Report: FBI finds 14 Blackwater killings unjustified

applesanity

New member
Alright, who didn't see this coming?

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Blackwater Worldwide spokeswoman says the company supports "stringent accountability" for any wrongdoing in the wake of a New York Times report that federal investors have found that the shooting deaths of at least 14 Iraqi civilians by Blackwater guards in Baghdad in nearly two months ago violated rules of deadly force.

A destroyed car sits at the location of the September 16 killings of 17 Iraqi civilians in Baghdad.

The Times cited unidentified civilian and military officials in reporting for Wednesday's editions that the killings of at least 14 of the 17 Iraqi civilians shot by Blackwater personnel guarding a U.S. Embassy convoy were unjustified and violated standards in place governing the use of deadly force.

Responding to the Times report, Anne Tyrrell, a Blackwater spokeswoman, said the company "supports the stringent accountability of the industry. If it is determined that one person was complicit in the wrongdoing, we would support accountability in that. The key people in this have not spoken with investigators."

She added that the company will withhold further comment "until the findings are made available."

A government official familiar with the investigation told The Associated Press on Tuesday night that no conclusions have been reached about any of the fatalities. A State Department official said he was not aware that the department had been informed of any findings. Both requested anonymity because the investigation is still under way.

The Times said the Justice Department is already reviewing the findings even though the FBI is still investigating the September 16 shootings in Iraq.

No evidence supports assertions by Blackwater employees that they were fired upon by Iraqi civilians, but the FBI has concluded that three of the deaths may have been justified under rules that allow lethal force in response to an imminent threat, the paper reported.

"Without a doubt, the teams were faced with deadly force that day," the Blackwater spokeswoman said.

Investigators have concluded that as many as five of the company's guards opened fire during the shootings, the newspaper reported. One guard has become the focus of the investigation, the Times reported, because that guard was responsible for several deaths.

The shootings took place in Baghdad's Nisoor Square. Blackwater contends that its convoy was attacked before it opened fire, but the Iraqi government's investigation concluded that the shootings were unprovoked.

State Department officials have said it has offered limited immunity to private security contractors involved in shootings in Iraq. They disagreed with law enforcement officials that such actions could jeopardize prosecutions in the September incident.

Rep. David E. Price, D-North Carolina has sponsored legislation to apply U.S. criminal law to contractors serving overseas and called for the Justice Department to hold someone accountable for the shootings.

"We've always supported any productive moves toward accountability, including Congressman Price's bill," said Tyrrell, the Blackwater spokeswoman.

Paul Cox, a spokesman for Price, said late Tuesday that "we don't have any independent verification of this. I don't have any access to the report." But he said if the FBI concludes there was criminal wrongdoing, "just because there are deficiencies in the law, and Congressman Price is trying to rectify that, that's no excuse not to prosecute."

"For him, it just underscores that the administration should work with Congress in trying to pass this bill," added Cox.

I'm wondering if this will be treated as an isolated incident, or will all the private security contractors in Iraq and elsewhere start filling out new resumes. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama are gonna have a field day. Oh, and that 3rd place guy too... John something.
 
Compare and contrast.

A Blackwater Worldwide spokeswoman says the company supports "stringent accountability" for any wrongdoing in the wake of a New York Times report that federal investors have found that the shooting deaths of at least 14 Iraqi civilians by Blackwater guards in Baghdad in nearly two months ago violated rules of deadly force.


A government official familiar with the investigation told The Associated Press on Tuesday night that no conclusions have been reached about any of the fatalities.

Someone's lying. The only question is who. The AP's unnamed source or the NYT's unnamed source? Or is this another "we made it up because it sounds like what we believe reality is" from the NYT?
 
Conversely, the "sounds like what we believe reality is" answer could be coming from the government spokesman. :cool:

Ahh...here it is:
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/20071115_Blackwater_faulted_by_FBI_in_killings.html
The FBI has concluded that the killing of 14 Iraqi civilians by Blackwater security contractors in Baghdad on Sept. 16 was unjustified under State Department rules for the private guards, U.S. officials said yesterday.
So now that the unnamed source for the Times is backed up by a named source in the FBI, that question is cleared up. It's the government spokesman that was attempting to mislead you.

Leads to a few more questions tho': Was it your predisposition to accepting what "sounds like what we believe reality is" that drove you to reject the NYT story in the first place? If so, what else might you have discounted on the same grounds?
And what do you suppose the average Iraqi citizen thought "sounds like what we believe reality is"? Has this incident eliminated 2 Al Qaeda operatives or created a few dozen more?
 
How many of the terrorists killings have been deemed 'unjustified' :barf: by the NYT or un-named sources.

War is War, bad things happen. We (the US) does the best to prevent collateral damage of anyone, if this was WWII, how many B-52 strikes would have been made so far? We do this at the expense of our own forces with Rules of Engagement that would make Patton sick.
 
Monday Morning quarterbacking!!!

God, I hate this phrase.

Maybe when the quarterback's mistakes cost people their lives, it's best to take a look at the highlight films on Monday to see what could have been done better. Or maybe get a new freakin' quarterback.
 
It's interesting to note that we're in the luxury position of being able to be picky enough to worry about 14 instances of colateral damage. Do you think we had the ability to care about 14 or even 140 when we had to bomb Europe in WWII? I think we were a little more preoccupied with WINNING then, and last I checked we won that war.
 
It's interesting to note that we're in the luxury position of being able to be picky enough to worry about 14 instances of colateral damage. Do you think we had the ability to care about 14 or even 140 when we had to bomb Europe in WWII? I think we were a little more preoccupied with WINNING then, and last I checked we won that war.

One of the major differences here is that we're not at war with the Iraqis.

"Collateral damage"...you mean, like the folks in the airplanes that smacked into the WTC on 9/11?
 
This is a step in the right direction. At least now they're attempting to justify the action instead of pretending it never happened.

Our fight is with violent extremism. It doesn't matter in this case what we think of it over here (although it does put another nail in the Republican coffin). What's critical is what the average Arab Muslim on the street thinks of it. This incident strengthened our enemy and weakened us.
 
What's critical is what the average Arab Muslim on the street thinks of it. This incident strengthened our enemy and weakened us.

I don't think you understand the psychology or social morays of the average Arab be they Muslim or not. You cannot look at the world with a western mind set and understand how they think. I won't believe the mindset existed in the modern world in a large group of people if I hadn't lived with them for an extended period. The best way to describe it is like dealing with 13 year old, girls who happen to be member of an organized crime family. They are emotional to the extreme and wear those emotions on their sleeves. Rumor becomes real to them from the second it is whispered. They all have a persecution complex and they make the the average tin hat brigade member look sane when you start hearing them talk and explain their lot in life via conspiracy. Additionally, they don't believe in a similar concept of lies as we do, you will catch them in a strait up lie and they look at you and say, that what you just saw didn't happen.

So the facts of the matter would not really matter.
 
I don't think you understand the psychology or social morays(sic) of the average Arab be they Muslim or not.

I think I do. I think the tangential thought patterns, persecution complex, and emotion-based logic are a large part of the reason why incidents like this make our job more difficult. Any one of us would take umbrage at foreign invaders shooting up our neighborhoods indiscriminately. How do you think they take it?
And if I don't have a handle on the psychology of the region, what does that say about the Bush administration? :eek:

Food for thought:
"the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there...."
-Ronald W. Reagan
 
Any one of us would take umbrage at foreign invaders shooting up our neighborhoods indiscriminately.

They seem to only have a problem with it when non-arabs do it. And as history here in the US has shown, even when we were occupied by the Brits less than 10 percent fought against it.

And we don't shoot up things indiscriminately. That is position put forward by both the antiwar press and the enemy's information operation campaign. We use more caution than is often warranted. I know several cases in which that hesitation has cost friendly lives.
 
STLRN,
They seem to only have a problem with it when non-arabs do it. And as history here in the US has shown, even when we were occupied by the Brits less than 10 percent fought against it.
No argument here.

And we don't shoot up things indiscriminately. That is position put forward by both the antiwar press and the enemy's information operation campaign. We use more caution than is often warranted. I know several cases in which that hesitation has cost friendly lives.

Unless the FBI is an arm of Al Jazeera it appears your statement is incorrect.
 
Are you saying all reports done by the Government are correct? Or for that matter what has been leaked is 100 percent accurate?

It is kind of strange, I have been around a few state department and OGA types who in fact believe that western imperialism, blah, blah are to blame for all the troubles in the world.
 
Are you saying that this report is incorrect or that what has been leaked in this case is inaccurate?
You're throwing your fallacy at the wrong guy, 'cuz I'm not saying anything one way or the other. I'm just pointing out that the FBI is not "the antiwar press and the enemy's information operation campaign".
And even if it all really is incorrect (as you allege) I suspect the average Arab on the street isn't going to accept the "truth" as readily as yourself. As a result it helps the bad guys and hurts us.
 
I don't know if the report is correct or not, or for that matter if the leak is accurate to what the report actually says. You are the one who putting it forward as accurate.

That aside, I would guarantee you that any report done, if the scene of the incident was not protected until the investigation was concluded in Iraq would be flawed. You have a population that don't view truth in the same light as we do and you have a element of the population that will manipulate the scene in order to achieve their goals.

Just look at the circumstances that lead to the Haditha incident. An investigation was done immediately after the incident, while the scene was still secured by US forces and it was concluded that the Marines response was warranted. Several weeks later, the press both western and Arab start a case that it was a massacre. The US government in the name of appeasement charged an entire squad of Marines with a massacre based on what was revealed by that same press. Now, as the facts of the case come out most of the charges have been dismissed.
 
I don't know if the report is correct or not, or for that matter if the leak is accurate to what the report actually says. You are the one who putting it forward as accurate.
No, I'm merely attributing it to the FBI. So since we're in agreement that neither of us are in a position vouch for it's accuracy we can move on.

Out of the rest of your comment, this is vital to accept.
You have a population that don't view truth in the same light as we do

Yup. So given that fact, how best to avoid these sorts of inflammatory incidents which may or may not be true? Hint: It's kind of hard to claim wanton killing sprees when the accused weren't there in the first place.
 
"Collateral damage"...you mean, like the folks in the airplanes that smacked into the WTC on 9/11?

Actually, they were considered as much of a target as the building themselves. AQ goes for high casualty counts as much as publicity.
 
Unless the FBI is an arm of Al Jazeera it appears your statement is incorrect.
Or the AP being an arm of Al Jazeera? It certainly seems that the donkey party (I am done with giving any validation to the thought that they give a damn about democracy) certainly is. I've heard several references to AJ carrying a lot of US politics and cheering on Pelosi, Reid, et al.
 
Back
Top