Weekly Standard. They would be asking for a lawsuit from Doug Coffey, if they misquoted him, or BAE Systems, if there’s no such person as Doug Coffey or if he is not their head of Communications. As a blogger, Bob Owens (Confederate Yankee) may or may not be ‘judgment-proof’, but the Weekly Standard would have a lot to lose in money as well as reputation if the linked story were untrue.
Again, I’m sure our trolls know that it’s not just some anonymous blogger’s word that refutes Beauchamp — they’re just too dishonest to admit it.
January 3, 2010, 7:42 pmDuracomm says:
I was going by cole’s comment and he mentioned periscopes on the abrams not on the bradley.
The problem for the Beauchamp supporters is that.
1. TNR will not stand behind the accuracy of his reports.
2. Many of his other stories have been independently falsified.
Hatley Convicted of Murder; Beauchamp Still a Fantasist
No responsible media company would trust beauchamp’s stories. You guys should not either.
January 3, 2010, 8:26 pmAndrew J. Lazarus says:
I see, Dr. Weevil, that I’ll have to be careful about hyperbole, using Tonka when really the toy tank on which the Weekly Standard relied is made by a different toy manufacturer. Are you actually a weevil, by the way?
So far, we have a former tank driver (Cole) who says you can run over a dog with a tank, a deceased Army officer (Olmsted) who was with soldiers who ran over a dog with a Humvee, and a pseudonymous soldier who says his unit runs over animals on purpose.
The PR guy for the manufacturer says the visibility is poor through the open hatch (so what, if using the screens, or if the commander is participating in the game). Then he adds that soldiers shouldn’t really behave that way. Sorry, but that doesn’t carry much weight: maybe they shouldn’t, but they can (Cole) and they do (Olmsted).
I can’t defend Beauchamp on most of his other claims that may or may not be true, but the dog story is completely possible and plausible, and the fact his unit-mates, including the murderers, didn’t want to own up to misbehavior in the spotlight is not shocking.
January 3, 2010, 8:38 pmDr. Weevil says:
Poor Andrew J. Lazarus is too dishonest to admit that there is a difference between a scale model and a not-to-scale toy of the kind made by Tonka, as if the only difference were the brand name. Beauchamp has been proven to be a liar on several points, so even if his dog story were “possible and plausible” (and Lazarus carefully refuses to address at least two of Coffey’s points showing how implausible it is) there would be no reason to believe it. Oh well, there’s really no point arguing with a lying troll about a lying Beauchamp.
January 3, 2010, 8:57 pmAndrew J. Lazarus says:
I’m so sorry, Weevil, in my childhood Tonka did make to-scale toys. Now it’s some other company. I can’t see what bearing the manufacturer of the toy tank has on the driver’s visibility in the real tank using periscopes and cameras. Whatever makes you happy…
As for “proven to be a liar”, please link to a judicial proceeding or court-martial that reached such a conclusion. Even your team has to admit that one of the public witnesses against him is a homicidal war criminal. And a liar.
January 3, 2010, 10:04 pmDr. Weevil says:
Wow, so one of the witnesses against him lied about other things, and that proves that . . . Beauchamp told the truth? That all of the other witnesses and critics are lying, too? Do you have any idea just how stupid and dishonest your argument sounds?
January 3, 2010, 10:22 pmOf course, I never said Beauchamp was a convicted liar, I said he was, and is, a proven liar. Try to grasp the difference. Examine the evidence — all of it — with an open mind, and there is no other possible conclusion.
Guy says:
My bad about getting the magazine wrong, it was a while ago, maybe I can be credited for at least getting the initials right. Obviously it’s not ok to print lies, but they had no evidence the information was false at the time, if Beauchamp was lying, I don’t think it could be called “reckless” that they believed him- what apparent motivation did he have to lie? The fact that there is still debate over the truth shows it’s not clear they shouldn’t have run with the story. I was saying that I was surprised at the level of furor over this one story, given that it’s a fairly minor one compared to others out there. The controversy itself was a far bigger story than the underlying report.
January 3, 2010, 10:40 pmBizzyBlog says:
[...] Rephrasing the Doobie Brothers: Oh Blackwater, charges dismissed, Justice Department has a lot of egg on its face. Oh Blackwater, charges dismissed, looks like bringing charges in the first place was the real disgrace. [...]
January 4, 2010, 6:06 amjccamp says:
Well, since this thread is still alive, a link to the WSJ op-ed page for Monday, with one take on the case.
January 4, 2010, 7:43 amLeo Marvin says:
You may be confusing alive with undead.
January 4, 2010, 5:34 pmjccamp says:
Leo –
Ha! But perhaps more true than not…
January 4, 2010, 7:13 pmjukeboxgrad says:
leo, you are very witty, as usual. I was away for a couple of days, but I now return to this undead thread.
==============
weevil:
Tonka has indeed sold highly accurate scale models (proof). As usual, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
It takes only a moment of consideration to realize that the right-hand tracks don’t need to stop. They only need to be moving slower than the left-hand tracks. A Bradley can travel at 45 mph. If the vehicle is going fast and power to the right side is suddenly reduced, the vehicle is going to swerve to the right long before the right side tracks come to a complete stop. This portion of Coffey’s statement is sufficient to cast doubt on the entire statement.
If a pack of dogs is fighting over a carcass they just found in the road, they might not react in the smartest way to an approaching vehicle. Dogs are not necessarily smart about avoiding an approaching vehicle. If they were, they would rarely get hit by cars. But they get hit by cars frequently. And this would be more likely if the dog is already injured and/or sick. This is a war zone, which means that your average dog has probably not seen a vet lately.
If the animal was caught between the tread and an irregular object, like a large rock, curb or hole, it could indeed be “cut in half.”
The Bradley has three forward periscopes. Are you really claiming that they provide a field of vision so narrow that only objects directly in front of the vehicle can be seen? I doubt it. If the driver was really that blind, the vehicle would be highly vulnerable to IEDs and other dangerous objects.
If you find out exactly the field of vision provided by those periscopes, please let us know. Because that’s a relevant specification, and you’re making assumptions even though you don’t have it.
We haven’t heard from “the manufacturer’s representative.” We have a statement from Confederate Yankee asserting that Coffey said certain things. Trouble is, there’s no way to verify that CY is telling the truth. We don’t even know if the text was provided by Coffey in writing. Is CY offering notes from a phone call? Is this his casual recollection of what Coffey said orally? CY doesn’t say. It would be better if he did. And if Coffey provided a statement in writing, why doesn’t CY provide an image of that statement? Yes, an email can be faked, but even an image of an email would be somewhat more convincing than the plain text that CY provided.
Aside from that, let us know if you have trouble understanding why BAE might be inclined to offer a statement that just happens to be congruent with the interests of a major customer.
So what? Who cares? CY and WS have roughly the same amount of credibility. That is, not much. The latter being willing to quote the former does nothing to add credence to the words that are being quoted.
You know little about the law. Coffey (and/or BAE) would have no basis for a successful suit against WS unless they misquoted him in a way that defamed him. Further, to have a good shot at a monetary settlement, Coffey would have to show that he was damaged by the defamation, and suffered financial losses. Trouble is, even if what CY/WS published was a misquote, there is nothing about what they published that is defamatory to Coffey/BAE. Therefore there is no basis whatsoever for a lawsuit. Not even close.
==============
duracomm:
Cole never said anything to suggest that the Bradley has no periscopes. That ignorant idea came straight from your own imagination. The fact that you are trying to blame your ignorance on him is pathetic. The mistake is all yours and it has nothing to do with him.
==============
nieporent:
If Weekly Standard is willing to publish an article asserting that he said it, I see no reason to doubt that he said it. If the evidence is good enough to convince them, then it’s good enough to convince me.
Also asserting that he said it is an AEI economist. So ditto.
And aside from the question of whether or not he actually said it, it’s interesting to notice that these articles are defending the statement, not denying it or condemning it. So much for the notion that the GOP is fiscally conservative.
January 6, 2010, 10:05 amDr. Weevil says:
Poor jukeboxgrad can’t be bothered to do his homework. Beauchamp’s articles are still on line at the New Republic site — all credit to them for being honest enough not to delete them. Here is what he wrote about the dog:
January 6, 2010, 7:18 pm“A dog that was lying in the street and bathing in the sun didn’t have enough time to get up and run away from the speeding Bradley. Its front half was completely severed from its rear, which was twitching wildly, and its head was still raised and smiling at the sun as if nothing had happened at all.”
Nothing about a pack of dogs fighting, nothing about getting stuck between the tracks and some other object. No, a dog supposedly got cut in half by the treads and kept on smiling (!) as its hind end twitched. The treads of a Bradley are 21″ wide. How long would a dog have to be to have 21″ in the middle obliterated and still have a “rear” left to visibly twitch and a “front half” complete enough to keep its head raised up and smiling? Was this some kind of mutant cross between a great dane and a dachsund, with the heft of the former and the proportions of the latter? Perhaps a dog that was bred to be 8’ long, only 6” in diameter, and impervious to physical pain? Or perhaps they ran over a snake and Beauchamp was so drunk or drugged that he thought it was a dog? Or perhaps it was a clumsy and transparent lie, like so much else of what he wrote. A lie that will only convince those who are too lazy to see what he actually wrote and consider the arguments against it. The topic was fully ventilated at the time (late 2007). No one who examines the evidence — all of it — can honestly conclude that Beauchamp told the truth. It doesn’t matter if some of the criticisms can be rebutted or even refuted. If some of his critics are wrong, so what? That doesn’t make him right. But if even one or two of the things he wrote can be proven to be lies, there is no reason to believe any of the rest.
I’m no lawyer, so perhaps I’m wrong in thinking that Doug Coffey could sue the Weekly Standard if they misrepresented him. But can we really believe that prominent websites like Confederate Yankee or the Weekly Standard could put words in the mouth of a senior employee of a major corporation that he never said, without them being able to do anything about it? Surely we would have heard if Coffey or BAE had any objection. Of course, jukeboxgrad could contact the company himself to find out if they have a present or former employee named Doug Coffey and whether he said what he has been quoted as saying.
jukeboxgrad says:
It wouldn’t have to be long at all if it was caught between the tread and an irregularity in the pavement (like a ridge, rock or a hole).
When his critics present bogus arguments, that should be pointed out. And that’s why I’ve pointed out your numerous bogus arguments.
Really? What if CY simply omitted certain things? How do you know the statement is complete? If CY left something out, what are the odds that Coffey would do all the following things: notice, care, and make a public fuss about it? I say not much. BAE is not being defamed, so what is their incentive to get into a public pissing contest with CY and WS? And you’re ignoring a key thing I said: BAE has a big incentive to issue a statement that puts their large customer in a positive light. They are not neutral in this matter. And they also understand that CY and WS are politically aligned with their customer.
January 7, 2010, 12:11 amDr. Weevil says:
Looks like you need to contact Doug Coffey (assuming he exists) and ask him. That would settle the question, wouldn’t it? And you still haven’t begun to grapple with the complete array of arguments made against Beauchamp’s ridiculous stories. I notice you don’t mention his claim that the cut-in-half dog was still smiling. Are you really that stupid, or is someone paying you to pretend that you believe Beauchamp?
January 7, 2010, 12:23 amjukeboxgrad says:
You’re doing a good job of demonstrating that you completely ignore arguments you can’t handle. I am now pointing out for the third time that any statements from BAE are not particularly relevant or helpful because they are not a neutral party.
I’ve addressed every ‘argument’ you presented. The one who declines to “grapple” with tough arguments is you.
I don’t mention it because there’s nothing remarkable about it. The appearance of an animal’s face isn’t necessarily going to be transformed at the moment of death.
January 7, 2010, 1:06 amDr. Weevil says:
Poor stupid jukeboxgrad thinks that I am obligated to make a complete list of the objections to Beauchamp’s lies, and outline all of the arguments against them, carefully covering any possible objection, because he’s too lazy to go back and read them in situ in the dozens of blogs that covered the story in late 2007. He knows I don’t have time to write a book on the subject, and I know that he wouldn’t bother to read it if I did. He just wants to make me rehash things that everyone who cares to know the truth already knows, so he can lie about them again. Is it possible to cut a dog in half so quickly that the expression on its face will not change? I don’t think so, but I suppose I would have to actually perform the experiment a dozen times, and film the results, to prove it to our ugly little troll. He seems blissfully unaware that Beauchamp has admitted that some of what he wrote is untrue. For instance, he changed the scene of his supposed mockery of a horribly-burned woman from Iraq to Kuwait, which utterly vitiated his point. Instead of claiming that the horrors of war had turned him into a heartless beast, it just made him look like he was a heartless beast before he even got to the war. Of course, the woman did not exist, in Iraq or Kuwait, so he was still lying. And jukeboxgrad doesn’t know that, or knows it and doesn’t care. He just wants me to make the argument again so he can try some lame objection.
January 7, 2010, 6:59 amjukeboxgrad says:
I don’t think you’re obligated to do anything. I don’t even think you’re obligated to avoid making a fool of yourself. And that’s what you’ve done by presenting a series of transparently feeble arguments.
One of many important differences between me and you is that when I make a claim I explain it, and I back it up with facts and reason. If you can demonstrate that I’ve said anything “lame,” you should do so. What are you waiting for? There’s no time like the present. What you’ve done with most of my allegedly “lame” objections is ignore them, because they’re too tough for you to answer.
January 7, 2010, 7:56 amWill Spencer says:
I am very happy to see these ridiculous charges dropped against five of Americas’ fighting men. But, of course, as soon as the nogoodnik’s in government lost this case they immediately filed charges against two more contractors, alleging wrongdoing in Afghanistan.
Free markets are _always_ more efficient and effective than governments. Some people in government just can’t stand the fact that private military companies have proven to be far superior — and less expensive — than comparable government operations.
It’s time to stop second-guessing our men in the field and start supporting the people who risk their lives to protect Western civilization.
January 7, 2010, 5:38 pmDr. Weevil says:
Of course, my arguments are only “transparently feeble” if you assume a priori that Confederate Yankee and the Weekly Standard are lying without offerring any evidence that they are in the habit of lying, and are too lazy to check the facts for yourself, if you think a dog will keep smiling while you cut it in half, if you feel free to make up arguments that contradict what Beauchamp wrote, for instance suggesting that the dog that was supposedly cut in half was part of a pack “fighting over a carcass they just found in the road” when Beauchamp had clearly stated that it was alone in the road, and so on. Typical jbg trollery. Keep on lying, jbg. It’s what we’ve all come to expect of you.
January 7, 2010, 7:06 pmjukeboxgrad says:
Wrong. Showing that you’ve said many feeble things doesn’t require me to assume or prove that “Confederate Yankee and the Weekly Standard are lying.” For example, you’ve conveyed the same silly idea that CY and WS conveyed: that a tracked vehicle doesn’t swerve unless the tread on one side has completely stopped. I already explained why this is silly, and of course you reacted to the explanation by doing this.
Lying and being ignorant aren’t the same thing. Then again, I suppose thinking that they are is itself a form of ignorance.
Where did I suggest that? Nowhere. Your reading comprehension needs work. I was simply responding to your foolish assertion that a Bradley couldn’t possibly “catch a dog that wasn’t already dead or sedated.”
January 8, 2010, 12:06 amDr. Weevil says:
So the fact that CY and the WS made an argument that you consider foolish about how tracked vehicles work proves that they could have made up Doug Coffey’s quoted statement or falsified it in ways that essentially alter it. Got it: ineptitude in argument is a proof of lying. And “CY and WS have roughly the same amount of credibility. That is, not much.” Evidence that either has ever falsified a quotation in the way you suggest they have falsified Coffey’s: we’re still waiting for that. Keep on ‘arguing’, moron, and pretending that Beauchamp told the truth.
January 8, 2010, 6:15 amjukeboxgrad says:
I see that you find it hard to get through a sentence without making some kind of obvious error in logic. No, those two things can be seen separately. We don’t need to notice the silly statement “about how tracked vehicles work” in order to realize that Coffey’s statement could easily be incomplete or inauthentic. Although the silly statement is one of several reasons to be skeptical.
Aside from that, you seem to be denying that the statement “about how tracked vehicles work” is foolish (your denial is embodied in the words “that you consider”). But of course you’re not lifting a finger to actually defend it with facts and/or reason. Which is par for the course, because you’ve already demonstrated that facts and reason don’t mean much to you.
No claim I made requires me to do this, but I’ll do it anyway, since it’s easy and illustrative. CY quoted Obama saying this: “just a guy in my neighborhood.” And this: “just some guy in the neighborhood.” And this: “just a guy in his neighborhood.” And this: “just people in in [sic] that neighborhood.” This many of those quotes are accurate: zero.
So you (and WS and a bunch of other people) are assuming that CY quoted Coffey honestly even though CY has a track record of quoting dishonestly. And CY quoted Obama dishonestly in a situation where the dishonesty is easily demonstrated. In other words, CY was boldly dishonest. All the more reason to be skeptical about CY’s Coffey quote, because there is no independent verification of that quote.
And all this is aside from the fact that Coffey is not a neutral observer. One of many issue that you refuse to address. As I said, facts and reason don’t mean much to you.
January 8, 2010, 8:45 amjukeboxgrad says:
And since you seem interested in seeing proof that WS is dishonest, here is some for you. They said this:
Trouble is, Bush et al did say that Iraq posed an imminent threat (proof, proof).
And WS can be found peddling the same baloney here.
And of course WS would like you to forget that they themselves were calling “Saddam an imminent threat.”
WS is like you: facts don’t mean much.
January 8, 2010, 9:35 amDr. Weevil says:
Ah, so occasionally giving a close paraphrase of Obama’s words with slight inaccuracies that do not change the essential meaning, and putting it in double quotation marks when it should be in single ones, proves that CY would knowingly alter the words of a cut-and-pasted e-mail he is offering in a blue-shaded quotation box as evidence of what someone said. Got it. Weren’t you recently defending someone who said that a National Review guy bought a Tonka toy at Toys R Us, which is a Hell of a lot further from the literal truth than saying “just a guy who lives in my neighborhood” instead of just “a guy a lives in my neighborhood” with the ‘just’ outside the quotation marks? If you want to assume that a guy who sometimes quotes sloppily in places where precision is unnecessary is “boldly dishonest” to the point of making up quotations from nonexistent persons or utterly falsifying their meanings by willful editing, go ahead. It’s the sort of argument we’ve come to expect from you.
January 8, 2010, 10:01 amjukeboxgrad says:
An honest person does not put a “paraphrase” in quote marks. Quote marks are for quotes. A paraphrase is not a quote.
Adding the word “just” does indeed “change the essential meaning.” That’s why it was added, repeatedly (by CY and by lots of other dishonest wingnuts). Duh. If the word “just” has no importance in this context, why did CY repeatedly add it? Because he likes to include meaningless words?
“Just” has several meanings. In this instance, the relevant meaning is this: ‘simply, only, no more than.’ Consider these two statements:
A) One of the ways I know him is that he lives in my neighborhood.
B) The fact that he lives in my neighborhood is the only way I know him.
A is true. B is false. Obama said A. He did not say B. Adding “just” changes A to B. And that’s why it was added.
And even if the word “just” didn’t change the essential meaning, the fact that CY did it four times (at least) is sufficient to prove that he quotes carelessly, at best. And that is sufficient to demonstrate that his Coffey quote should be treated with skepticism.
Putting “the ‘just’ outside the quotation marks” is also dishonest (although not quite as dishonest as what CY did), because it implies that Obama implied “just.” Trouble is, he didn’t.
Where did CY say it was an email? How do you know it wasn’t a phone call? As usual, you’re inventing your own facts.
When is precision “unnecessary?” Just when quoting Obama?
And since you concede that CY quotes “sloppily” why are you sure he didn’t quote Coffey “sloppily?”
January 8, 2010, 10:31 amDr. Weevil says:
Where did CY say it was an email? In an email to me, after I asked him. You could try doing a little research yourself, as I have already suggested. Or you could keep making inane objections, like pretending that the entire thrust of Obama’s remarks about Ayers was not to minimize the connections between them beyond the limits of plausibility.
January 8, 2010, 2:24 pmjukeboxgrad says:
Your undocumented claims are roughly as credible as CY’s.
Since you have the inside track, I wonder if he’s told you when he intends to apologize for repeatedly misquoting Obama.
If you can demonstrate that without misquoting Obama, you should. Trouble is, you can’t. And that’s why the misquote was fabricated, and circulated broadly (example, example, example, example, example). Obama’s statements about Ayers are accurate. That’s why all these dishonest sources had to pretend that Obama said something he didn’t say.
If you’re going to trust sources like NR, WS and CY, you’re going to end up ignorant. So there are no surprises here.
January 8, 2010, 3:04 pmDr. Weevil says:
So now you’re calling me a liar? With apologies to the management: Fuck you, asshole. You can easily ask him yourself — his e-mail address is on his site — and see whether he does or does not say that he has an e-mail from Duffey. Meanwhile, go ahead and pretend that Obama never misrepresented his relation with Ayers and Beauchamp never lied about what he saw in Iraq. You’re not going to end up ignorant: you’re already there.
January 8, 2010, 11:25 pmjukeboxgrad says:
You’ve already demonstrated your attitude about honesty. When I showed that CY quoted dishonestly, you said this didn’t mean much because there are “places where precision is unnecessary.” And when I asked you to define those “places,” you ducked the question. So I’m sure you’ll duck this one too: why should anyone believe that you don’t view this thread as one of those “places where precision is unnecessary?”
I realize you mean Coffey.
The problem with relying on what CY “does or does not say” is that it has already been demonstrated that he is willing to repeatedly “say” something false.
If you can show that Obama “misrepresented his relation with Ayers,” you should. For some reason, you haven’t. On the other hand, what I’ve shown is that CY and others misrepresented what Obama said about Ayers. And they did so because without that misrepresentation, they have no basis for claiming that Obama “misrepresented his relation with Ayers.”
Speaking of GOP dishonesty, there’s another misrepresentation that was frequently used regarding Obama and Ayers. That one is discussed here. And you spread a version of it yourself, as explained here. And of course you ducked the question when challenged to explain the bogus claim you made. Which is yet another reason to believe that you view your comments here as “places where precision is unnecessary.”
January 10, 2010, 8:40 amBill White says:
ESPNNN Wild Sex Issue
July 14, 2010, 11:25 amHarry Rag says:
Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were unanimously found guilty of the murder of Meredith Kercher because the evidence against them was overwhelming.
They repeatedly told the police a pack of lies in the days after Meredith’s murder.
On 5 November 2007, Knox and Sollecito were confronted with proof that they had lied and were given another opportunity to tell the truth. However, they both chose to tell the police even more lies.
Sollecito’s new alibi was shattered by computer forensic evidence and his mobile phone records.
Knox accused an innocent man, Diya Lumumba, of murdering Meredith despite knowing full well that he was completely innocent. She didn’t recant her false and malicious allegation against Lumumba the whole time he was in prison. She admitted that it was her fault that Lumumba was in prison in an intercepted conversation with her mother.
Knox’s account of what happened on 2 November 2007 is contradicted by her mobile phone records.
Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito both gave multiple conflicting alibis. Neither Knox nor Sollecito have credible alibis for the night of the murder despite three attempt each. At the trial, Sollecito refused to corroborate Knox’s alibi that she was at his apartment.
Rudy Guede’s bloody footprints led straight out of Meredith’s room and out of the house. He didn’t lock Meredith’s door, remove his trainers, go into Filomena’s room or the bathroom that Meredith and Knox shared.
He didn’t scale the vertical wall outside Filomena’s room or gain access through the window. The break-in was clearly staged. This indicates that somebody who lived at the cottage was trying to deflect attention away from themselves and give the impression that a stranger had broken in and killed Meredith.
Guede had no reason to stage the break-in and there was no physical evidence that he went into Filomena’s room.
The scientific police found a mixture of Amanda Knox’s DNA and Meredith’s blood on the floor.
There was no physical evidence that Rudy Guede went into the blood-spattered bathroom. However, the scientific police found irrefutable proof that Knox and Sollecito tracked Meredith’s blood into this bathroom.
Amanda Knox’s DNA was found mingled with Meredith’s blood in three different places in the bathroom: on the ledge of the basin, on the bidet, and on a box of Q Tips cotton swabs. Knox’s DNA and Meredith’s blood had united into one single streak on the basin and bidet which means they were deposited simultaneously.
Sollecito left a visible bloody footprint on the blue bathmat.
According to two imprint experts, the woman’s bloody shoeprint on the pillow under Meredith’s body matched Knox’s foot size. The bloody shoeprint was incompatible with Meredith’s shoe size.
Knox’s and Sollecito’s bare bloody footprints were revealed by luminol in the hallway. Knox’s DNA and Meredith’s DNA was found mixed together in one of the bloody footprints.
An abundant amount of Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was found on Meredith’s bra clasp. Sollecito must have applied considerable pressure to the clasp in order to have left so much DNA. The hooks on the clasp were damaged which confirms that Sollecito had gripped them tightly.
Amanda Knox’s DNA was found on the handle of the double DNA knife and a number of independent forensic experts – Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, Dr. Renato Biondo and Professor Francesca Torricelli – categorically stated that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade.
Sollecito knew that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade which is why he twice lied about accidentally pricking her hand whilst cooking.
The defence experts were unable to prove that there had been any contamination. Alberto Intini, head of the Italian police forensic science unit, pointed out that unless contamination has been proved, it does not exist.
Amanda Knox voluntarily admitted that she involved in Meredith’s murder in her handwritten note to the police on 6 November 2007. She stated on at least four separate occasions that she was at the cottage when Meredith was killed.
The English translation of Judge Massei’s sentencing report can be downloaded from here:
http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=53735
September 10, 2010, 11:14 am