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 Protesters Given Secret Trial and Criminal Conviction

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 02:44 PM
link   
But we were talking firepower, not individual pieces of equipment though.
That's why I said they had a faster procurement process.




posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   

It seems the only people who think they should have been above the law are the protestors. You want to start something against Blackwater? The court system is there for you. File a suit.

I'm amazed at your statement. Do you understand the difference between a criminal and civil proceeding? When unarmed civilians, women and children that we are theoretically protecting with our military are murdered by private contractors, our law would normally demand criminal, not civil proceedings, at least initially. You don't file suit to get criminal proceedings. The government is supposed to bring charges and prosecute for "the people". No protest, legal or illegal exonerates you from your own actions, but you should be tried by the same system that would try any alleged protestor violations.

In this case, the enforcement and judicial system is not actively pursuing the alleged murders, but has already vigorously prosecuted and convicted people for the protest. That Blackwater fired first and killed 17 unarmed civilians, including women and children is generally accepted as fact. If they are innocent of a crime, and I mean the company, not just the people, then a jury or tribunal, whichever is appropriate, should decide that. It should not be swept under the rug with an excuse of @*^% happens. If this is a case of @*^$ happens, then that should be decided with due process.

My point is that they and any private contractor acting under contract to our government should be subject to at least our laws. Our military is subject to our military laws and policies as well as treaties in effect. No one should be above the law. Only then can we rightfully claim to be a just country that values the rule of law.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
But we were talking firepower, not individual pieces of equipment though.
That's why I said they had a faster procurement process.


OK, so I'm thinking in terms of being better equipped. So why should the troops have a less-than-satisfactory procurement process. Cannon Fodder?



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Baby killers. They should be stripped of weapons and armor, and denied re-entry into ALL western countries.

They do not deserve to be treated as human beings. Hand them over to their victims, let them tear them apart. They aren't worth the dirt they bring back in their boots to us.

Ruthless murderers.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


Because there are a lot more troops to equip, than Blackwater personnnel. It's just like SOF forces receive all the latest toys before Conventional forces, and Combat Arms forces receive new toys before Support units. There's a huge beauracracy that new equipment procurement has to go through, that smaller organizations don't have to deal with.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by johnsky
 


I hear they have to kill and eat their families as an initiation prior to being hired. That's an awfully nice generalization you made there for a large organization, with people from diverse backgrounds.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by lifestudent

It seems the only people who think they should have been above the law are the protestors. You want to start something against Blackwater? The court system is there for you. File a suit.

I'm amazed at your statement. Do you understand the difference between a criminal and civil proceeding?

Yes. Do you?


In this case, the enforcement and judicial system is not actively pursuing the alleged murders, but has already vigorously prosecuted and convicted people for the protest. That Blackwater fired first and killed 17 unarmed civilians, including women and children is generally accepted as fact.

The next question, of course, is do you understand what presumption of innocence is? It is the legal right of the accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Your statement is condemning Blackwater the company for alleged actions that Blackwater O-P-E-R-A-T-I-V-E-S may or may not have done in a battlezone.

Furthermore, the number '17' is a guess. 'Unarmed' is a guess. The number of fatalities and the number of enemy combatants has not been verified.

If you want to be mad at someone, you need to focus your attention on the proper party. And it ain't Blackwater. There wasn't even the start of an investigation into the alleged incident until weeks later, and investigators were unable to recreate the scene. Direct your anger at the proper agency: the Justice Department.

The reason the protestors were arrested and rightly convicted on the charges brought against them was because there was enough evidence - beyond a reasonable doubt - to convict them. Duh.


My point is that they and any private contractor acting under contract to our government should be subject to at least our laws.

Your point ... is irrelevant; Blackwater, when working for the Defense Department is subject to Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA) just like everyone else.

Your pal,
Meat.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by mmmeat
 


Hi my pal mmmeat,
First, I'm glad we both understand civil vs. criminal. That means we can agree that it is ridiculous to talk about a law suit when we're discussing prosecution for criminal charges, except as a financial follow on after a criminal case results in a conviction. Of course, if the government does not bring charges, as happened with other private contractor cases that should have been criminal, sometimes civil is the only resort left to get justice.

Second, that was some pretty selective quoting. It almost makes me think that you don't want to address the full points I make because it's easier to seem reasonable in your disagreement when you don't. If we're debating actual issues, please address more than the preface of the statements I make. If this is just selective quoting to convince readers that they shouldn't want a criminal trial to be brought by the government, which of course should include presumption of innocence, then I suppose that's a different story.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by lifestudent
Second, that was some pretty selective quoting. It almost makes me think that you don't want to address the full points I make because it's easier to seem reasonable in your disagreement when you don't.

Thanks, I pride myself on being able to cut through the BS and get right to the heart of the matter.

As I've done this time, too.

Honestly, if there were some validity to the rest of the post, I'd certainly address it. However, your 'points' - generally aren't. They're just more anti-American, anti-Bush, anti-war rhetoric.

The topic here is "Blackwater Protesters Given Secret Trial and Criminal Conviction."

They weren't given a secret trial.

They were convicted - based on a preponderance of the the evidence - of crimes they actually committed.

That you want to make this something else is just plain silly.

Your pal,
Meat.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join