War Crimes For Hire
posted by: Jessica Pieklo 41 days ago
Efforts to avoid war crimes charges by the mercenary-for-hire group Blackwater took a significant step back as a federal judge refused to dismiss a series of lawsuits against the troubled group. The cases, brought by Iraqi victims under the Alien Tort Statue against both the company and its owner Erik Prince, allege that both Prince and Blackwater ordered the killings of innocent Iraqi civilians and that those actions amount to war crimes.
The statute allows for litigation in US courts for violations of fundamental human rights committed overseas by individuals or corporations with a US presence. The central thrust of Blackwater's defense so far has been that they cannot be held liable for the crimes since, if they occurred, they lacked any "military objective" and thus cannot constitute a war crime. According to Blackwater and Prince, the deaths may have been motivated by economic or ideological reasons, but those reasons should not constitute war crimes. That's right- the central defense was that the murders were entirely random acts of violence and not those organized around some central strategic motive. It strains all sense of decency to even repeat the logic.
Thankfully the federal court disagreed with this argument stating that under Blackwater's logic "it is arguable that nobody who receives a paycheck would ever be liable for war crimes. Moreover, so narrow is the scope of the standard that it would exclude murders of civilians committed by soldiers where there was no legitimate 'military objective' for committing the murders." As noted by the court, the whole purpose of war crimes prosecution is precisely for those cases that lack a legitimate "military objective" and for court to accept Blackwater's argument would effectively create a liability shield for government entities and create incentives to outsource military operations to private entities because those entities would, in effect, be able to operate outside international legal conventions. The court made this argument without stating the obvious--that the incentive described precisely encompases the relationship between the Bush administration and the Blackwater presence in Iraq.
Legal rhetoric aside, the real victory stems from the affirmation that war crimes can be committed by private people or by corporations--a slap in the face for those who hid behind corporate structures as a way to avoid international legal jurisdiction during the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. While the judge did require the plaintiffs re-file their complaints with additional facts to support the allegations (a newly-created requirement stemming from the May 2009 decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal that reversed decades of case law and imposed more stringent pleading requirements for plaintiffs under the Alien Tort Statute), the ruling represents a clear victory for those seeking accountability.
The statute allows for litigation in US courts for violations of fundamental human rights committed overseas by individuals or corporations with a US presence. The central thrust of Blackwater's defense so far has been that they cannot be held liable for the crimes since, if they occurred, they lacked any "military objective" and thus cannot constitute a war crime. According to Blackwater and Prince, the deaths may have been motivated by economic or ideological reasons, but those reasons should not constitute war crimes. That's right- the central defense was that the murders were entirely random acts of violence and not those organized around some central strategic motive. It strains all sense of decency to even repeat the logic.
Thankfully the federal court disagreed with this argument stating that under Blackwater's logic "it is arguable that nobody who receives a paycheck would ever be liable for war crimes. Moreover, so narrow is the scope of the standard that it would exclude murders of civilians committed by soldiers where there was no legitimate 'military objective' for committing the murders." As noted by the court, the whole purpose of war crimes prosecution is precisely for those cases that lack a legitimate "military objective" and for court to accept Blackwater's argument would effectively create a liability shield for government entities and create incentives to outsource military operations to private entities because those entities would, in effect, be able to operate outside international legal conventions. The court made this argument without stating the obvious--that the incentive described precisely encompases the relationship between the Bush administration and the Blackwater presence in Iraq.
Legal rhetoric aside, the real victory stems from the affirmation that war crimes can be committed by private people or by corporations--a slap in the face for those who hid behind corporate structures as a way to avoid international legal jurisdiction during the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. While the judge did require the plaintiffs re-file their complaints with additional facts to support the allegations (a newly-created requirement stemming from the May 2009 decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal that reversed decades of case law and imposed more stringent pleading requirements for plaintiffs under the Alien Tort Statute), the ruling represents a clear victory for those seeking accountability.
Read more: iraq, politics, war crimes, blackwater
comments
They should be completely dismantled and all put in jail for the horrible things have done and that is a fact.
The only thing that worries me they are still in business even though all these charges are still luming and that is a fact.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
It's about time that something positive is happening to hold these sorts of corporate killers accountable. I hope truth and justice will prevail.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
I don't understand law, so this put me in a disadvantage. but I do understand being humane.
I understand to a point, that Black Ops have been used now for decades, & they will continue to get contracts .For reasons of, No president wants to put up a draft, we don't want another Viet Nam, where young men are moving away to Canada etc.
How about a deal with prisoners? they are costing us billion of dollars, for the exception to the rule in Arizona, where the warden has turned off they're life line, put them outside in tents, work growing their own food etc.Maybe that could be an option? I just saying maybe some of these criminals would rather fight for our country than rot in a Jail cell, if productive, kept on a short lease, after doing a couple tours release them back into society after a Job well done.
Black ops that have killed Women & children needlessly though should be held accountable through the court system. World court, U.S. court, whatever brings them to justice.
Still don't understand, maybe I'm not supposed to, will need to do more research, why they(Black ops) get paid 10x's the amount of our soldiers. I understand they have already served our country in past wars,more logged in time,so to speak, get their rocks off in serving, but I don't feel like their blood is worth more than our men who are going by the book.Seems very unfair to Ours Guys who also pay the ultimate price.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
I know that private contractors have been used in many past war fields, but the number being used now in Iraq exceeds the enlisted numbers. The cost of private contractors is astronomically much higher and they've operated without any restrictions, this is criminal on many levels. Erik Prince is beyond description a man who is a Faustian character. He and Cheney and Rumsfeld and others from the Bush administration will spend eternity in a hell of their own making.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Blackwater is only one of the more published organizations in the world about their war crimes effort and recruitment. There are many in Africa and Europe, small less viable organisations and these organisations for years have been doing it in a less organised manner (not like a McWar Corp in America). Some for the sake of human rights, some to sell weapons (whether to dictators, warlords or govts fighting to protect their brand of freedom), others to advocate piracy (which we forgot that its in a way link to Europe), etc. Why are we only trying to just focus on one company and why we never even exposed those doing illegally in Europe? Is there an European conspiracy?
I am not fighting for Blackwater because Blackwater's case is publicised by the media and we got wind of it. But there are many instances where there are organisations (whether or not its one) are doing business for at least more than 5 decades already and nobody is saying anything until Blackwater's misdeeds.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Remember that story about the soldier who raped a 14-year-old girl and then killed her (forgot his name)? If that monster falls under this protective law, then something is rotten--and it ain't in the state of Denmark.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Paging Eric Holder.
Mr. Holder, please report to the DOJ immediately!
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Ahhhh ... I love the smell of roasted mercenaries in the morning!
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
A couple of things to point out:
Xe (formerly Blackwater) has had contracts extended by the Obama Admin. Why, since Obama pointed out the problems with them and the Bush Admin during the campaign? Simply because they provide a needed service and there isn't another company out there to provide it at the level they are capable of.
Also as far as Xe harming the US's reputation, you should understand that many of their clients are outside the US. Foreign governments and international firms make up a large part of their client list. They also provide training in NC and around the world for security and armed forces for many different countries (I have a friend who worked with them on some special weapons training in NC last year).
Unfortunately there is a real need for the services Xe provides around the world. Whether we like it or not this need exists therefore they have lots of business and will likely continue to no matter the outcome of this case. They just add the legal cost to their billing rates anyway.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Ah, now I see where Jessica got mixed up. According to the court in the Blackwater case, ATS claims merge with the question of whether a plaintiff has properly stated a claim upon which relief may be granted under rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure -- and this latter rule WAS discussed in Ashcroft v. Iqbal.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Facebook account:
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.
1286568