CSI: Blackwater

A federal grand jury has been convened to investigate the September 16th Blackwater shootings at Nisoor Square.  Fox News is reporting that the subpoenas were issued under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA.)  MEJA creates jurisdiction for contractors for federal court trials--or so goes the thinking at this point, but it's unclear which specific statutes might apply to the wrongdoing itself.  Possibilities here include War Crimes Act, the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act, the Anti-Torture Statute, the Defense Base Act, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and creative prosecutors could find other potentially applicable statutes in US and international laws.  Suffice it to say, it's a legal gray area, but if the political will is there, statutes will undoubtedly be found.

The New York Times observes:

The opening of the grand jury inquiry is a significant step in the case because it indicates that prosecutors believe that there is enough evidence of wrongdoing to warrant a formal criminal investigation.

Evidence of wrongdoing is one thing.  Admissible evidence from a foreign war zone quite another.

The New York Times reported that the FBI investigation in Baghdad faced severe limitations, not least of which was their arrival on the unsecured crime scene two weeks after the event.  They were unable to determine the overall number of fatalities nor could they use videotapes or pictures of the scenes because it was unknown if it had been altered.  The NYT wrote:

Bodies of a number of victims could not be recovered. Metal shell casings recovered from the intersection could not be definitively tied to the shootings because, as one official described it, “The city is littered with brass.”

The FBI investigators also did not have access statements taken from Blackwater Tactical Support Team members.

And this is the most carefully investigated incident involving contractors in the Iraq war--as good as CSI Baghdad gets.   

Steve Fainaru at the Washington Post reports that the mandate of the grand jury is much broader and that subpoenas have been issued to several security corporations operating in Iraq.   There will be plenty to look into because, four and a half years into the war, it's safe to say that all  security firms have been involved in instances in which civilians have been killed.  Most have been involved in several.   

I am not a lawyer, but it seems that crime scenes have not preserved; witnesses are unknown and Iraqi police aren't well trained in detective work, not to mention they have their own murky agendas.  Even if evidence gathered by a foreign government could be admitted in a US court, it seems unlikely there would be enough that could withstand scrutiny to lead to a conviction--after all, Iraq is littered with brass.   ("If the brass doesn't fit, you must acquit.")

But standards for grand juries are much lower and critics claim that grand juries are inclined to follow the prosecutor's leads, so it's quite possible that contractors will eventually be put on trial, ointment for our conscience over an awkward outsourced war that was sometimes fought by civilians, against civilians.

Comments

[Jerry Spencer]

RJ...looks like I may be the first to comment. So, here goes:

While I believe in the PMC's role in Iraq and elsewhere, I admit they have been poorly controlled, if at all. Good command rules do not exist. And, I can believe that unpleasant incidents do happen. It is a fact of life in a war zone.

That said I have a great deal of reservation on this simply because of the FBI. Past experience with them has shown them to often form their own conclusion and then try to force it to fit when it suited their cause.

And to think that they show up 2 weeks after the fact and expect to prepare hard evidence to prove anything is beyond belief.

Let's hope justice prevails.

JS

[Retired]

I wonder if the high standards of justice and strict rules of evidence that apologists seek to apply to captured terrorists will be clamored for by same in this case. Or will they just want to try'em and hang'em in order to embarass their domestic political opponents? That is, after all, principally what this is pretty much all about.

[Mad Dogs]

RJ,

Since most of the "physical" evidence cannot be gathered, my guess is that prosecutors will instead use statements of on-scene folks obtained during GJ testimony to either move forward to prosecution or to abandon such effort.

Some of the more important "on-scene folks" may be a few Blackwater PSDs who get "real" immunity for their GJ testimony (as opposed to the faux immunity handed out in Baghdad by DoS idiots).

Granted that any prosecution "appears" difficult, but having witness testimony may prove sufficient.

[VarangianWife]

Stop believing the FUD! Look just under the surface and you will see the motivations of the individuals filing this lawsuit. Attorney for the plaintiffs: Susan L. Burke has a history of filing suit against the US Government (Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, etc...) and another member of the legal team Shereef Hadi Akeel represents a KNOWN Al-Quaeda organization: the Islamic American Relief Agency (look them up on the US Treasury web site if you are dubious).

[Dr.Q]

at the end we all shall see...
who can press further.
Dr.Q