Well, these Blackwater guys are swcrewed.....

[MicroGuy]

If you can't get the ones you want, want the ones you can get right??

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/ap ... 69488.html


RALEIGH, N.C. — Two former Blackwater contractors were arrested Thursday on murder charges in the shootings of two Afghans after a traffic accident last year, according to an indictment obtained by The Associated Press.

The indictment charges Justin Cannon, 27, and Chris Drotleff, 29, with second-degree murder, attempted murder and weapons charges. FBI agents arrested both of them without incident, said Peter Carr, a spokesman with the U.S. attorney's office in Virginia's eastern district.

Both men have said in recent interviews with The Associated Press that they were justified in opening fire on a car that caused an accident in front of their vehicle, then turned and sped toward them. The indictment says the shooting at a Kabul intersection killed two people. At least one other person was injured.

The military veterans worked for Paravant, a subsidiary of Xe, the company formerly known as Blackwater. Both Cannon, of Corpus Christi, Texas., and Drotleff, of Virginia Beach, Va., were fired after the shooting for failing to comply with the terms of their contract.

"I feel comfortable firing my weapon any time I feel my life is in danger," Drotleff said in a recent interview. "That night, my life was 100 percent in danger."

The investigation is the latest push in the U.S. government's attempt to increase oversight of contractor activities in war zones after a series of problems in Iraq strained relations between Washington and Baghdad. Several Blackwater contractors had been charged with 14 counts of manslaughter for their role in a 2007 shooting in Baghdad's Nisoor Square, but a judge dropped those charges last week.

U.S. officials have struggled to demonstrate that the government has both the legal grounds and political fortitude to hold contractors accountable.

In another case, federal prosecutors have told a Seattle attorney they intend to charge another Blackwater contractor in the killing of an Iraqi guard in 2006.

Xe lawyer Peter White had no immediate comment on Thursday's indictment.

Steve McClain, another former contractor who was with Cannon and Drotleff during the shootings, told the AP he spent about 90 minutes before a Virginia grand jury this week detailing his recollections of what happened.

Cannon, Drotleff and McClain said in separate interviews with the AP over the past month that they were driving along a Kabul road on the night of May 5 when a speeding car slammed into the first vehicle of their convoy, causing it to flip.

Cannon and Drotleff were traveling in another vehicle and got out to help. They both said the car that caused the accident turned and started speeding toward them. Fearing for their lives, both opened fire, with Drotleff emptying a 16-round clip. Cannon was unsure how many shots were fired.

"My conscience is clear about it, but that doesn't really matter," Cannon said. "If someone's got an agenda, then there's nothing I can do about it."

The former workers complained that Blackwater tried to make them a scapegoat. They said the company armed some of its workers in Afghanistan despite U.S. military documents that prohibited them from carrying guns. The contractors were in Kabul to help train the Afghan National Army.

McClain's termination letter from Blackwater cited violation of alcohol policy, and he said that topic was one focus of grand jury questioning.

"I wasn't drinking and I didn't witness (any of the other contractors) drinking that day," said McClain, 25, of California.

A fourth contractor at the scene, Amando Hamid, did not return messages seeking comment.

[aquajon]

I thought only captured POW's were put on show trials?
Times are changing I guess.

[brianb]

So what theory of law allows the U.S. to prosecute them here on U.S. soil for "violations" alleged to have occurred in another country? These crimes weren't treason or other acts involving the U.S. in any direct capacity - so how does this work?

If the Iraquis want them, F--k 'em (Iraq). Try and extradite...

Like we'd have to with every other frickin' nation.

Double (political) standards piss me off.

[YugoRPK]

So what theory of law allows the U.S. to prosecute them here on U.S. soil for "violations" alleged to have occurred in another country? These crimes weren't treason or other acts involving the U.S. in any direct capacity - so how does this work?

If the Iraquis want them, F--k 'em (Iraq). Try and extradite...

Like we'd have to with every other frickin' nation.

Double (political) standards piss me off.

The United States has had an extradition treaty with Iraq since 1934. It is still in effect.

http://images.library.wisc.edu/FRUS/EFa ... .i0030.pdf

[Diomed]

The United States has had an extradition treaty with Iraq since 1934. It is still in effect.

Under the stipulations of this Treaty, neither of the High Contracting Parties shall be bound to deliver up its own citizens.

[1911pilot]

The United States has had an extradition treaty with Iraq since 1934. It is still in effect.

So?

I've never heard of Kabul, Iraq.

[MicroGuy]

Even if they, and it was still in good standing (doesn't this change with Saddam?), and we did extricate people there, weren't they given immunity during the operations??

I thought that was the whole thing about the first group, they had immunity for what they were doing. Not that gives them the right to go and murder in cold blood, but during operations.... s--t happens. It's war.

[YugoRPK]

Even if they, and it was still in good standing (doesn't this change with Saddam?), and we did extricate people there, weren't they given immunity during the operations??

I thought that was the whole thing about the first group, they had immunity for what they were doing. Not that gives them the right to go and murder in cold blood, but during operations.... s--t happens. It's war.

What war? We have an army to fight wars . They were military contractors. Also known as civilians who were there under their own free will. They are not protected by the status of forces agreement with the "host" nation. Their own contractor did not have permission from the government of Iraq to carry weapons much less any permission to use them. Military forces can engage in "operations" in their capacity as military forces. Mercenary forces or "contractors" do not have the same protections and do so at their own risk.

[504ranger]

I don't believe anyone has "immunity" (except for the South African in Lethal Weapon 2) . Soldiers still fall under the Laws of Land Warfare, Geneva Convention, and the ROE that is in place at the time. There have been several incidents (some justified/some not) where Soldiers have been tried and some found guilty of their actions during OEF/OIF.
As Yugo stated contractors are certainly not immune either. Their actions may not have been scrutinized as much early on but the still fall under the SOFA.

[ick]

Wow, if that is the situation for these guys and they take that kind of risk.... not sure you could pay a guy enough to justify taking the job.

Company: "Ok, we are going to pay you this amount of money here written on this paper.... but it is a really nasty and chaotic situation over there. if something goes wrong, and it probably will, you will be blamed and you will lose everything.... assuming you are not killed."

Potential Soldier for Hire: "Oh, ok, I can suffer a financial loss if something happens. Where do I sign?"

Company: "No... I don't think you uderstand. You will lose all the money you make, everything you currently own, all your freedom, and possibly be jailed for life..... assuming you are not executed."

Potential Soldier for hire: "Hmmm, no thanks then."

[ArevaloSOCOM]

The United States has had an extradition treaty with Iraq since 1934. It is still in effect.

Under the stipulations of this Treaty, neither of the High Contracting Parties shall be bound to deliver up its own citizens.

Win!

[mcinfantry]

Wow, if that is the situation for these guys and they take that kind of risk.... not sure you could pay a guy enough to justify taking the job.

Company: "Ok, we are going to pay you this amount of money here written on this paper.... but it is a really nasty and chaotic situation over there. if something goes wrong, and it probably will, you will be blamed and you will lose everything.... assuming you are not killed."

Potential Soldier for Hire: "Oh, ok, I can suffer a financial loss if something happens. Where do I sign?"

Company: "No... I don't think you uderstand. You will lose all the money you make, everything you currently own, all your freedom, and possibly be jailed for life..... assuming you are not executed."

Potential Soldier for hire: "Hmmm, no thanks then."

Police Department: "Ok, we are going to pay you this amount of money here written on this paper.... but it is a really nasty and chaotic situation over there. if something goes wrong, and it probably will, you will be blamed and you will lose everything.... assuming you are not killed."

reminds me of current trend in law enforcement.

[finn]

I assume you were being sarcastic, but this is pretty much what it boils down to. I like to think that anyone that takes a job as a mercenary knows he is playing with fire. Supposedly the money is good.

Wow, if that is the situation for these guys and they take that kind of risk.... not sure you could pay a guy enough to justify taking the job.

Company: "Ok, we are going to pay you this amount of money here written on this paper.... but it is a really nasty and chaotic situation over there. if something goes wrong, and it probably will, you will be blamed and you will lose everything.... assuming you are not killed."

Potential Soldier for Hire: "Oh, ok, I can suffer a financial loss if something happens. Where do I sign?"

Company: "No... I don't think you uderstand. You will lose all the money you make, everything you currently own, all your freedom, and possibly be jailed for life..... assuming you are not executed."

Potential Soldier for hire: "Hmmm, no thanks then."

[mcinfantry]

I assume you were being sarcastic, but this is pretty much what it boils down to. I like to think that anyone that takes a job as a mercenary knows he is playing with fire. Supposedly the money is good.

Wow, if that is the situation for these guys and they take that kind of risk.... not sure you could pay a guy enough to justify taking the job.

Company: "Ok, we are going to pay you this amount of money here written on this paper.... but it is a really nasty and chaotic situation over there. if something goes wrong, and it probably will, you will be blamed and you will lose everything.... assuming you are not killed."

Potential Soldier for Hire: "Oh, ok, I can suffer a financial loss if something happens. Where do I sign?"

Company: "No... I don't think you uderstand. You will lose all the money you make, everything you currently own, all your freedom, and possibly be jailed for life..... assuming you are not executed."

Potential Soldier for hire: "Hmmm, no thanks then."

my buddy worked @ gitmo post 9/11. said they had an aussie merc who got picked up. he wasnt bitter. just said he picked the wrong side

[MicroGuy]

Even if they, and it was still in good standing (doesn't this change with Saddam?), and we did extricate people there, weren't they given immunity during the operations??

I thought that was the whole thing about the first group, they had immunity for what they were doing. Not that gives them the right to go and murder in cold blood, but during operations.... s--t happens. It's war.

What war? We have an army to fight wars . They were military contractors. Also known as civilians who were there under their own free will. They are not protected by the status of forces agreement with the "host" nation. Their own contractor did not have permission from the government of Iraq to carry weapons much less any permission to use them. Military forces can engage in "operations" in their capacity as military forces. Mercenary forces or "contractors" do not have the same protections and do so at their own risk.

That may very well be the case, I'm only saying I thought I read something that gave them some sort of (limited) immunity. Immunity to what, I'm not sure, I don't remember it saying.

Could be another group, I don't know. But my understanding was they were hired to provide security, and in that operation, if they're attacked, they were allowed to fight back.

In other words, something more than just a plain old civilian over there shooting at people, but less than the military.

I did think it strange that they were not allowed to have guns, if so what was the immunity for, and what were they supposed to provide this security with?

So, I thought the military provided weapons, and the problem arose when they smuggled their own stuff in there.

Either way, it's only something I thought I read, must have been something else, or I read it all wrong, or hell, was even dreaming like that prison in the air.... (don't ask....)

[504ranger]

Contractors have always had the right to self-defense. I believe Blackwater and the other PMCs (or the contractor buys his own) provide their weapons not the DoD.

[MicroGuy]

Well, I know they got hammered/busted for smuggling them in. Dog food I think it was.

[ick]

Well, I know they got hammered/busted for smuggling them in. Dog food I think it was.

Ah, so that was linked to this case?

I was being serious though.... from what I am reading here this basically is what these guys are facing. Seems like something you couldn't get enough compensation for.

On the other hand if they do make that much money.... perhaps guys feel it is worth the risk.... as it is better odds than playing the lottery?

Still, seems very perilous.