November 20, 2007
Federal Grand Jury Investigating Blackwater Shooting?
A federal grand jury is said to be investigating the role of Blackwater Worldwide security guards in the shooting deaths of 17 Iraqi civilians in Baghdad.The Blackwater guards involved in the September 16 shooting at Nisoor Square in west Baghdad initially were given limited immunity from prosecution by State Department investigators in exchange for their statements about what happened. One senior FBI official close to the investigation told The Associated Press last week that he was aware of evidence that could indicate 14 of the shootings were unjustified.
By far, the most damning part of the story is this:
ABC said it had obtained statements given to State Department diplomatic security agents. According to the statements, only five guards acknowledged firing their weapons in the incident. Twelve other guards witnessed the events but did not fire, according to the statements.
As it stands, only five of 17 discharged their weapons. If the convoy was actually under fire as some have maintained (which the evidence does not seem to support), I would have expected a much higher percentage of the guards to have expended rounds.
Not sure I'd concur. 5 of 17 in and of itself is not damning evidence.
How many trucks were they rolling with?
How many suburbans? (windows don't all open enough)
How many Mambas or Grizzlies? (firing ports installed)
Dual turrets or single?
Sounds to me like the "crime scene" has been far too fouled for any judge to rule.
Placate an easily fired up Congress and media.
Move along, nothing to see here...
DS out
Posted by: Desert Sailor at November 20, 2007 11:40 AM5 of 17 had targets. The others did not and therefore did not fire.
Sounds pretty simple to me.
If they'd all discharged weapons it would be a lot more damning, since it would sound like the unrestrained free fire zone that the media has tried to paint it as.
Posted by: SGT Jeff (USAR) at November 20, 2007 02:20 PMHmmmm.
What SGT Jeff (USAR) said.
If you don't have a target that falls within the ROE (Rules of Engagement) then you simply do not fire. Anybody who does fire will have automatically violated the operating ROE and then faces pretty severe punishment.
For one thing bullets tend to fly pretty far and ROEs can help reduce friendly fire situations.
Posted by: memomachine at November 20, 2007 03:46 PMBut weren't the FBI investigators ON THE GROUND? Don't they therefore know more than you do? Or maybe they don't because their finding disagrees with your preconception.
Ah, wingnuttery.
Posted by: nunaim at November 20, 2007 08:07 PMOh, and get a load of this.
"Support the troops," indeed...
Although I suppose daleyrocks and CCG and others will have some reason why it's a good idea.
Posted by: nunaim at November 20, 2007 08:14 PMHow about you get a load of this, nunaim. And did you catch the part where Fox said he'd do it all again?
Speaking of things you ought to read, how about this from the article linked in the post:
Officials cautioned that the decision to begin a grand jury inquiry did not mean that prosecutors had decided to charge anyone with a crime in what they said was a legally complex case, The New York Times reported.
What were those findings you were talking about, and who is disagreeing with them?
Posted by: Pablo at November 21, 2007 05:23 AMAs DS says...
"Move along, nothing to see here..."
No, just a bunch of dead Iraqi civilians. Nothing new there, been a few hundred thousand already. Killed by trigger-happy mercenaries.
Posted by: Max at November 21, 2007 07:25 AMPablo,
The last tussle I got into here was over whether generals who had recently left Iraq had anything of import to say about the situation there. I was told that they did not; only generals who were on the ground at the moment were worth listening to.
Now I see Sgt. Jeff, Desert Sailor, and memomachine CSIing the case from behind their keyboards. This approach is not consistent with the attacks I received earlier.
In regard to the bonuses: thank God! My jaw dropped at the idiocy of the whole thing. I may now pick it up off the floor.
About Fox being willing to do it again: I don't know why you brought that up. It has nothing at all to do with that particular topic.
Posted by: nunaim at November 21, 2007 09:01 AMI was told that they did not; only generals who were on the ground at the moment were worth listening to.
No, that's not what you were told. But go ahead and run with that anyway. That hairshirt looks maaaahvelous on you.
About Fox being willing to do it again: I don't know why you brought that up. It has nothing at all to do with that particular topic.
Funny you should mention that. Fox has nothing to do with the Blackwater incident, and yet you brought him up. And I mentioned another facet of that story. Project much, nunaim? Posted by: Pablo at November 21, 2007 09:43 AM
Nothing new there, been a few hundred thousand already. Killed by trigger-happy mercenaries.
Max, your number is well beyond any reputable estimate, but I'm struck by another important question: Are you calling the jihadis and sectarian militias "mercenaries"? Because you'd be wrong, but in an awfully refreshing manner.
Posted by: Pablo at November 21, 2007 09:48 AMBTW, nunaim, here's another bit off off topic you're sure to hate.
Posted by: Pablo at November 21, 2007 09:51 AMBTW, nunaim, here's another bit off off topic you're sure to hate.
I don't know why you'd assume that. I'm not a military hater, and I've never said I was. I'm definitely glad that there are people willing to do that job, because it's necessary and I'm sure as heck not willing to do it. I've been aghast at the various bad calls we've seen over the years:
1. Walter Reed;
2. charging soldiers for ballistic vests when they had to be cut off in the hospital after they've been injured;
3. sending putting soldiers in the position of having to armor their own vehicles;
4. asking for their signing bonuses back when they get wounded in battle;
5. et cetera.
My case this whole time is that Iraq is a total BS waste of our scarce and valuable resources.
Thank god that this dude is willing to re-up. We need dedicated soldiers. I wish, however, that if he had to be injured that it had been in some more worthy cause. That doesn't make me anti-soldier; it makes me anti-bad-foreign-policy-decision.
Posted by: nunaim at November 21, 2007 10:10 AMPablo, my reference to "mercenaries" referred to Blackwater and their ilk.
As regards the total number of Iraqis killed, sad fact is no one will ever know. For whatever reason, recording such deaths was never a priority for the US military. ("We don't do body counts...")
Iraqi Body Count, which you link to as a "reputable estimate", has a very strict methodology, which certainly underestimates the total number killed. But since you regard it as reputable, perhaps you'd like to comment on this extract from that source...
"The civilian death toll by US fire was 96 in October, with 23 children among them, while in September US forces and contractors killed 108 Iraqi civilians, including 7 children. In August US troops killed 103 civilians, 16 of them children, and in July they killed 196. In fact, during the last five months US forces in Iraq have killed over 600 Iraqi civilians. Regrettably, as always."
Obviously it's not just the mercenaries who are trigger-happy.
Posted by: Max at November 21, 2007 10:21 AMThank god that this dude is willing to re-up. We need dedicated soldiers.
For a total BS waste of our time?
"He said he wasn’t finished," Hoyt’s battalion commander Lt. Col. Mark Landes said.Posted by: Pablo at November 21, 2007 10:25 AMLandes conducted the re-enlistment himself. "He said, ‘I still have a job to do.' "
Hmmmmm.
@ nunaim
1. Don't involve me unless you want an ass-whupping of a Biblical nature.
2. The last tussle I got into here was over whether generals who had recently left Iraq had anything of import to say about the situation there. I was told that they did not; only generals who were on the ground at the moment were worth listening to.
If I remember right the generals in question had left the ground in *2003 or 2004*. Considering it's now near the end of 2007, i.e. the length of time those particular generals had been away from Iraq longer than America's involvement in WWII, their opinions do hold less water than those generals whose information and experiences are rather more current.
As in **today**.
3. Now I see Sgt. Jeff, Desert Sailor, and memomachine CSIing the case from behind their keyboards. This approach is not consistent with the attacks I received earlier.
My remarks are entirely about ROEs and from my experience as a USMC rifleman. One of the things you get drilled on is **fire discipline**. I.e. unless there's a specific reason for shooting, that follows the ROE, then you simply do not shoot.
That was offered as a possible explanation, in support of SGT Jeff, on why so many Blackwater employees hadn't fired a shot.
Pablo, my reference to "mercenaries" referred to Blackwater and their ilk.But you said hundreds of thousands killed. Are you suggesting that Blackwater guys have killed thousands, let alone hundreds of thousands? Based on what? Surely, I thought you were talking about the total body count, the vast majority of which has been inflicted by jihadis and militias. Because there's no way your comment, as you've explained it, bears even a passing resemblance of the truth. IOW, you're full of crap, Max.
As for the comment you quote, anyone not part of the established uniformed military is a civilian. There's a percentage of those whose deaths are tragic. And some of those are attributable to those who choose to commit acts of violence while hiding among them. There's another percentage of those whose death is cause for celebration, such as the aforementioned cowards. Let me know which is which and we'll talk more, k?
Posted by: Pablo at November 21, 2007 10:33 AMI've been aghast at the various bad calls we've seen over the years:
BTW, how do you feel about putting the government in charge of healthcare?
Posted by: Pablo at November 21, 2007 10:39 AM1. Don't involve me unless you want an ass-whupping of a Biblical nature.
Then yea verily it shall be the first thou shalt ever deliver.
Posted by: nunaim at November 21, 2007 10:57 AMBTW, how do you feel about putting the government in charge of healthcare?
Unless I missed something in Poli Sci, healthcare doesn't fall under the rubric of "bad foreign policy decisions."
But I'll play your game.
There are some things that government does better than people working privately--and sometimes "better" means "doing it at all." Think about highways. People aren't going to voluntarily ante up out of their pockets to pay for each individual road they drive on; that's a job for Big Government.
I don't know how a national healthcare plan would work out. It might be just fine, or it may be a disaster. Isn't that the way it is with most things, though? You try it, and if it doesn't work you fix it.
Posted by: nunaim at November 21, 2007 11:03 AMUnless I missed something in Poli Sci, healthcare doesn't fall under the rubric of "bad foreign policy decisions."Neither do any of the things on your list. Why do you bring that up?
People aren't going to voluntarily ante up out of their pockets to pay for each individual road they drive on; that's a job for Big Government.But they will pay for their healthcare, because that's not a highway, that's a much more personal thing. Ahem...cough...Big Dig...cough... Hmm...maybe I should see a doctor about that.
You try it, and if it doesn't work you fix it.Unless you cut and run.
Oh wait, Walter Reed is about healthcare, isn't it?
Posted by: Pablo at November 21, 2007 11:08 AMNeither do any of the things on your list. Why do you bring that up?
Surely you're not suggesting that arming and protecting our troops has nothing to do with foreign policy.
Posted by: nunaim at November 21, 2007 11:37 AMWalter Reed is about healthcare, isn't it?
Yes, it's about a national healthcare program in the same way that soldiers up-armoring HumVees is about Fred's Body and Fender Shop downtown.
Posted by: nunaim at November 21, 2007 11:39 AMSurely you're not suggesting that arming and protecting our troops has nothing to do with foreign policy.
I'm not suggesting it, I'm stating it outright. And for the record, the Humvee anecdote you're referring to took place in Kuwait and there was no "putting soldiers in the position of having to armor their own vehicles". Except, that is, for when the decision was taken to uparmor all of the humvees in theater, and then who the hell do you think was going to install the kits? Elves? Or the people who actually had the vehicles that were to be armored?
They also put them in the position of having to carry their own gear...the bastards!
Posted by: Pablo at November 21, 2007 11:51 AMSurely you're not suggesting that arming and protecting our troops has nothing to do with foreign policy.I'm not suggesting it, I'm stating it outright.
Then we might thank our lucky stars that you are not the President of the United States. Preparedness for fighting a war, you say, is not a factor in making decisions about and planning for that war.
You've painted yourself into a contrarian corner, my friend, all for the sake of contradicting me.
Not a proud moment in the Pablo household.
Posted by: nunaim at November 21, 2007 12:25 PMInternal military logistics matters are not foreign policy issues, no matter how much you'd like them to be in order to hold your moronic argument together, nunaim. Nor are issues about signing bonuses, gear accountability or the care of wounded warriors returned from the battlefield.
Funny how you're left with only that little niggle to desperately cling to after having the rest of your arguments so thoroughly demolished. No, it isn't a particularly proud day in the Pablo household, but it is an amused day. And it's still early, so you never know. :-)
Posted by: Pablo at November 21, 2007 12:45 PMHmmmm.
@ nunaim
Definitely not the first.
And most assuredly not the last.
Posted by: memomachine at November 21, 2007 01:17 PMHmmmm.
@ nunaim
If I remember right the generals in question had left the ground in *2003 or 2004*. Considering it's now near the end of 2007, i.e. the length of time those particular generals had been away from Iraq longer than America's involvement in WWII, their opinions do hold less water than those generals whose information and experiences are rather more current.
As in **today**.
And conveniently you forgot to respond to my assertion here. Unless the generals you're referencing aren't those that served in Iraq in 2003-2004. If that's the case then please provide the names or a link.
Otherwise my description of your idiotic nonsense stands.
Posted by: memomachine at November 21, 2007 01:19 PMMemomachine:
I'd like to refer to the original thread to bolster my reply, but I can't find it. If you can remember where it was, point me toward it and I'll come back with quotes.
Let me take you at your word, though. Generals not in Iraq are not top sources for information about ongoing events in Iraq. By the same token, guys sitting around in the US reading blogs are not top sources for the ins and outs of the Blackwater investigation over in Iraq.
Somebody please explain to me why everyone on the Right is so eager to circle the wagons around Blackwater. It doesn't make any sense to me except, again, as some form of mindless contrarianism.
Posted by: nunaim at November 21, 2007 03:29 PMHmmmmm.
@ nunaim
1. I'd like to refer to the original thread to bolster my reply, but I can't find it. If you can remember where it was, point me toward it and I'll come back with quotes.
I am not your research-boy. You want something found, find it yourself.
2. Let me take you at your word, though. Generals not in Iraq are not top sources for information about ongoing events in Iraq.
Particularly if they're a few years out from active duty in that theater.
3. By the same token, guys sitting around in the US reading blogs are not top sources for the ins and outs of the Blackwater investigation over in Iraq.
And if you'd elevate your reading comprehension just a tad you'd realize that I hadn't actually commented ON Iraq at all.
My comment was entirely about the impact of *fire discipline* and *Rules of Engagement* on whether or not troops will fire their weapons. This was in support of SGT Jeff and in response to CY's position that if only a few Blackwater people fired their weapons then it couldn't have been any sort of fight.
If you'll note: Not once did I include anything about Iraq at all other than the reference to Blackwater.
4. Somebody please explain to me why everyone on the Right is so eager to circle the wagons around Blackwater. It doesn't make any sense to me except, again, as some form of mindless contrarianism.
Aaaaaaaannnnnnddddd yet again I need to point out that I'm not "circling" anything around Blackwater. I'm pointing out specific pieces of information to help illuminate military practices. I include such with Blackwater because, to my knowledge, Blackwater employs only experienced professional ex-soldiers as security in Iraq. With many of them being ex-US military and so experienced with US military practices.
If you'd engage in thinking rather than posturing you'd recognize that I hadn't actually made any statements in favor of Blackwater or anything in support of Blackwater with regards to this political/legal hot potato.
But I will point out the near absurdity in trying to maintain such legal niceties as grand juries with regards to armed personnel in a war zone where they're being shot and blown up on a regular basis. But that's a personal opinion. As for Blackwater itself, I don't have an oar in this.
Posted by: memomachine at November 21, 2007 05:02 PM...And this was the Biblical whatever of the whoozis?
Posted by: nunaim at November 21, 2007 05:21 PMHmmmmm.
@ nunaim
1. ...And this was the Biblical whatever of the whoozis?
Nope. But that's because I've been asked, in email, by CY to keep things toned down.
2. I note that, yet again, you fail to address what I've written.
So far responding to you has been a complete waste of time. Which is probably why nobody else has really bothered.
Posted by: memomachine at November 21, 2007 06:08 PMMemomachine:
This is CY's description of the officers who contributed to the WaPo editorial:
Only two of the 12 captains had been in Iraq as late as 2006, with the rest all departing in 2005 or before.
Now here's your description:
If I remember right the generals in question had left the ground in *2003 or 2004*. Considering it's now near the end of 2007, i.e. the length of time those particular generals had been away from Iraq longer than America's involvement in WWII
So. You were wrong in both particulars. First, some of the officers in question were there as recently as last year. Second, you must have been studying a different World War II than I did, because, even if we go back to the 2005 that CY mentioned, that's only two years ago, and, if memory serves, we were fighting in World War II for longer than two years.
I have addressed your question. I have found your logic and your facts to be wanting. I have noted as well your semantic game of "Yes, I was commenting in the thread about the Blackwater incident in Iraq, but I never typed the word 'Iraq' in my post, so how dare you say I was writing about anything that transpired in Iraq?!"
Back to the topic at hand. Stipulated for discussion that you carry no brief, formally or otherwise, for Blackwater. Why do you think it is that so many on the Right seemingly have so much invested exonerating them?
Posted by: nunaim at November 21, 2007 08:05 PMGentleman, while I am by no means a member of management here, I gotta ask you a favor.
Please don't feed the trolls.
Posted by: C-C-G at November 21, 2007 09:46 PMOK, I'll try not to feed the troll. I'll just point out that he's promoted 12 Captains to General.
If that isn't supporting the troops, I don't know what is.
Posted by: Pablo at November 22, 2007 12:15 AMOh, and Blackwater? Screw them.
Posted by: Pablo at November 22, 2007 12:18 AM"But weren't the FBI investigators ON THE GROUND? Don't they therefore know more than you do? Or maybe they don't because their finding disagrees with your preconception"
On the ground when, after the fact. Talking with who-the Iraqi Interior Ministry (not the most neutral organization). Civilians on the ground who, if not freindly to the Rat Bags, have to live with them.
The Ham Sandwhich approach to the Grand Jury will lead to some Blackwater employees being indicted.
Posted by: davod at November 22, 2007 05:58 AMPS:
Don't worry, all will be solved when the latest batch of bright lights arrive in Iraq. The State Department has purchsed a number of these lighting systems which are designed to make people sick when the light is aimed at them.
I wonder if the reason for purchase is that the representative of the company is a former State department person.
*People will die or be kidnapped and tortured (before being behaeaded) before the State Department gets the message.
Pablo:
There's a continuum. At one end is "screw them." At the other is "they can do no wrong."
I would suggest that Kos is an outlier at the first end, while the entire Right blogosphere appears to gather in a mass at the other.
This is the same dynamic that arises between the attitudes "My country, right or wrong," and "Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right.”
The Right seems to feel that the second approach is the path of wieners and girlymen or, in some extreme cases, that it doesn't even really exist--that it's a rhetorical dodge perpetrated by LIEberals.
Posted by: nunaim at November 22, 2007 08:40 AMAt the other is "they can do no wrong."
Feel free to quote someone saying that. Which you won't be able to do because that's all in your head. Which, apparently, has it own continuum.
Posted by: Pablo at November 22, 2007 01:30 PMFeel free to quote someone saying that. Which you won't be able to do because that's all in your head.
Don't act like a third grader. You know that I'm trying to encapsulate in a few words an attitude that takes many different forms--as many, maybe, as the number of people who have the attitude.
It manifests itself in a variety of ways, but you can see it take shape at the top of this thread--the homespun crime scene investigation. The very idea that these guys might have done the wrong thing is not even on the table, and it never will be.
What I've seen time and again in the Right blogosphere is that hypothetical Iraqi deaths--that is to say, those that may occur if we leave the country--and those deaths caused by insurgents are bad, while deaths of Iraqi non-insurgents caused by our side are greeted with "sh!t happens" or "they were in the wrong place at the wrong time" or "they shouldn't have picked up that coil of wire" or some other formulation that somehow diffuses responsibility for the death or hangs it around the neck of the victims.
Posted by: nunaim at November 22, 2007 03:09 PMYou know that I'm trying to encapsulate in a few words an attitude that takes many different forms--as many, maybe, as the number of people who have the attitude.
No, what you're trying to do is slay a strawman. Invent a position for those who don't hold your worldview and then rail against it. If that weren't the case, you'd be burying me in quotes that prove your thesis. You're not doing it because you can't and because you're a troll.
Posted by: Pablo at November 23, 2007 12:55 AMIf that weren't the case, you'd be burying me in quotes that prove your thesis.
You mean like this?
Placate an easily fired up Congress and media.
Or this?
...I would not be surprised if the backlash over Sunday's shooting was planned, and waiting for an event to pin it on.
Or this?
I just picked up on the "we bait targets"!!So WTF over...A house in Falluja a brand new Russian Sniper Rifle laying on the floor.Question do you pick it up???You do there is a damn good chance it will be the last thing you do... These SOB's booby trap bodies, blow up kids and were supposed to be Mr clean...Give me a friggen brake...Those folks need to die.
Or this?
So al-Qaeda ran like the cowards they are, hid amongst women and children, and when ground forces came in al-Qaeda started firing which caused air strikes to be called in. Now whose fault is this again? Like in Haditha, it's the fault of the enemy for hiding amongst women and children like cowards.
Or this?
As Ilario Pantano wrote a few days ago, war can be messy. To expect pinpoint accuracy as if your playing a video game is foolhardy:
This is all the burying I can do at short notice, Pablo.
Posted by: nunaim at November 23, 2007 09:15 AMWhich of those quotes suggests that "They can do no wrong", nunaim? Here's a hint: None of them.
Posted by: Pablo at November 23, 2007 04:31 PMThe number of individuals who freeze during combat, especially an ambush, is huge. Most people hit the dirt and stay there. Fewer people react effectively than one would expect. Only elite or veteran units can respond effectively, I doubt Blackwater qualifies as either.
Posted by: Thomas Jackson at November 23, 2007 04:56 PMnunaim, having restablished his trollhood, is once again banned, and this time, I'll make it permanent.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 23, 2007 05:08 PMnunaim,
apparently you didn't read the KDKA story very well. The Pentagon official said that the bill sent to Fox was a mistake. Therefore, that wasn't a bad call... that was a mistake.
Max,
If this is what you were getting at, I resent your referring to our soldiers as trigger happy mercenaries. If that is indeed what you were getting at then you are the lowest form of dirtbag imaginable.
Jim C
Posted by: Jim C at November 23, 2007 09:51 PM
