The Guards Have Left the Country

by emptywheel

The NYT has an interesting article telling the story of the Blackwater guards involved in the September 16 shooting. It does a great work getting the views of 6 current and former Blackwater guards in spite of the company's policy gagging them.

But there are two details, above all, that deserve more attention (particularly since the article simply presents them, without raising any questions about what they mean). First, several of the guards involved in the shooting have already left Iraq.

According to Blackwater employees, the leader of the convoy on Nisour Square was a man known as Hoss. He and two or three other members of the team have returned to the United States because their tours of duty were up or their contracts with the company had ended, one employee here said. In Hoss’s case, the trip home was to remove shrapnel from a wound he received before the Sept. 16 shootings. [my emphasis]

Understand, the story explains that only four or six of the guards involved that day shot at the Iraqis. So perhaps as many as four of those four to six people are already gone from Iraq--beyond the reach of Iraqi law. And in Hoss' case, it was for a reason that existed before the shooting, but was not urgent enough before the shooting to get him out of the country. Further, the implication is that several of these people--like the guy who shot the VP's bodyguard in the Christmas Eve shooting, were no longer employed by Blackwater shortly after the killing, thereby absolving the company of any further action with regards to the (former) employee. Were they fired? The story says only "their contracts ... had ended," not how they ended.

The other thing this article reveals but does not say plainly is that there's some dispute about this event. That's true of those still in Iraq who were apparently not part of the convoy.

They described a grating sense among many of Blackwater guards, especially those with years of experience, that the killings on Sept. 16 were unjustified.

“Some guys are thinking that it was not a good shoot, that it was not warranted,” said one Blackwater contractor, using military jargon for an episode that results in a wrongful death. “I don’t think there was criminal intent involved. I just think it was the application of the use of deadly force gone horribly wrong.”

And more interesting still, that's true of some of the people who were on the convoy.

The Blackwater employees said that talk about the Sept. 16 shootings had also focused on a heated dispute between members of the team in the square, pitting the men pouring gunfire into Iraqi vehicles against other Blackwater guards who were imploring them to stop.

“There was turmoil in the team, where half the guys were saying, ‘Don’t shoot,’” said a military veteran who spoke to a member of the Blackwater team on the convoy.

In other words, in addition to the four to six guys doing the shooting--at least one of whom has been removed from Iraq--there are four to six guys who believe the killing was excessive.

Any bets on whether those other four to six--the ones trying to stop the shooting--ever testify publicly?

Comments

[dudji]

I have started to wonder about the contractors that are not American citizens. I read somewhere that some may be ex- soldiers from the Balkan wars. Are there contractors hired by Blackwater that are citizens of other countries wanted in their countries of origin for crimes? Does the U.S.A. make sure that these employees of Blackwater are not on criminal wanted lists? Does this make any sense or am I way over the top?

[emptywheel]

NYT says they're all ex-Marines. Doesn't mean they're Americans, but it makes it much much more likely. Plus, the standards for Marine recruiting haven't been lowered, AFAIK, to the degree that Army recruiting has been lowered.

[radiofreewill]

They may not testify, but they appear to be leaking. They want to put into the record that Hoss' shrapnel wound came prior to the 9/16 Shooting.

This may be a response to Prince's 'Not a War Crime' assertion that the Convoy was fired-upon, and that at least one vehicle was hit with small arms fire.

Had the Convoy actually been fired upon, there probably wouldn't be a sense of 'unjustifiability' sweeping through the Contractors - and, apparently some of them who were there when it happened believe this might have been a killing spree, which they find un-conscionable.

However, without commenting on the balls and strikes of the episode, the sources for the article are making it clear that they argued the call, on the spot. And, just to keep the record straight, they want US to know that Hoss' 'evacuation' wound was prior to that particular bad [possible random revenge?] 'shoot.'

If so, while smaller in scale, the engagement similarities to My Lai would be striking. Calley swept My Lai a day or so after another company in his battalion had taken casualties in the same area. Once the killing started, some of the soldiers involved tried to stop the madness, but over 400 dead civilians later, Calley was the only one held responsible.

Blackwater and Condi don't want Hoss to get tagged as the next Calley.

[emptywheel]

rfw

Interesting, I hadn't thought about that--that they might say the shrapnel wound came from the engagement. I had just thought that it was a coded way of saying, "Hoss got taken out using a convenient excuse."

[scribe]

Just a reminder: in the military "Hoss" is often a nickname used for someone large who has proved himself to be dull, overall-good-natured and a bit dangerous (if not kept pointed in the right direction). Comes from Dan Blocker's "Hoss Cartwright" character on the old "Bonanza" TV series. It is NOT a complement to be called "Hoss". It is a way of politely calling someone "Stupid".

In my military days, I met a number of guys called "Hoss". None of them had that as their given or family names.

[emptywheel]

scribe

Thanks for adding that. I was going to say something, but I do know someone named Hoss--a quite fun person and not at all dumb--so I couldn't muster the comment.

[Mad Dogs]

Another point EW that is "interesting" is that the 3-4 team members who have returned to the US must have had Condi "I know nothing" Rice's State Department help to do so.

I would suggest that these folks couldn't have boarded a plane bound for the US without getting checked through tough US security processes at the Baghdad airport, and certainly would have had to present their passports in order to get past ICE at the other end.

Were the wheels greased? Why would the US government "allow" key witnesses/suspects in a potential criminal investigation to "depart", particularly when the FBI were on the way to Baghdad to do the US investigation?

Could it be that it is "easier" to get lawyered up with "real" lawyers here in the US?

Who would want them "lawyered up" prior to the arrival of the FBI? Would Eric Prince want that? Would Condi Rice want that?

One of the typical aspects of getting "lawyered up" is one then doesn't talk at all so as to preserve the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Are these 3-4 team members now standing mute before the wheels of justice?

Only the Shadow knows. *g*

[emptywheel]

Mad Dogs

Yep, that's kind of what I'm thinking. By getting them out, you force it into US courts and not Iraqi ones, and you can ensure that is goes nowhere.

[tin foil]

But lets not forget the Iraqis have film of the entire incident. If they ever release, the world will have faces of all involved or they could just make wanted posters.

[Mad Dogs]

Overheard at the Baghdad OK Corral Consular chow hall:

Hoss, we best get ya'll outa Dodge before the Sheriff and his posse arrives, pronto!

Ya don't want to be here when the locals get in a necktie party mood.

I've got ya ridin' shotgun on the next stagecoach heading west to the border and then on to Blackwater's hideout in Caroliny.

When the Sheriff rides in, ah'll try an buy ya some time by tellin' him ah don't know nuthin' and ah ain't seen nuthin'.

Now ya best git yer saddle bags packed and whip those horses hell fer leather. Vaya con cheetos!

[lil' joe]

some of these comments are carried away jus a lil too much.

for instance: there's no U.S. authority checking who's flying in and out of BIAP (Baghdad Int'l Airport). and there's no charges filed in this incident. so what's legally preventing the BW guys from going home? nothing. they don't need Condi's help. please.

spare us the dumb conspiracy theories. this is serious and getting seriouser by the day. whack theories about DoS "helping" cover it up just obscure the gravity of all of it.

[Mad Dogs]

lil' joe said: "there's no U.S. authority checking who's flying in and out of BIAP (Baghdad Int'l Airport)."

And you know this how?

I bet you dollars to donuts that there is indeed US security folks checking who comes in on US flights at the airport and who goes out on same.

I don't know about you, but I've never been able to get on an international flight without providing my passport. Not feckin' ever!

As to your comment of "so what's legally preventing the BW guys from going home?", do you think that maybe the arriving FBI folks might want to interview the principal folks involved in the feckin' incident?

This ain't like leaving the scene of the accident. This is more like flight to avoid prosecution.

So why don't you tell us just how you think witnesses/suspects to this heinous event got out of Dodge?

And spare us the dumb wingnut non-conspiracy theories. You don't just waltz out of a US-controlled war-zone after lighting up a bunch of local civilians.

Pfui!

[Nell]

This story paints a vivid picture of a sealed-off, self-justifying community. That even some of them are now entertaining doubts about the Nisour Square massacre, despite the obviously strong incentives not to go against the "team", says a lot. doubt. Note that some of these mercs think that taking gunfire "somewhere in the city" that day justifies the shooting.

It's hard to believe that any of those involved left the country before being interviewed by the FBI. Hard, but not impossible -- for the first few weeks, State and Blackwater didn't seem to realize the depth of the reaction they were dealing with.

There was never any chance of the Blackwater shooters at Nisour Square being tried in the Iraqi system, as the immunity 'law' wasn't repealed until after the massacre.

But the chances that the shooters will face U.S. criminal charges is growing; hence the conveniently prompt ending of contracts and tours of duty. They need to lawyer up, and Blackwater needs to separate itself from them. Gosh, that "everyone's a contractor" business has all kinds of advantages!

The depth of corruption in State's other huge contract, the embassy construction, is staggering. Lots of stuff being dug up that hasn't come out widely yet; see David Phinney's site for that.

Among the choice bits: U.S. law requires embassy construction to be done by U.S. contractors who have security clearances of an appropriate level, but First Kuwaiti, the main "subcontractor", controls the U.S. company it supposedly reports to. The money man is a Lebanese pol who's actually in the process of trying to buy the U.S. company. Also: First Kuwaiti general manager's laptop was stolen last year, something about which no one will answer questions. Endless possibilities there: blackmail, extortion, selling inside info on the Baghdad embassy to the highest bidder...

[Hmmm.]

Neil says "There was never any chance of the Blackwater shooters at Nisour Square being tried in the Iraqi system, as the immunity 'law' wasn't repealed until after the massacre," but do we know for certain that ex post facto is forbidden under the Iraqi Constitution? That's a US concept, and may, perhaps, not have been used in Iraq.

Hmmm.

[Mad Dogs]

Way, way EPU'd, but this is for the serial doubter lil' joe:

from the AP today at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/blackwater_prosecutions - Charges uncertain in Blackwater shooting

"The State Department promised Blackwater USA bodyguards immunity from prosecution in its investigation of last month's deadly shooting of 17 Iraqi civilians, The Associated Press has learned."

"Three senior law enforcement officials said all the Blackwater bodyguards involved — both in the vehicle convoy and in at least two helicopters above — were given the legal protections as investigators from the Bureau of Diplomatic Security sought to find out what happened. The bureau is an arm of the State Department."

[lil joe]

mad dogs, you're naive.

mad dog said: "lil' joe said: "there's no U.S. authority checking who's flying in and out of BIAP (Baghdad Int'l Airport)."

And you know this how?"

I know it because I've been there, twice. Just returned a few days ago, in fact. I guess I have to say it again, Dog: no one from the USA is checking your ID at the airport; the place is entirely Iraqi run.

mad dog wrote: "I bet you dollars to donuts that there is indeed US security folks checking who comes in on US flights at the airport and who goes out on same."

What, you think the State Dept has a guy in a blue jacket running a booth there? Dude, admit you just don't know. I do.

Does some American spook maybe check passenger manifests? Yeah, maybe. But if you think that it's all coordinated enough to intercept an American person (that isn't even charged with a crime) at the gate, then you've been watching too many Hollywood thrillers, Dog. The American govt has it's hands full in Iraq. You know...the war?

Mad dogs said: "As to your comment of "so what's legally preventing the BW guys from going home?", do you think that maybe the arriving FBI folks might want to interview the principal folks involved in the feckin' incident?

This ain't like leaving the scene of the accident. This is more like flight to avoid prosecution."

Wrong again, Dog. Again, you suffer from Hollywood-itis. the FBI doesn't even know the diff b/t a Shia and Sunni Arab. You think they're tracking guys in Baghdad? No, they're not. They took 10 days just to interview Iraqis who were shot or had family shot on Sept. 16.

Also, BW can't be prosecuted in Iraq anyway, so flying home isn't fleeing any legal jurisdiction; to the contrary, the U.S. is where any prosecution will occur, Dog.

mad dogs said: "You don't just waltz out of a US-controlled war-zone after lighting up a bunch of local civilians."

Dog, once again, you show your naivete. Have you been to Baghdad? No?

YES YOU DO JUST WALTZ OUT. there's no law keeping you there. that's the point of the new legislation. get your facts straight. and stop watching so many FBI-glorifying movies. Baghdad is controlled chaos. There's no one watching the front door, much less the back. As long as you're not Iraqi and haven't harmed Americans, you can come and go as you please (with an Iraqi visa).