It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Blackwater guards found guilty in Iraq shootings

page: 1
8

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 05:25 AM
link   
Blackwater guards found guilty in Iraq shootings


Four former Blackwater security guards were convicted Wednesday in the 2007 shootings of more than 30 Iraqis in Baghdad, an incident that inflamed anti-American sentiment around the globe and was denounced by critics as an illustration of a war gone horribly wrong.

The men claimed self-defense, but federal prosecutors argued that they had shown "a grave indifference" to the carnage their actions would cause. All four were ordered immediately to jail. A lawyer for one of them quickly said he expected to appeal.

The federal jury found Nicholas Slatten guilty of first-degree murder, the most serious charge in a multi-count indictment. The three other guards -- Paul Slough, Evan Liberty and Dustin Heard -- were found guilty of multiple counts of voluntary manslaughter, attempted manslaughter and gun violations.

The outcome after a summer-long trial and weeks of jury deliberation appeared to stun the defense.


Click link for remainder of article.

better late than never...

Question -
In your opinion is it ok to use private contractors in the manner Blackwater was used - IE VIP protection in a war zone?
Do you think the guards should have been charged?
edit on 23-10-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 05:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

They are mercenary's pure and simple. No ifs and buts.


And if you do the crime you do the time I dont care if you are a mercenary, regular US military or a NATO military members NO ONE should be immune from the law.
edit on 23-10-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 05:45 AM
link   
To answer the OP's question, imo, no, it's not okay to use paid mercenaries in the manner they were used in Iraq. The obvious problem which can result is what was seen here. A paid mercenary is not the same as a soldier. They have obviously different roles, as denoted by their very names, though it is a somewhat subtle area of distinction----and after all, we do live in times where fine distinctions are overlooked, or outright removed. However, a soldier's role isn't quite the same as a paid mercenary, whose role is succinctly a killer for hire, and frequently they are hired because they are free from many of the restrictions that a soldier faces. A soldier is conscipted into service for his country, but also represents his country. Although it's happened, of course, the killing of civilians in wartime by soldiers is not considered acceptable behavior. This distinction is often why mercenaries even exist. They are not bound by that representation, being simply killers for hire. That they were there, the Blackwater men, to provide security seems like something of a really bad euphemism.

If one of them was found to have "a grave indifference" to the carnage of his actions, there was a serious problem in the "security" detail, imho. There were a lot of people killed, and they were civilians, from what I've read, and not a threat to anyone.

Someone like that obviously didn't belong in that place and time, providing "security," because he had an obvious judgement problem, and/or they were not appropriately trained or briefed for the situation they were in. In that case, I wonder there is not action by whomever conscripted them, as well. Their actions were devastating, and made this country look exceptionally bad.



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 05:48 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok


They are mercenary's pure and simple. No ifs and buts.


Gotta give you that. But, they were also guilty of terrorizing the entire Iraqi population ... and I wanna know why that definition in not being bantered around.



Question -
In your opinion is it ok to use private contractors in the manner Blackwater was used - IE VIP protection in a war zone?
Do you think the guards should have been charged?


I don't think America should be getting in so far over its head ... that a situation arises where the recruitment of mercenaries becomes a necessity.

Should those A-holes have been charged? You're damned skippy!! No Soldier in uniform worth his salt would've done that. It's tantamount to carrying out an unlawful order or just plain murder.

Look, I get why it happened. American policy and plans failed. But, prosecuting just these particular guys ... the lowest on the totem pole ... and letting the guys get off, who lined their pockets and filled their bank accounts, with our Tax Dollars ... uh-uh!!

Where are those charges? Better yet ... find them, strip them of everything they own, and turn them over to the Iraqis for justice.



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 05:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

If the Israelies did this, oh wait they do.
Bout time people pay for their actions but this is just one drop in the ocean sadly.



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 06:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

Yeah id dissolve the company. strip all its assets and the assets of its CEO's and use them:
1) to pay the legal fees
2) pay compensation to the family's and Iraqi Government

I
Then extradite the CEO's to Iraq under the agreement they get a trial.


Its funny in the USA and UK if you wal around with large amounts of cash its can be confiscated by forfeiture law just for suspicion of a crime. But if you a CEO of a corrupt bank or in this case company that has done illegal things you billions are protected?



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 06:08 AM
link   
I wonder who paid these rent boys to do the 'ahem' dirty work???

Kindest respects

Rodinus



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 06:25 AM
link   
Yes they should have been charged. Not a fan of mercs/security/PMCs, particularly not when they are over there guarding private interests that we pay for for the triple-dipping war profiteers out of taxpayer money. That in addition to them being a danger to our troops, who often find themselves having to worry about or save their asses too.

They are certainly not above the law and conventions, and it's a good thing they were tried. What bothers me more is all the ones who got away with this level of crime and more.

ETA: That being said? I'm sure there would be some times that I'd like to have them at my side too. It's one of those things. Sigh. But as a trend, no.

edit on 10/23/2014 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 06:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Rodinus
We do.



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 08:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Blackwater guards found guilty in Iraq shootings


Question -
In your opinion is it ok to use private contractors in the manner Blackwater was used - IE VIP protection in a war zone?
Do you think the guards should have been charged?


As guards yes. As combatants: NO.

The use of mercenaries has always made me angry. They cost too much and they don't have to "play" by the rules that the Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors and Marines have to abide.



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 09:35 AM
link   
It is my understanding that some of the men (not these here) are former military and not paid mercenaries and operate as such according to Military code and not Private sector. Is that not the case? I will check with the person whom holds first hand information and see if I can add more.

Thanks for the thread,
Pax
edit on 10/23/2014 by paxnatus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 09:42 AM
link   



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: paxnatus

It is my understanding that some of the men (not these here) are former military and not paid mercenaries and operate as such according to Military code and not Private sector.


Not getting what you're trying to say here.

If they are former military, that means they are no longer in the military, and are not paid mercenaries and not from the private sector then what are you attempting to imply they are?

Civilian volunteers or Government thugs?


Op

Yes, if they're guilty then by all means, they should be punished.



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: paxnatus
It is my understanding that some of the men (not these here) are former military and not paid mercenaries and operate as such according to Military code and not Private sector. Is that not the case? I will check with the person whom holds first hand information and see if I can add more.


You you said former military.

If one is not in the governments military, yet takes money to use arms on foreign soil under the banner of a private sector company is that not the very definition a mercenary?

Deffinition of a mercenary:


A mercenary is a person who takes part in an armed conflict who is not a national or a party to the conflict and is "motivated to take part in the hostilities by the desire for private gain.


So lets see on blackwater:



a person who takes part in an armed conflict who is not a national or a party to the conflict

So they are not working under the flag of a official government military and only there on behalf of a company

CHECK




motivated to take part in the hostilities by the desire for private gain


Do they get a very fat pay check?

CHECK



So yeah id say they are very much mercenaries.
edit on 23-10-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Only the foully soldiers become mercenaries.


originally posted by: Xcathdra
In your opinion is it ok to use private contractors in the manner Blackwater was used - IE VIP protection in a war zone?

No.
The main reason Governments like to use them is - ***the*** reason it is NOT ok!


originally posted by: Xcathdra
Do you think the guards should have been charged?

Yes. Same rules or no rules.



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 08:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
So they are not working under the flag of a official government military and only there on behalf of a company


This is the one part that always confused me. Black water had a status of forces agreement under the US military umbrella. This incident, if I remember right, is what caused it to not be renewed. I am trying to understand why contract security would be covered.



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 08:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek

The use of mercenaries has always made me angry. They cost too much and they don't have to "play" by the rules that the Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors and Marines have to abide.


Sometimes that's really useful.

I'm not a big fan of BW/Xe/Academi/whatevertheyarethisweek.

But there are times and situations when you need to use what I'll term 'contractors' to do a job you can't do by law, or which you can't be caught doing. That doesn't always have to be something flashy or destructive.



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Took long enough but thank God!
Some small token of accountability.
They were certainly guilty of shooting innocent civilians.
Marines should be guarding our embassies, same as always was.
PMC's need to be dissolved.
No mercenaries for profit.



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 08:13 AM
link   
The US people need to take a good look at what Britain did to india with the east India company too see how cooperation's and private army's can go in foreign lands.

First it started out as interventions in troubled areas in India.....then the East India company set up and had is own security for protection.... then it let to more British interventions and the east India compnay seizing lands for "security" reasons....a few decades later half of India is under cooperate rule and under the thumb of a mercenary army that dwarfed that of the regular British army.



new topics

top topics



 
8

log in

join