Blackwater Indictment Alleges Grisly Tale

Prosecutors Say Guards Used Machine Guns, Grenade Launchers On 34 Unarmed Civilians, Including Women And Children

(CBS/AP)  U.S. prosecutors say Blackwater Worldwide security guards used machine guns and grenade launchers in an attack on unarmed Iraqi civilians, some of whom had their hands up.

Prosecutors unsealed a 35-count indictment against the five guards Monday for a 2007 shooting in Baghdad. The guards surrendered in Utah, where they will argue the case should be tried.

The Justice Department charged the men with manslaughter, attempted manslaughter and using a machine gun in a crime of violence. The latter charge carries a 30-year mandatory prison sentence.

A sixth guard for the U.S. contractor admitted in a plea deal to killing at least one Iraqi in the shooting. His guilty plea, likewise, was unsealed Monday.

"The government alleges in the documents unsealed today that at least 34 unarmed Iraqi civilians, including women and children, were killed or injured without justification or provocation by these Blackwater security guards," national security prosecutor Pat Rowan said. Blackwater protects U.S. State Department personnel.

Witnesses said the heavily armed U.S. contractors opened fire unprovoked at a crowded intersection. Blackwater, the largest security contractor in Iraq, says its guards were ambushed by insurgents while responding to a car bombing.

"Prosecutors allege that the men shot and killed Iraqis 'upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion' - that's the language in the indictment," writes CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen. "But it also tells us what the defense is likely to be - that this was an accident triggered by scared young guards who were in over their heads in Iraq."

"We think it's pure and simple a case of self-defense," Paul Cassell, a Utah attorney on the defense team, said Monday as the guards were being booked. "Tragically people did die."

Hassan Jaber was wounded that day - shot in the arm and back as he tried to escape, reports CBS News correspondent Elizabeth Palmer from Baghdad. A year later, he says that today's arrests are a step in the right direction - but not justice. He says there were more than five guards firing that day.

Jaber, like other wounded victims, got $7,500 compensation from the U.S. Embassy in Iraq, which he used to pay for medical care. But, Palmer reports, his body is still full of shrapnel.

Though the case has already been assigned to U.S. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina in Washington, attorneys want the case moved to Utah, where they would presumably find a more conservative jury pool and one more likely to support the Iraq war.

---

Read The Indictment
Facts In Ridgeway Guilty Plea
Information On Ridgeway Case

---

"This is going to be a very dense, technical case with a ton of pre-trial issues that will have to be resolved before the first witness is called," writes Cohen. "The defendants are going to raise jurisdiction and venue questions and seek a ruling from the court that these domestic charges can't be brought against them for conduct in Iraq."

An afternoon court hearing was scheduled on whether to release the guards. Defense attorneys were filing court documents challenging the Justice Department's authority to prosecute the case. The law is murky on whether contractors can be charged in U.S. courts for crimes committed overseas.

The guards face the prospect of 30-year mandatory prison terms under the anti-machine gun law passed during the height of the crack cocaine epidemic.

The indicted guards are Donald Ball, a former Marine from West Valley City, Utah; Dustin Heard, a former Marine from Knoxville, Tenn.; Evan Liberty, a former Marine from Rochester, N.H.; Nick Slatten, a former Army sergeant from Sparta, Tenn.; and Paul Slough, an Army veteran from Keller, Texas.

The sixth guard was identified as Jeremy Ridgeway.

The case is complicated by the circumstances involving the Iraq war, which could affect legal strategy.

"The judge is going to have to be very careful not to allow this trial to become a trial about the larger U.S. role in Iraq," writes Cohen "I think defense attorneys would want to go in that direction and prosecutors of course want to separate out this event from all the other security issues in and around the Green Zone in Baghdad."

The shooting strained relations between the U.S. and Baghdad. The fledgling Iraqi government wanted Blackwater expelled from the country. It also sought the right to prosecute the men in Iraqi courts.

"The killers must pay for their crime against innocent civilians. Justice must be achieved so that we can have rest from the agony we are living in," said Khalid Ibrahim, a 40-year-old electrician who said his 78-year-old father, Ibrahim Abid, died in the shooting. "We know that the conviction of the people behind the shooting will not bring my father to life, but we will have peace in our minds and hearts."

Defense attorneys accused the Justice Department of bowing to Iraqi pressure.

"We are confident that any jury will see this for what it is: a politically motivated prosecution to appease the Iraqi government," said defense attorney Steven McCool, who represents Ball.

Based in Moyock, N.C., Blackwater is the largest security contractor in Iraq and provides heavily armed guards for diplomats. Since last year's shooting, the company has been a flash point in the debate over how heavily the U.S. relies on contractors in war zones.

[niceface19]

(CBS/AP) U.S. prosecutors say Blackwater Worldwide security guards used machine guns and grenade launchers in an attack on unarmed Iraqi civilians, some of whom had their hands up.


This is Bush''s doctrine.

[godi70]

That is not the first time that this kind of accusation are made public ignoring what means to be military and terrible is to observe like civil people like the Judge and lawyers mike splinter-wood of professional American soldat. I do not understand what is the glory to be a military when the world made heroes or criminals from them.

[brianbwb-2009]

Posted by notblue

Of the 19 hijackers who allegedly committed the attack on 9/11, 17 were Saudis, one was Bahrainian, and one Qatari.

It is easy enough to know who was behind the attacks when one knows even a bit of the local history of Saudi Arabia, and the perversion of the rather Luddite concept of Wahabism under Bin Laden.

Thus, it is a simple matter to tell the Saudis that unless they keep bin Laden within their own borders, and otherwise stop him from his dealings with the CIA, and other organizations that further his agenda, (and that of the CIA) we will have to respond with the only logical answer.

Of course dealing with the CIA should not be left out, they were the ones who "created", armed, funded, and trained Bin Laden.

And again, invading Iraq and wasting life and money there is definitely not the way to answer the attach from 17 Saudis, one Bahrainian, and one Qatari.

[notblue]

brianbwb, when the enemy that attacked America has no specific allegiance to abny specific country then the premise for defense you argue is false. When fighting an evil ideologythat is present through out the middle east and greater world your opinion driven "rules" of engagement are irrelevant. Those "rules" are used as tool by the enemy who play by no rules.

[brianbwb-2009]

brianbwb,...If we fought this war with any means at outr disposal, which the enemy does, then the nukes would have landed some time ago and the middle east would be an ashtray..." Posted by notblue

If there is a reason for us to go to war at all, the only reason is that we are attacked, and our defense should be immediately nuclear, and we should state that policy plainly for the world to know, as it is the final answer to an unavoidable conflict.

In short, I don''t answer punch for punch, I take out the puncher totally. If I am not going to do that, then it is not worth fighting, and it is only because those who plot to attack us (if, as has not yet been proven, the attack plotters were not amongst ourselves)know we don''t have the stomach to use the most logical and effective defense, that they do so.

Wasting lives making war against those who have not attacked us is even more stupid than wasting lives against those who have.

[brianbwb-2009]

"brianbwb, I love how you people like to compare christians with the RADICAL MUSLIMS, you couldn''''t be MORE WRONG, the comparison is ludicrous at best. By the way how would you describe those that commit these savage acts in the name of Radical Islam? How would like them characterized? LOL!" Posted by notblue

I would characterize them in the same way I would those who advocate making war on anyone else simply because of their choice of religion, as either suckers dying for their pimps, or pimps ordering suckers to their death, Christianity, Islam, and secularists all have an equal share of such.

[endurorob]

brianbwb, I love how you people like to compare christians with the RADICAL MUSLIMS, you couldn''''t be MORE WRONG, the comparison is ludicrous at best. By the way how would you describe those that commit these savage acts in the name of Radical Islam? How would like them characterized? LOL!


Also see "Sabra and Shatila massacre".

[endurorob]

brianbwb, I love how you people like to compare christians with the RADICAL MUSLIMS, you couldn''''t be MORE WRONG, the comparison is ludicrous at best. By the way how would you describe those that commit these savage acts in the name of Radical Islam? How would like them characterized? LOL!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by notblue

it''s easy to compare Christians to Muslim radicals "Srebrenica massacre" among others.

[notblue]

brianbwb, while your "list" describes the way the militants operate, to compare how the U.S operates is again completley wrong. If we fought this war with any means at outr disposal, which the enemy does, then the nukes would have landed some time ago and the middle east would be an ashtray. While America uses great care and strategic strikes to midigate collateral damage and minimize killing innocent civilians your brothers in Jihad puposely target them. There is no comparison and your lame attempts are false and idiotic

[notblue]

brianbwb, I love how you people like to compare christians with the RADICAL MUSLIMS, you couldn''t be MORE WRONG, the comparison is ludicrous at best. By the way how would you describe those that commit these savage acts in the name of Radical Islam? How would like them characterized? LOL!

[brianbwb-2009]

"brianbwb, that list you posted describesthe Islamic militants agenda to a tee! Nice job exemplifying and listing their barbarism! Finally on the right side now?" Posted by notblue

Since we are committing the same acts against them, and we committed them first, I am on neither side.

In fact, if we commit those same acts against them, then where is our right to claim indignation? Does it not show that we are no better than they, especially since we invaded them to commit the same acts we accuse them of committing, and therefore still have no right to interfere in their own affairs?

[hatesthecolt]

Your opinion is at odds with the law.

Posted by brianbwb

Well executed but so WASTED on Rowdy! But I liked it very much!

[brianbwb-2009]

"BTW, Brianwb, these terrorist bastwards AREN''''T MILITARY OF ANY COUNTRY, they''''re terrorists....NO TREATY IN THE WORLD APPLIES TO THEM!" Posted by RowdynTex

Incorrect, as shown below,

"Article 3 describes minimal protections which must be adhered to by all individuals within a signatory''s territory during an armed conflict not of an international character (regardless of citizenship or lack thereof): Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Article 3''s protections exist even if one is not classified as a prisoner of war. Article 3 also states that parties to the internal conflict should endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of GCIII."

Your opinion is at odds with the law.

[wdrussell1]

It is amazing that religious nutjobs will dance in the street when it comes to killing innocents.
Fundi Muslims and fundi Christians are all the same.

[brianbwb-2009]

"brianbwb, what is your opinion on whether the Islamic militants are violating the Geneva convention in regards to prisoner treatment, rules of engagement, and the killing of innocent civilians?" Posted by notblue

My opinion is yes, they are in breach of several articles of the Convention. Yes they are militants, but being Islamic is irrelevant, because Islam forbids such, except for defense. Calling them "Islamic militants" is like calling the kkk "Christian militants", not only does it miss the point, but it engenders unnecessary intolerance not germane to the real reasons for the struggle.

I must also add however, that they are committing these acts while defending themselves from a hostile force which invaded them on the basis of lies.

It is therefore the height of hypocrisy to commit acts against them which are violations from the inception, then expect them to obey laws which we ourselves do not.

[notblue]

brianbwb, that list you posted describesthe Islamic militants agenda to a tee! Nice job exemplifying and listing their barbarism! Finally on the right side now?

[brianbwb-2009]

Posted by BRdeckard

War crimes are defined in the statute that established the International Criminal Court, which includes:

1. Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, such as:

1. Willful killing, or causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health

2. Torture or inhumane treatment

3. Unlawful wanton destruction or appropriation of property

4. Forcing a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of a hostile power

5. Depriving a prisoner of war of a fair trial

6. Unlawful deportation, confinement or transfer

7. Taking hostages

2. The following acts as part of an international conflict:

1. Directing attacks against civilians

2. Directing attacks against humanitarian workers or UN peacekeepers

3. Killing a surrendered combatant

4. Misusing a flag of truce

5. Settlement of occupied territory

6. Deportation of inhabitants of occupied territory

7. Using poison weapons

8. Using civilians as shields

9. Using child soldiers

3. The following acts as part of a non-international conflict:

1. Murder, cruel or degrading treatment and torture

2. Directing attacks against civilians, humanitarian workers or UN peacekeepers

3. Taking hostages

4. Summary execution

5. Pillage

6. Rape, sexual slavery, forced prostitution or forced pregnancy

However the court only has jurisdiction over these crimes where they are "part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes"

[cyinzl8r]

You see, there are MILLIONS of people in the US that think what Bush did was rightPosted by RowdynTex
I support it. We beat him in the first war. He surrendered and agreed to terms. He did not abide by terms. We go back and beat him again. You all have selective memory. WMD was only part of the reason to go back to Iraq. I remember!!!

[notblue]

hatesthecolt, what if the women and children were used as bombs to kill innocent civilians? This is not conjecture as the militants have already used women, even infants as bombs.

[notblue]

brianbwb, what is your opinion on whether the Islamic militants are violating the Geneva convention in regards to prisoner treatment, rules of engagement, and the killing of innocent civilians?