General Discussion

babylonsister

(171,070 posts) Thu Oct 23, 2014, 09:00 PM Oct 2014

Legal questions loom in Blackwater convictions

Legal questions loom in Blackwater convictions
By Michael Doyle
McClatchy Washington Bureau
October 23, 2014

WASHINGTON — Congress and courts alike could end up chasing after the high-profile convictions of four ex-Blackwater Worldwide guards now facing decades in prison.

In the wake of the Blackwater trial verdicts, a North Carolina congressman hopes to revive legislation clarifying U.S. authority to prosecute non-defense contractors for overseas crimes. Defense attorneys, meanwhile, will aim their upcoming appeals at the lingering legal ambiguity.

“Unfortunately, the case exposed a major loophole in our criminal justice system that has allowed U.S. contractors overseas to operate in a legal gray area, undermining our commitment to the rule of law and compromising our broader foreign policy goals,” Rep. David Price, D-N.C., said Thursday.

Put another way, there’s a fog of law inside the fog of war.

more...

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/10/23/244495/legal-questions-loom-in-blackwater.html?sp=/99/200/

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Legal questions loom in Blackwater convictions (Original Post) babylonsister Oct 2014 OP

Can't say I am surprised. ManiacJoe Oct 2014 #1

Unfortunately, I agree with Judge Urbina.... jaysunb Oct 2014 #3

If I recall correctly, Bush and co. made all the people who went over there above the law shraby Oct 2014 #2

Well I think he did it through the puppet governor we installed after the invasion. NobodyHere Oct 2014 #6

Ah yes, "legal" questions gratuitous Oct 2014 #4

UCMJ DashOneBravo Oct 2014 #5

ManiacJoe

(10,136 posts)

1. Can't say I am surprised.

Reply to babylonsister (Original post)

Thu Oct 23, 2014, 09:31 PM

Oct 2014

These laws are often poorly written in their first implementation.

Defense attorneys contend the law doesn’t cover the Blackwater security personnel who were under contract to the State Department and were protecting diplomats at the time of the Nisour Square shooting. This argument was called “rather strong” by U.S. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina in 2009, and legal scholars have underscored the confusion arising from overlapping roles.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/10/23/244495/legal-questions-loom-in-blackwater.html?sp=/99/200/#storylink=cpy

jaysunb

(11,856 posts)

3. Unfortunately, I agree with Judge Urbina....

Reply to ManiacJoe (Reply #1)

Thu Oct 23, 2014, 10:10 PM

Oct 2014

The USA should never hire mercenaries, but they did, and this is the bitter fruit it will always bear. It just underscores the lawlessness of the Cheney/Bush administration.

shraby

(21,946 posts)

2. If I recall correctly, Bush and co. made all the people who went over there above the law

Reply to babylonsister (Original post)

Thu Oct 23, 2014, 09:59 PM

Oct 2014

and not subject to prosecution. Can't remember though how he did it, but I can remember it being discussed.

NobodyHere

(2,810 posts)

6. Well I think he did it through the puppet governor we installed after the invasion.

Reply to shraby (Reply #2)

Fri Oct 24, 2014, 12:39 AM

Oct 2014

The law(maybe some sort of Status of Forces Agreement) pretty much said US personnel were immune to Iraqi law. The end of that immunity is a major reason why we left.

So Iraq couldn't prosecute them and the US has questionable authority to prosecute them. I'm sure the question will be answered in appeals.

gratuitous

(82,849 posts)

4. Ah yes, "legal" questions

Reply to babylonsister (Original post)

Thu Oct 23, 2014, 11:10 PM

Oct 2014

Can we or can we not hire mercenaries to just blow people away with impunity? I mean, you want to get the most bloodthirsty fuckers money can buy, don't we? Surely there will be no blowback or repercussions from this.

DashOneBravo

(2,679 posts)

5. UCMJ

Reply to babylonsister (Original post)

Thu Oct 23, 2014, 11:25 PM

Oct 2014

Good. I'm glad it's working it's way through the system.

Make those guys go by the UCMJ. Most of those guys are prior service types.

Reply to this discussion