|
The
War Profiteers - War Crimes, Kidnappings & Torture |
|
The Blackwater Killings in Baghdad |
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
Newest Media Report: Lawsuit now Accuses Xe
Contractors of Murder, Kidnapping (2/7/2009/The
Virginian-Pilot) Newest Government Report: Audit of
Blackwater Contract for Protective Services in Iraq (6/2009/U.S. State Department) Newest Legal Document: First Amended Complaint (1/7/2009/Estate of Himoud Abtan et al vs. Erik
Prince, XE et al) |
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
Background -
September 16th, 2007 “[…] Lawyer Hassan Jabir was stuck in traffic when
he heard Blackwater USA security contractors shout ‘Go, Go, Go.’ Moments
later bullets pierced his back, he said Thursday from his hospital bed. Jabir
was among about a dozen people wounded Sunday during the shooting in west
Baghdad’s Mansour neighborhood. Iraqi police say at least 11 people were
killed. […] ‘No one fired at them,’ Jabir said of the Blackwater guards. ‘No
one attacked them but they randomly fired at people. So many people died in
the street.’ […]” Excerpt of an Associated Press article
from September 21st, 2007 |
Burnt-out car after the Blackwater
shootings |
|||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
The Document Archive of the Blackwater
Killings The Legal Archive: Criminal Case I: U.S. vs. Slough,
Slatten, Liberty, Heard & Ball Criminal Case II: U.S. vs. Jeremy
P. Ridgeway Criminal Case III: U.S. vs. John
Houston & Michael Henson Civil
Suit I: Estate of Himoud Saed Abtan et al vs. Blackwater et al Civil
Suit II: Estate of Ali Hussamaldeen Albazzaz vs. Blackwater et al Civil
Suit III: Estate of Raheem Khalaf Sa’adoon vs. XE (Blackwater), Andrew Moonen
et al Civil Suit IV: Estate of Mushtaq Karim Abd
Al-Razzaq et al vs. XE, Blackwater et al Civil
Suit V: Estate of Sa’ad Raheem Jarallah et al vs. XE, Blackwater et al Civil
Suit VI: Estate of Sabah Salman Hassoon et al vs. XE, Blackwater et al Civil Suit VII: Estate of Husain Salih
Rabea et al vs. Erik Prince, Xe, Blackwater et al Exhibits - Filed
in the Criminal and Civil Cases The Media Archive: The Video Archive: U.S. Department of
Justice on Blackwater Indictment - Press Conference from December 8th,
2008 News Feed on Blackwater
Killings - Short CNN Documentary from September 19th, 2007 Jeremy
Scahill talks about Blackwater - Speech from June 16th, 2007 Diverse Archives: Diagrams of the Killings -
Diagrams included in New York Times/Washington Post articles from
September/October 2007. Interview with Suzanne Simons,
Author of “Master of War” |
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
July 2nd, 2009 - Lawsuit now Accuses Xe
Contractors of Murder, Kidnapping 1 news article
from Virginian-Pilot June 18th, 2009 - DynCorp gets Blackwater’s
Service Contracts for U.S. Diplomats in Iraq 1 news
article from World Tribune June 16th, 2009 - Audit Finds That U.S.
Overpaid Blackwater 1 news
article from Wall Street Journal June 10th, 2009 - Suit: Security Company is
Operating Illegally in Iraq 1 news
article from Virginian-Pilot |
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
The Accused in the Criminal Case |
||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Evan Liberty |
Dustin Heard |
Donald Ball |
Nick Slatten |
Paul Slough |
||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
Criminal Case
I: U.S. vs. Slough, Slatten, Liberty, Heard & Ball This criminal case concerns the killing of 17 Iraqi
civilians by Blackwater personnel on September 16th, 2007 on
Nisour Square in Baghdad. It was filed on December 4th, 2008 at
the U.S. District Court in Washington, DC. Criminal Case
II: U.S. vs. Jeremy P. Ridgeway This criminal case concerns the killing of 17 Iraqi
civilians by Blackwater personnel on September 16th, 2007 on
Nisour Square in Baghdad. It was filed at the U.S. District Court in
Washington, D.C. The defendant, Jeremy Ridgeway agreed to a plea deal and to
testify against the defendants in Criminal Case I. Criminal Case
III: U.S. vs. John Houston & Michael Henson This criminal case concerns the illegal smuggling of
firearms into the United States. Some of the firearms are connected to the
Blackwater shootings on September 16th,
2007 in Baghdad. The criminal complaint was filed on September 4th,
2008 at the U.S. District Court in Greenbelt, Maryland. Civil Case I:
Estate of Himoud Saed Abtan et al vs. Blackwater USA, Erik Prince et al This lawsuit concerns the killing of 17 Iraqi
civilians by Blackwater personnel on September 16th, 2007 on
Nisour Square in Baghdad. It was filed on behalf of the estate of Himoud Saed
Abtan and others on October 11th, 2007 at the U.S. District Court
in Washington, DC. On June 2nd, 2009 the case was transferred to the U.S.
District Court in Alexandria, Virginia and consolidated with Civil Suit V. Civil Case II:
Estate of Ali Hussamaldeen Albazzaz vs. Blackwater USA, Erik Prince et al This lawsuit concerns the killing of 5 Iraqi
civilians near the al-Watahba Square in Baghdad on September 9th,
2007, where Ali Albazzaz died. It was filed on behalf of the estate of Mr.
Albazzaz on December 19th, 2007 at
the U.S. District Court in Washington, DC. On June 2nd,
2009 the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court in Alexandria,
Virginia and consolidated with Civil Suit V. Civil Case III: Estate of Raheem Khalaf Sa’adoon vs. XE
(Blackwater), Andrew Moonen et al This lawsuit concerns the killing of Raheem
Sa’adoon, a security guard for Iraqi Vice President Adil Abd-al-Mahdi, by
Andrew Moonen, a Blackwater employee, on December 24th, 2006. It
was filed on behalf of the estate of Mr. Sa’adoon on March 19th,
2009 at the U.S. District Court in San Diego in California. On June 2nd,
2009 the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court in Alexandria,
Virginia. Civil Case IV: Estate of Mushtaq Karim Abd Al-Razzaq et
al vs. XE (Blackwater) et al This lawsuit concerns the killing of 17 Iraqi
civilians by Blackwater personnel on September 16th, 2007 on
Nisour Square in Baghdad. It was filed on behalf of the estate of Mushtaq
Karim Abd Al-Razzaq and others on March 26th, 2009 at the U.S.
District Court in San Diego in California. On June 2nd, 2009 the case was
transferred to the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia and
consolidated with Civil Suit I. Civil Case V: Estate of Sa’ad Raheem Jarallah et al vs. XE
(Blackwater) et al This lawsuit concerns the killing of several Iraqi
civilians by Blackwater personnel on September 9th, 2007 at Al
Watahba Square in Baghdad. It was filed on behalf of the estate of Sa’ad
Raheem Jarallah and others on March 27th, 2009 at the U.S.
District Court in San Diego in California. On June 2nd, 2009 the
case was transferred to the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia and
consolidated with Civil Suit II. Civil Case VI: Estate of Sabah Salman Hassoon et al vs.
XE (Blackwater) et al This lawsuit concerns the killing of three Iraqi
security guards by Blackwater personnel on February 7th, 2007 at
the Iraqi Media Network compound in central Baghdad. It was filed on behalf
of the estate of Sabah Salman Hassoun and two other estates on April 1st,
2009 at the U.S. District Court in San Diego in California. On June 2nd,
2009 the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court in Alexandria,
Virginia. Civil Case VII: Estate of Husain Salih Rabea et al vs.
Erik Prince, Xe, Blackwater et al This lawsuit concerns the killing of Husain Salih
Rabea and the wounding of Ali Kareem Fakhri by Blackwater personnel on August
13th, 2007 on a public roadway in Hilla. It was filed on June 10th,
2009 at the the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia. |
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
U.S. vs. Slough, Slatten, Liberty, Heard
& Ball U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia Case-No.: CR-08-360 Filed on December 4th, 2008 Recent Filings: May 12th, 2009 - Stipulated Protective Order “[…] The undersigned parties hereby stipulate, subject to the approval
of the Court, to the following Protective Order which shall govern the
handling of discovery materials described below in this case: “1. The defendants have asserted that this case involves statements by
the defendants to government agents concerning the September 16, 2007,
shooting at Nisur Square in Baghdad, Iraq, and that these statements raise
issues under Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967), and its progeny. For
purposes of this Order, these statements, in whatever form, will be referred
to as ‘Potential Garrity Material.’ As a subset of the overall discovery
material in this case, Potential Garrity Material is governed by the
preexisting Protective Orders entered by the Court on March 5 and April 13,
2009. […] To avoid any unwarranted disclosure of Potential Garrity Material,
the undersigned counsel agree to the following additional handling procedures
for discovery of this material. “2. Regarding the defendants’ written statements and recorded oral
statements concerning the Nisur Square shooting, the United States shall
produce to each defendant only his individual statement(s). Documents labeled
‘Potential Garrity Material’ and the contents thereof shall not be provided to
potential government or defense witnesses, other co-defendants, or potential
jurors. Copies of material labeled ‘Potential Garrity Material’ may be
provided to third parties employed or engaged for the purpose of this
litigation, assisting in the preparation, trial and appeal of this matter,
who shall be informed of the existence of this Order. The parties agree to
serve a copy of this Order and the preexisting Protective Orders […] on any
such third parties to whom Potential Garrity Material will be disseminated.
The parties also agree to maintain a record of any disclosure to third
parties, including the date such disclosure was made. “3. Any party to this litigation may apply to the Court for an order
specifically permitting other disclosure. “4. Any violation of the terms of this Order may result in the
imposition of contempt sanctions against the violator. […]” April 13th, 2009 - Protective Order “[…] Based on a recent news article using leaked information from an
unknown source, the government’s motion for a protective order, the
defendants’ opposition and the government’s reply, it is this 13th
day of April, 2009, hereby ordered that government’s motion is granted in
part and denied in part; and it is further ordered that “1. The United States has and will provide to the defendants copies of
material pursuant to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and Brady v.
Maryland, […]. The purpose of providing these copies is for the use by the
defendants and their attorneys to prepare their defense. The original
material is not deemed publicly filed as a result of the copies provided to
the defense. […]” April 10th, 2009 - Govt.’s Reply to Defendants’
Response to Motion for Protective Order “[…] While the defendants are correct in pointing out that the
‘substantive dispute’ between the parties on the protective order is ‘narrow,’
[…], the disagreement concerns the critical issue as to whether the
protective order will place any enforceable limitations on who may receive
copies of discovery material in this case. The defendants’ proposed order
does not even address the very harm that led to the filing of the
Government’s motion, and leaves the door wide open for third parties to do
the same thing with Garrity-protected material once those statements are
disclosed to the defendants pursuant to the discovery process. “We respectfully request that the Court enter the Government’s
proposed order so that discovery may immediately be resumed in this case.
[…]” April 9th, 2009 - Defendants’ Response to the
Government’s Motion for a Protective Order “[…] Defendants, through counsel, respectfully respond to the
Government’s motion for a protective order. In its motion, the Government
unfairly, and without support, accuses defense counsel of media leaks in
which defense counsel had no role. To be clear and unequivocal: member of the
Defense team had any role, direct or indirect, in the disclosure of the FBI
reports that prompted the Government’s current motion. As Defense counsel
have stated repeatedly to the Government and the Court, Defense counsel are
aware of this Court’s view media disclosures and of their corresponding
obligations, and have conducted themselves accordingly, without equivocation
or evasion. The Defense has not been the source for the AP’s recent
reporting, and does not know where or how the AP received its information.
[…]” Case File of Criminal Case I: U.S.
vs. Slough, Slatten, Liberty, Heard & Ball |
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
U.S. vs. Jeremy P. Ridgeway U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia Case-No.: 1:08-cr-00341-RMU-1 Filed on November 18th, 2008 Recent Filings: February 10th, 2009 - Order “[…] It is this 10th day of February
2009, hereby ordered a status hearing in the above-captioned case shall take
place on September 14, 2009 at 10:15 am. So ordered. […]” February 10th, 2009 - Minute
Order “Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge
Ricardo M. Urbina: Status Hearing as to Jeremy P. Ridgeway held on 2/10/2009.
A further Status Hearing is scheduled for 9/14/2009 at 10:15 A.M. in
Courtroom 30, Annex Building, Sixth Floor, before Judge Ricardo M. Urbina.
Case not referred at this time. Bond Status of Defendant: Personal
Recognizance […]” January 7th, 2009 - Order “[…] it is this 7th day of January, 2009, hereby,
ordered that all matters filed and docketed in the case of United States v.
Jeremy Ridgeway, Crim. No.08-341 (RMU) shall be unsealed by the Clerk of
Court, with the exception of the following documents and transcripts that
will remain sealed for a period of 60 days from the issuance of this order: “1. Transcripts from any plea hearings held on
November 18, 2008 and December 5, 2008. “2. Any plea agreements entered into the record on
November 18, 2008 or December 5, 2008. “3. Any government motions to seal and sealing
orders issued by the Court in relation to any plea proceedings that occurred
on November 18, 2008 and December 5, 2008. […]” December 5th, 2008 - Minute
Entry for Proceedings “Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge
Ricardo M. Urbina: Arraignment as to Jeremy P. Ridgeway (1) on Counts 1s and
2s held on 12/5/2008. Defendant sworn and plea of guilty entered as to Counts
1s and 2s. Court adopts the Plea Agreement and Factual Proffer filed in the
this case on 11/18/08. Status Conference set for 2/10/2009 at 10:00 AM in
Courtroom 30A before Judge Ricardo M. Urbina. Case not referred for a
Pre-sentence Investigation Report at this time. Bond Status of Defendant:
Defendant placed on previous Personal Recognizance Order entered on 11/18/08
with same conditions. […]” Case
File of Criminal Case II: U.S. vs. Jeremy P. Ridgeway |
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
U.S. vs. John A. Houston & Michael
Henson U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland Case No.: 1:09-cr-00232-AW-1 Filed on September 4th, 2008 Recent Filings: April 29th, 2009 - Indictment “[…] 1. Beginning on or about February 19, 2008, and
continuing until on or about February 28, 2008, in the Republic of Iraq and
elsewhere, the defendants, John A. Houston and Michael Henson and others
known and unknown, unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly did combine,
conspire, confederate, and agree together and with each other to commit an
offense against the United States, to wit, to knowingly and willfully, with
intent to defraud the United States, attempt to smuggle and clandestinely
introduce into the Unted States merchandise which should have been invoiced,
in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 545. “2. It was part and an object of the conspiracy that
defendants Houston and Henson would and did unlawfully, willfully, and
knowingly to smuggle firearms from Iraq into the United States. […]” September 4th, 2008 - Criminal Complaint “[…] 8. Houston was a Sergeant Major in the United
States Army before retiring from active duty on June 30, 2006. Houston served
as a Special Forces soldier assigned to a unit under the command of the
United States Army Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
After his retirement from the Army, Houston accepted a position (likely in
2007) with SOS International, Ltd. (SOSi), a company registered in the state
of New York, as a Department of Defense (DoD) Contractor under contract
number W9IGER-06-D-007. This contract relates to the staffing of the Iraqi
Advisor Task Force located in the country of Iraq. “[…] 12. On March 12, 2008, agents interviewed a
confidential informant [hereinafter referred to as CI #1] via telephone. CI
#1 is a U.S. Army reservist who was activated and deployed to Iraq in 2007
and 2008. Your affiant believes that CI #1 has proven to be a reliable source
of information because much of the information provided by CI #1 has been
corroborated by a second confidential informant; because information provided
by CI #1 to law enforcement has been acted upon and found to be true; […] “[…] 13. CI #1 advised that he met John Houston some
time before the fall of 2007, while stationed at Forward Operating Base (FOB)
Kalsu in Iraq. CI #1 advised that Houston was employed as the Operations
Center Director, Iraqi Advisor Task Force (IQATF) at Camp Victory, Baghdad,
Iraq. “14. CI #1 advised that Houston asked CI #1 on
approximately fourt occasions to smuggle firearms into the United States from
Iraq inside a ‘Conex’ box (i.e. a shipping container used to ship U.S. Army
equipment). Houston communicated with CI #1 via secured SIPR e-mail address john.houston@3id.army.smil.mil
and Yahoo! Mail commercial e-mail address ranger0565@yahoo.com, by
telephone, and in person. Houston used code language when not speaking
face-to-face with CI #1 to disguise Houston’s actions. In such situations,
Houston never directly referred to smuggling ‘firearms’ but, rather, referred
to said firearms as ‘stuff’. Houston told CI #1 that he had obtained several
firearms from individuals working for the security contractor Blackwater in
Iraq. Houston stated that Blackwater employees maintained a Conex filled with
firearms seized by Blackwater employees from Iraqi insurgents. Houston stated
that, after the Nissour Square shooting involving Blackwater personnel on
September 16, 2007, Blackwater employees gave Houston some of their firearms
because they wanted to dispose of the weapons before an investigation ensued.
Houston offered to give CI #1 two of these firearms if CI #1 successfully
smuggled all additional firearms into the U.S. […] “15. In February 2008, as CI #1 prepared to depart
Iraq with his unit, Houston made the last of his requests to CI #1 to
transport firearms for him. CI #1 contacted the U.S. Army Criminal
Investigations Division (CID) at FOB Kalsu and reported Houston’s request. On
February 17, 2008, acting at the direction of CID Special Agents, CI #1 sent
an e-mail via SIPRNET to john.houston@3id.army.smil.mil (i.e.
Houston’s SIPR e-mail account) advising Houston that CI #1 had a way to ‘move
some stuff’ in a Conex. […] Several days later, Thomas Bevier came to see CI
#1 and advised that Bevier was holding a bag of ‘stuff’ from Houston for CI
#1. CI #1 advised CID that the firearms had already arrived at FOB Kalsu, and
CI avoided Bevier for a couple of days before finally telling Bevier that he
could not help Houston with the ‘stuff’. […] CI #1 advised CID that the
firearms were being housed in the Containerized Housing Unit (CHU) occupied
by Bevier. […] “[…] 24. On March 19, 2008, a second confidential
informant [hereinafter referred to as CI #2] was interviewed via telephone.
CI #2 is a U.S. Army reservist who was activated and deployed to Iraq in 2007
and 2008. Your affiant believes that CI #2 has proven to be a relable source
of information because much of the information provided by CI #2 has been
corroborated by a second confidential informant […] “[…] 26. According to CI #2, in July or August of
2007, Houston advised CI #2 that Houston had some firearms that Houston was
trying to transport into the US. Houston asked CI #2 if CI #2 would be
willing to smuggle firearms back into the U.S. inside of MILVANS (Conex
boxes). […] “[…] 29. CI #2 stated that Houston told CI #2 that
Houston had obtained the machineguns from Blackwater contractors. Houston
said that Blackwater contractors maintained a Conex box filled with seized
weapons. Houston said that after Blackwater ‘got into trouble,’ they had to
get rid of the firearms so that they didn’t get caught with them. Houston
claimed that he was given the firearms by these Blackwater contractors. CI #2
said that, in addition to having the two AK-47s and two MP-5s, Houston also
bragged about having a British Sterling machinegun. […]” Case
File of Criminal Case III: U.S. vs. John Houston & Henson |
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
Estate of Himoud Saed Abtan et al vs.
Erik Prince, Xe, Blackwater Worldwide et al U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia Case No.: 1:09-cv-617-LMB-TRJ Filed on June 2nd, 2009 Consolidated with Civil Suit IV on June
2nd, 2009 Prior to June 2nd, 2009: Estate of Himoud Saed Abtan et al vs.
Blackwater USA, Erik Prince et al U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia Case-No.: 1:07-cv-01831-RBW Filed on October 11th, 2007 Consolidated with Civil Suit II on March
28th, 2008 Recent Filings: July 1st,
2009 - First Amended
Complaint “[…] Count Nine Against Defendant Erik Prince -
Violations Of Rackeeter Influenced And Corrupt Organizations Act (‘Rico’) “114. The RICO Plaintiffs are Estates of Abtan,
Abbass, Ali Khaleel, Abdulwahab Abdulqadir Al-Qalamchi, Sami Hawas Hamood,
Fereed Waleed Hassoon, Bara’a Sa’adoon Ismael, Sameer Hoobi Jabbar, Mohammed
Hassan Mohammed, Haider Ahmed Rabe’a, Hassan Jabir Salman, Estate of Mohamed
Abbas Mahmoud, and Zuhair Najim Abbood Al-Mamouri. “115. These RICO Plaintiffs all suffered property
damage to their cars during the Nissor Square massacre. RICO 18 U.S.C. § 1964
(c). “116. The RICO Plaintiffs bring claims under RICO 18
U.S.C. § 1962 (b) and (c) against Defendant Erik Prince. […] “[…] 119. The Prince RICO Enterprise is an ongoing
criminal enterprise that has been in existence since at least 2003. The
conduct of the Prince RICO Enterprise demonstrates a pattern and practice of
repeated illegality designed to create more wealth for Defendant Erik Prince
and the Prince RICO Enterprise. “120. There is no goal that accomplished, would
bring this Prince RICO Enterprise to an end. Rather, as evidenced by a
lengthy series of illegal acts - ranging from murder to tax evasion to
destruction of evidence - Defendant Erik Prince and his RICO Enterprise will
continue its racketeering unless stopped by this Court. […]” June 12th, 2009 - Order Granting Enlargement
of Time for Defendants to Answer Complaint “[…] This matter having come before the Court on the
Joint Motion of the parties for an enlargement of time, until and including
July 13, 2009, within which Defendants may answer or otherwise respond to the
Complaint, and good cause being shown therefor, it is hereby ordered that the
motion is granted; and it is further ordered that Defendants shall file an
answer or other response to the Complaint on or before July 13, 2009. “So ordered. […]” June 2nd, 2009 - Complaint “[…] 43. Blackwater provides armed forces to protect
Department of State personnel in Iraq. These mobile armed forces that
accompany diplomats and others in need of protection are consistently
referred to by Blackwater management and employees as ‘shooters.’ “44. On or about September 16, 2007, Blackwater
shooters shot without justification and killed multiple innocent civilians. “45. On or about September 16, 2007, Blackwater
shooters shot without justification at and injured multiple innocent
civilians. “46. According to United States military and
criminal investigators, none of the civilians was armed or taking offensive
actions against the Blackwater shooters. “47. As stated by a United States military official
on site in Iraq, Blackwater’s conduct ‘was obviously excessive, it was
obviously wrong.’ “48. At the time of the shooting and killings in
Nisoor Square, Blackwater shooters were not protecting any State Department
official. The Blackwater shooters had already dropped off the State
Department official under its protection prior to arriving in Nisoor Square. “49. Reasonable discovery will establish that, after
Blackwater shooters dropped off the State Department official they were
guarding, the Tactical Operations Center (manned by both Blackwater and
Department of State personnel) (‘TOC’), expressly directed the Blackwater
shooters to stay with the official and refrain from leaving the secure area.
Reasonable discovery will establish that the Blackwater shooters ignored
these directives from the TOC. Reasonable discovery will establish that
Blackwater personnel were obliged to follow directives from the TOC. “50. Blackwater shooters had no legitimate reason to
open fire on a crowd of innocent civilians. Blackwater shooters began firing
without any provocation. “51.
Blackwater is responsible for the actions of its heavily-armed shooters
acting in Iraq. […]” April 27th, 2009 - Memorandum Opinion “[…] ‘[I]t is entirely proper for this Court to hear
[the p]laintiffs’ claims so long as they bear a substantial connection to the
District of Columbia.’ […] It is unclear, however, from the plaintiffs’
pleadings and memoranda of law whether such a connection exists in these
cases. The Court would therefore be well within its discretion to simply
grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss or transfer and relieve itself of
further consideration of this matter. But if the plaintiffs had formally
requested venue discovery on the issue of the defendants’ purported written
submissions transmitted to this jurisdiction at the outset of the case, they
may well have satisfied the Court’s concerns about the ambiguity of their
assertions. To penalize the plaintiffs for this failure on their part would
unduly elevate the formal requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure over the substantive merits of the plaintiffs’ position,
particularly given the plaintiffs’ request for venue discovery in their
opposition to the defendants’ motion. “The Court will therefore provide the plaintiffs
with an additional opportunity to demonstrate the merits of their position in
its fullest form. If the plaintiffs fail to adduce record evidence or seek
venue discovery, or if the Court, having reviewed the plaintiffs’ motion for
leave to take venue discovery, concludes that discovery is improper for some
reason, then the Court will not hesitate to resolve forthwith the defendants’
motion. But the Court must make certain that the District of Columbia is not
the proper venue for these cases before it dismisses or transfers them. The
Court will therefore stay the defendants’ motion to dismiss or transfer and
the plaintiffs’ motions for leave to file amended complaints for the limited
purposes set forth above. […]” Case File of Civil Suit I re Killings of
September 16th, 2007 |
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
Estate of Ali Ibrahim Albazzaz et al vs.
Erik Prince, Xe, Blackwater Worldwide et al U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia Case No.: 1:09-cv-616-JCC-JFA Filed on June 2nd, 2009 Consolidated with Civil Suit V on June 2nd,
2009 Prior to June 2nd, 2009: Estate of Ali Hussamaldeen Albazzaz vs.
Blackwater USA, Erik Prince et al U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia Case No.: 1:07-cv-02273-RBW Filed on December 19th, 2007 Consolidated with Civil Suit I on March
28th, 2008 Recent Filings: June 12th, 2009 - Order Granting Enlargement
of Time for Defendants to Answer Complaint “[…] This matter having come before the Court on the
Joint Motion of the parties for an enlargement of time, until and including
July 13, 2009, within which Defendants may answer or otherwise respond to the
Complaint, and good cause being shown therefor, it is hereby ordered that the
motion is granted; and it is further ordered that Defendants shall file an
answer or other response to the Complaint on or before July 13, 2009. “So ordered. […]” June 11th, 2009 - Defendants’ Financial
Interest Disclosure Statement “[…] Accordingly, the representations below are made
on behalf of Prince Group LLC; Xe Services LLC; Greystone LTD; Total
Intelligence Solutions LLC; U.S. Training Center, Inc.; GSD Manufacturing
LLC; Blackwater Security Consulting LLC; and Raven Development Group LLC
(collectively, ‘Defendants’). “2. Defendants have no parents, subsidiaries, or
affiliated entities (corporate or otherwise) that have issued stock or debt
securities to the public, nor are there any publicly entities (corporate or
otherwise) that own 10% or more of the stock in any of the Defendants. “3. None of the Defendants are partnerships, general
or limited. The following [are] the owners or members of a Defendant,
excluding other Defendants, that are non-publicly traded entities such as
LLCs or other closely held entities: Samarus CO LTD. […]” June 2nd, 2009 - Complaint “[…] 17. On September 9, 2007, Blackwater shooters,
whose identities are known to Defendants and are capable of being ascertained
through discovery, used excessive force without justification and killed
Plaintiffs in and around Al Watahba Square, Baghdad. “18. The September 9, 2007, massacre was not an
isolated instance of misconduct by Xe-Blackwater. Xe-Blackwater has a pattern
and practice of recklessness in the use of deadly force. Xe-Blackwater has
created and fostered a corporate culture in which excessive and unnecessary
use of deadly force by its employees is not investigated or punished in any
way. “19. Xe-Blackwater routinely sends heavily-armed
‘shooters’ into the streets of Baghdad with the knowledge that some of those
‘shooters’ are chemically influenced by steroids and other judgment-altering
substances. “20. Through their acts and omissions, Xe-Blackwater
management encouraged shooting innocent Iraqis. Xe-Blackwater management
refused to fire or discipline ‘shooters’ who murdered innocent Iraqis.
‘Shooters’ known to have committed ‘bad shoots’ (i.e. murder) would not even
be placed on the ‘do not use’ list. Instead, Xe-Blackwater would continue to
rehire and deploy ‘shooters’ known to have killed innocents for no reason. “21. Xe-Blackwater captured much of the illegal
conduct on videotape and audiotape. At times, Xe-Blackwater would even review
the illegal conduct in a review called a ‘hot wash.’ Xe-Blackwater, however,
did not report or punish the illegal conduct of its mercenaries. Instead, Xe-Blackwater
intentionally destroyed the evidence of illegal conduct, and encouraged the
mercenaries to do the same. […]” Case File of Civil Suit II re Killings
of September 9th, 2007 |
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
Estate of Raheem Khalaf Sa’adoon vs.
Erik Prince, XE, Blackwater Worldwide et al U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia Case No.: 1:09-cv-615-TSE-IDD Filed on June 2nd, 2009 Prior to June 2nd, 2009: Estate of Raheem Khalaf Sa’adoon vs. XE
(Blackwater), Andrew Moonen et al U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California Case. No.: 3:09-cv-00561-W-LSP Filed on March 19th, 2009 Recent Filings: June 12th, 2009 - Order Granting Enlargement of Time for Defendants to Answer Complaint “[…] This matter having come before the Court on the
Joint Motion of the parties for an enlargement of time, until and including
July 13, 2009, within which Defendants may answer or otherwise respond to the
Complaint, and good cause being shown therefor, it is hereby ordered that the
motion is granted; and it is further ordered that Defendants shall file an
answer or other response to the Complaint on or before July 13, 2009. “So ordered. […]” June 2nd, 2009 - Complaint “[…] 19. On Christmas Eve, 2006, Xe-Blackwater
employee Andrew Moonen consumed excessive quantities of alcohol at a party
being held in an area of Iraq referred to as Little Venice. “20. Numerous other Xe-Blackwater employees were
attending the same Christmas party. They all saw Moonen become intoxicated.
They all saw Moonen leave the party in an intoxicated state carrying his
Xe-Blackwater Glock. “21. No Xe-Blackwater employee did anything to stop
Moonen from leaving the Xe-Blackwater party heavily-armed and visibly
intoxicated. “22. Xe-Blackwater employee Andrew Moonen, after losing
his way and stumbling drunkenly around Little Venice for a short period of
time, came across Raheem Khalaf Sa'adoon on guard duty. Moonen, visibly
intoxicated, pulled out his Glock and fired at Raheem Khalaf Sa'adoon,
killing him for no reason. “23. After Xe-Blackwater employee Moonen killed
Raheem Khalaf Sa'adoon, Defendant Xe-Blackwater evaded Iraqi authorities and
flew Moonen out of Iraq into the United States. “24. Xe-Blackwater thereafter promised to compensate
the widow for the death of her husband by making a series of payments.
Xe-Blackwater made an initial payment of US $20,000, but made no further
payments. The widow continued to believe that additional payments would be
made until earlier this year. […]” June 2nd, 2009 - Notice of Voluntary Dismissal “[…] Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(i),
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss without prejudice their claims against all
Defendants. […]” March 19th, 2009 - Complaint “[…] 18. On Christmas Eve, 2006, Xe-Blackwater
employee Andrew Moonen consumed excessive quantities of alcohol at a party
being held in an area of Iraq referred to as Little Venice. “19. Numerous other Xe-Blackwater employees were
attending the same Christmas party. They all saw Moonen become intoxicated.
They all saw Moonen leave the party in an intoxicated state carrying his
Xe-Blackwater Glock. “20. No Xe-Blackwater employee did anything to stop
Moonen from leaving the Xe-Blackwater party heavily-armed and visibly
intoxicated. “21. Xe-Blackwater employee Andrew Moonen, after
losing his way and stumbling drunkenly around Little Venice for a short
period of time, came across Raheem Khalaf Sa’adoon on guard duty. Moonen,
visibly intoxicated, pulled out his Glock and fired at Raheem Khalaf
Sa'adoon, killing him for no reason. “22. After Xe-Blackwater employee Moonen killed
Raheem Khalaf Sa’adoon, Defendant Xe-Blackwater evaded Iraqi authorities and
flew Moonen out of Iraq into the United States. “23. Xe-Blackwater thereafter promised to compensate
the widow for the death of her husband by making a series of payments.
Xe-Blackwater made an initial payment of US $20,000, but made no further
payments. The widow continued to believe that additional payments would be
made until earlier this year. […]” Case File of Civil Suit III re Killing
of December 24th, 2006 |
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
Estate of Mushtaq Karim Abd Al-Razzaq et
al vs. XE (Blackwater) et al U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California Case. No.: 3:09-cv-00626-LAB-BLM Filed on March 26th, 2009 On June 2nd, 2009 the case was
transferred to the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia and
consolidated with Civil Suit I. Recent Filings: June 2nd, 2009 - Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal “[…] Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(i),
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss without prejudice their claims against all
Defendants. […]” March 26th, 2009 - Complaint “[…] 24. This action is being brought against Xe,
formerly Blackwater, in all of its various corporate incarnations. These
companies (including a Xe-Blackwater company called Falcon that continues to
operate in Iraq), are all component parts a single private company wholly
owned and personally controlled by a man named Erik Prince. Prince and his
corporate entities earn billions of dollars selling mercenary services. “25. On September 16, 2007, heavily-armed
Xe-Blackwater mercenaries (known in Blackwater parlance as ‘shooters’) working
in Iraq began firing on a crowd of innocent Iraqis, without justification,
resulting in multiple deaths and injuries. The Xe–Blackwater ‘shooters’
involved in this senseless slaughter on September 16, 2007, are being
criminally prosecuted by the United States Department of Justice. One
Xe-Blackwater shooter has already plead guilty, admitting that the
Xe-Blackwater shooters were not being threatened and instead intentionally
killed innocents for no reason. “26. The September 16, 2007 massacre is one episode
in a lengthy pattern of egregious misconduct by Xe-Blackwater acting in Iraq,
Afghanistan and around the world. Xe-Blackwater created and fostered a
culture of lawlessness amongst its employees, encouraging them to act in the
company’s financial interests at the expense of innocent human life. This
action seeks compensatory damages to compensate the injured and the families
of those gunned down and killed by Xe-Blackwater shooters. This action seeks
punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish Erik Prince and his
Xe-Blackwater companies for their repeated callous killing of innocents. […]” Case File of Civil Suit IV re Killing
of September 16th, 2007 |
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
Estate of Sa’ad Raheem Jarallah et al
vs. XE (Blackwater) et al U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California Case. No.: 3:09-cv-00631-H-JMA Filed on March 27th, 2009 On June 2nd, 2009 the case was
transferred to the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia and
consolidated with Civil Suit II. Recent Filings: June 2nd, 2009 - Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal “[…] Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(i), Plaintiffs
voluntarily dismiss without prejudice their claims against all Defendants.
[…]” March 27th, 2009 - Complaint “[…] 11. This action is being brought against Xe,
formerly Blackwater, in all of its various corporate incarnations. These
companies (including a Xe-Blackwater company called Falcon that continues to
operate in Iraq), are all component parts of a single private company wholly
owned and personally controlled by a man named Erik Prince. Prince and his
corporate entities earn billions of dollars selling mercenary services. “12. On September 9, 2007, heavily-armed Blackwater
mercenaries (known in Blackwater parlance as ‘shooters’) working in Iraq
fired, without justification, on a crowd of innocent Iraqi persons in and
around Al Watahba Square resulting in multiple deaths and injuries. Mr.
Jarallah was among those killed in this massacre. This senseless slaughter on
September 9, 2007, was only one in a series of recent incidents in Blackwater’s
lengthy pattern of egregious misconduct in Iraq resulting in the deaths of
innocent Iraqis. “13. Xe-Blackwater created and fostered a culture of
lawlessness amongst its employees, encouraging them to act in the company’s
financial interests at the expense of innocent human life. The September 9,
2007 shooting is one episode in a lengthy pattern of egregious misconduct by
Xe-Blackwater acting in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world. This action
seeks compensatory damages to compensate the family of Mr. Sa’ad Raheem
Jarallah, who was gunned down and killed by Xe-Blackwater shooters. This
action seeks punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish Erik Prince
and his Xe-Blackwater companies for their repeated callous killing of
innocents. […]” Case File of Civil Suit V re Killing of
September 9th, 2007 |
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
Estate of Sabah Salman Hassoon et al vs.
Erik Prince, XE, Blackwater Worldwide et al U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia Case No.: 1:09-cv-618-LMB-IDD Filed on June 2nd, 2009 Prior to June 2nd, 2009: Estate of Sabah Salman Hassoon et al vs.
XE (Blackwater) et al U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California Case. No.: 3:09-cv-00647-L-JMA Filed on April 1st, 2009 Recent Filings: June 30th, 2009 - First Amended Complaint “[…] July 2007 Shooting “50. On July 1, 2007, a driver named Wala’a was
driving a minibus for three related families who were going to Baghdad
airport to apply for passports. The three families included (a) parents with
four children, including a three-month old baby; (b) an uncle; and (c) a
cousin and his wife. “51. As the families were returning from the
airport, six Xe-Blackwater vehicles, including three with turrets, surrounded
the minivan and opened fire for absolutely no reason. “52. The Xe-Blackwater shooters killed the nine-year
boy. “53. The Xe-Blackwater shooters shot the mother in
the back as she bent over, trying to protect the three-month old daughter
from being shot. She was unsuccessful, as the baby was shot in the face. […] “[…] February 2007 Shooting “57. On February 4, 2007, Suhad Shakir Fadhil, a
37-years old female was driving to office, which was located near the Iraqi
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Suhad Shakir Fadhil worked in media relations,
including at times working within the Green Zone for the United States Agency
for International Development (‘AID’). “58. Xe-Blackwater shooters shot Suhad Shakir Fadhil
in the head as she drove to work. Ms. Fadhil died shortly after being shot. […] “[…] March 2005 Shooting “74. On March 22, 2005, Messrs. Al Qaysi and Al
Rubae as well as another person were picked up at the Baghdad airport by a
paid driver driving Mr. Al Rubae’s BMW. “75. As the BMW traveled from the airport to
Baghdad, Xe-Blackwater shooters began to fire on the BMW for no reason. “76. Xe-Blackwater shooters shot Mr. Al Qaysi in the
head, killing him. “77. His widow and six children suffered and
continue to suffer from the senseless and violent slaughter of Mr. Al Qaysi.
[…]” June 12th, 2009 - Order Granting Enlargement
of Time for Defendants to Answer Complaint “[…] This matter having come before the Court on the
Joint Motion of the parties for an enlargement of time, until and including
July 13, 2009, within which Defendants may answer or otherwise respond to the
Complaint, and good cause being shown therefor, it is hereby ordered that the
motion is granted; and it is further ordered that Defendants shall file an
answer or other response to the Complaint on or before July 13, 2009. “So ordered. […]” June 2nd, 2009 - Complaint “[…] 22. On February 7, 2007, approximately 20
Xe-Blackwater employees in four SUVs escorted a U.S. diplomat to a meeting at
the Iraqi Justice Ministry outside the Green Zone. During the meeting,
Blackwater shooters took up positions on the Justice Ministry’s roof. “23. Across the street from the Iraqi Justice
Ministry sits the compound of the Iraqi-Media Network, a state-owned and
operated enterprise, which operates newspapers, radio stations and the
al-Iraqiya television station. (The United States provides assistance to this
network.) The rear gate to the Iraqi Media Network compound sits across the
street from the Iraqi Justice Ministry. A traffic circle known as King Faisal
Square separates the two compounds. “24. The three deceased were guards for Iraqi Media
Network, and were manning their guard stations on February 7, 2007. “25. Xe-Blackwater shooters located on the roof
across the street opened fire on Nibrass Mohammed Dawood, who was stationed
on a balcony overlooking gate. The Xe-Blackwater shooters hit him, and he
fell to the balcony floor. Xe-Blackwater shooters had no reason to shoot him. “26. Several other guards heard the shot and saw
Nibrass Mohammed Dawood fall. As they ran to his side to assist him, they too
came under fire from the Xe-Blackwater shooters. “27. Azhar Abdullah Ali and Sabah Salman Hassoon
were among those who ran to assist Nibrass. Xe-Blackwater shooters shot them
both as they were assisting Nibrass. “28. The Iraqi Army commander at the site, Captain
Ahmed Thamir Abood, received a phone call from the Justice Ministry telling
him that the shots were coming from the Americans stationed on the roof of
the Ministry. “29. Captain Abood rushed toward the Justice
Ministry, where he confronted the Xe-Blackwater shooters as they were
preparing to leave. Captain Abdood questioned them about the shootings. “30. Xe-Blackwater personnel refused to identify who
was in charge or to answer Captain Abood’s questions. They joked among
themselves, giving contradictory statements regarding to whom the Captain
should speak. Instead of answering questions posed by the Iraqi military
captain, Xe-Blackwater shooters loaded up their vehicles, released smoke
grenades and sped off toward the Green Zone. “31. The families later discovered from Iraqi police
reports that Xe-Blackwater had been involved in the shootings, and that the
shootings were described as ‘an act of terrorism.’ “32. Xe-Blackwater failed to conduct any
investigation whatsoever into the shootings. “33. Instead, Xe-Blackwater conspired with the
shooters to protect their identities from discovery and to evade any
accountability. […]” June 2nd, 2009 - Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal “[…] Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(i), Plaintiffs
voluntarily dismiss without prejudice their claims against all Defendants.
[…]” Case File of Civil Suit VI re Killing
of February 7th, 2007 |
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
Estate of Husain Salih Rabea & Ali
Kareem Fakhri vs. Erik Prince, Xe, Blackwater Worldwide et al U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia Case No.: 1:09-cv-00645-CMH-JFA Filed on June 10th, 2009 June 10th,
2009 - Civil Complaint “[…] 5. Plaintiff is the Estate of Husain Salih
Rabea. On August 13, 2007, Xe-Blackwater shooters shot Mr. Rabea, a 72-year
old Iraqi, for no reason, and departed without stopping to offer any medical
aid. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Rabea died from the gunshot wounds, leaving
behind five sons and three daughters. “6. Plaintiff Ali Kareem Fakhri is a student at the
Babylon University College of Biology. On August 13, 2007, as Mr. Fakhri was
driving on a public roadway in Hilla, Xe-Blackwater shooters opened fire on
him for no reason. Mr. Fakhri watched in horror as the Xe-Blackwater shooters
hit an elderly man in a nearby car. […] “[…] 13. On August 13, 2007, Xe-Blackwater shooters
fired their weapons without care or cause. Such willful and wanton conduct on
that date is part of larger pattern of misconduct by Xe-Blackwater that
evinces a conscious disregard for the safety of others. “14. Xe-Blackwater has a pattern and practice of
recklessness in the use of excessive and deadly force. “15. Xe-Blackwater hires persons known to have been
violent in the past, including former military officials known to have been
involved in human rights abuses in Latin American and elsewhere. […] “[…] 19. Xe-Blackwater videotaped and audiotaped
reckless and dangerous behavior by its shooters. Yet Xe-Blackwater did not
investigate, report or punish the demonstrable misconduct. Instead,
Xe-Blackwater intentionally destroyed the tapes. “20. Xe-Blackwater constantly operates in an illegal
fashion, sending a clear message to its personnel that they should consider
themselves free to act with impunity. As but one recent example,
Xe-Blackwater continues to provide armed protection services in Iraq despite
the fact the Iraqi government has refused to grant Xe-Blackwater the licenses
needed to do business and carry weapons in Iraq. “21. That is, Xe-Blackwater is providing armed
protection services under contract to the International Republican Institute
(‘IRI’), an American government-funded organization operating in Iraq.
Xe-Blackwater, seeking to obscure its continued illegal operation in Iraq,
directed its employees to enter into new contracts under the Greystone name
rather than the Blackwater name. But Greystone is simply another corporate
incarnation of Xe-Blackwater, and is not licensed to carry weapons in Iraq.
[…]” Case File
of Civil Suit VII re Killing of August 13th, 2007 |
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
June 2009 - Joint Audit of Blackwater
Contract for Personal Protective Services in Iraq Report by U.S. State
Department & Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction “[…] The Department of State, Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS), is
responsible for protecting personnel, facilities, and information - both
domestic and abroad. Over the years, DS has been unable to provide long-term
personal protective services solely from its pool of special agents, and it
has turned to contractual support. When, in 2004, on short notice, the
Department assumed responsibility for protecting Coalition Provisional Authority
(CPA) personnel in Iraq, it turned to contractor support. “In mid-2004, the Department negotiated sole-source letter contracts
with Blackwater Security Consulting and with Triple Canopy for personal
security services in Iraq, which were already providing personal protective
services in Iraq to the CPA under Department of Defense contracts. In June
2005, the Department awarded its second Worldwide Personal Protective
Services contract to three companies - Blackwater, Triple Canopy, and DynCorp
International, LLC. This report focuses on the Blackwater contract in Iraq
and associated task orders. “The total estimated costs for the Department’s contracts and task
orders with Blackwater for Iraq were over $1 billion as of May 29, 2008. The
contracts are funded primarily with Department Diplomatic and Consular
Programs (D&CP) funds and about $76 million of Iraq Relief and
Reconstruction Funds (IRRF). A joint audit by the Department of State Office
of Inspector General (OIG), Office of Audits, and the Special Inspector
General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR), Office of Audits, was determined to
provide an efficient way to review funding and performance under the
contract. […]” December 8th, 2008 - Transcript of Blackwater
Press Conference Transcript from
the U.S. Department of Justice “[…] We’re here today to announce that a 35-count indictment has been
unsealed in the District of Columbia. As you are aware, an indictment is
merely a formal charging document notifying a defendant of the charges
against him or her. All defendants are presumed innocent unless and until
proven guilty in a court of law. “The indictment unsealed charges five Blackwater security guards with
voluntary manslaughter, attempt to commit manslaughter, and weapons
violations, for their alleged roles in the September 16, 2007, shooting at
Nisur Square in Baghdad, Iraq. “Specifically, the defendants are charged with killing 14 unarmed civilians
and wounding 20 other individuals in connection with this event. In addition,
we can report that a sixth Blackwater security guard has pleaded guilty to
charges of voluntary manslaughter and attempt to commit manslaughter for his
role in the same shooting. This guilty plea also was unsealed today. “While there were dangers in Baghdad in September 2007, there were
also ordinary people going about their lives, performing mundane daily tasks,
like making their way through a crowded traffic circle. “For the safety of these people, as well as U.S. government personnel
and their own colleagues, security guards were obligated to refrain from
firing their powerful weapons except when necessary for self-defense. The
documents unsealed today allege that these six men disregard that obligation,
and in doing so, violated U.S. law. […]” December 2008 - Status of the Secretary
of State’s Panel on Personal Protective Services in Iraq Report by the
Office of Inspector General, US State Department “[…] On September 16, 2007, private security contractors working for
Blackwater USA conducted an armed convoy through the Nisoor Square
neighborhood of Baghdad that resulted in the death of 17, and wounding of 24 Iraqi
civilians. More than a year later, the facts are still under investigation,
and the incident continues to bring focused attention to the actions of
private security contractors operating in Iraq. “In October 2007, the Secretary of State’s Panel on Personal
Protective Services in Iraq (The Panel), composed of outside experts, was
assembled to review the Department’s security practices in Iraq following the
Nisoor Square incident and to provide recommendations to strengthen the
coordination, oversight, and accountability of Embassy Baghdad’s security
practices. This report examines the status of The Panel’s recommendations and
whether changes in operations enhanced the protection of U.S. mission
personnel and furthered U.S. foreign policy objectives. “In making this assessment, the Office of Inspector General (OIG)
visited Embassy Baghdad and sites throughout Iraq where private security
contractors provide movement and personal protection for U.S. mission
personnel, including Erbil, Kirkuk, Hillah, Tallil, and Basra. In addition,
OIG examined Department reporting on the status of the recommendations and
consulted with senior and operational-level officials in Management and the
Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS), Embassy Baghdad, Multi-National Force-Iraq
(MNF-I), and the three security companies under contract with the Department
to provide protective services in Iraq - Blackwater USA, DynCorp
International, and Triple Canopy. The evaluation was conducted according to
Quality Standards for Inspections issued by the President’s Council on
Integrity and Efficiency. […]” August 2008 - Contractors’ Support of
U.S. Operations in Iraq Report by the U.S.
Congressional Budget Office “[…] Private Security Contractors “Providing security for all personnel, including contractors, is an
inescapable aspect of U.S. operations in Iraq because of the instability and
violence in that country. Under current DoD policy in Iraq, the military
provides security to contractors and government civilians only if they deploy
with the combat force or directly support the military’s mission […]. Unless
special arrangements are made, U.S. government agencies and contractors, such
as reconstruction contractors, that do not meet that requirement must provide
their own security. As a result, the use of contractors to provide security
has increased - a well-publicized and controversial aspect of contractor
support in Iraq. “Private security contractors, or PSCs (also referred to as private
security companies), protect people and property in Iraq for U.S. agencies,
the Iraqi government, and private businesses, namely, other contractors
working in Iraq. Virtually all PSCs in the Iraq theater work in Iraq. They
provide personal security details for officials, security escorts for
government and contractor personnel, security for convoys and at fixed sites,
and advice and planning related to security […]. “Costs for Private Security Contractors and Subcontractors “CBO estimates that total spending by U.S. agencies and U.S.-funded
contractors for private security services ranged between $ 6 billion and $ 10
billion over the 2003–2007 period. Between $ 3 billion and $ 4 billion of
that spending was for obligations made directly by the U.S. government for
private security services in Iraq. The government’s obligations for those
services have amounted to roughly between $ 500 million and $ 1.2 billion
annually since 2005. DoD, DoS, and USAID have awarded all of the U.S.
government contracts for security services in Iraq. Since Iraq’s transition
to sovereignty, DoS’s security contracts have also protected USAID employees,
so USAID is not obligating new funds for PSCs in Iraq. “Contractors hired by the U.S. government that are not protected by
the U.S. military generally hire PSCs as subcontractors to provide security.
Neither FPDS-NG nor officials, security escorts for government and contractor
personnel, security for convoys and at fixed sites, and advice and planning
related to security […]. “CBO estimates that U.S.-funded contractors spent $ 3 billion to $ 6
billion for subcontractors to provide security services over the 2003–2007
period. That spending makes up the balance of CBO’s $ 6 billion to $ 10
billion estimate of total spending for those services. CBO calculated that
range by first estimating the value of the government’s service contracts
performed in Iraq that required nonmilitary security. That estimate - $ 32
billion - is based on the assumptions that the military provides security for
the LOGCAP contract, that contracts for products do not have significant
security costs, and that JCC-I/A contracted for products or services at a
ratio similar to that for all other in-theater contracts supporting
operations in Iraq. CBO then determined that contractors spend between 10
percent and 20 percent of that $ 32 billion on security subcontracts. […]” |
||||||||||||
|
The Lead Executives of Blackwater |
||||||||||||
|
Erik Prince |
Gary Jackson |
Cofer Black |
Joseph Schmitz |
|||||||||
|
Background 1) The burned remains of a car in Baghdad Thursday
marked Sunday’s shootings by private security guards that killed at least
eight people. - September 21st, 2007 - Ali Yussef/Agence France-Presse/Getty
Images; The Accused in the
Criminal Case 1) This handout photo provided by Evan Liberty’s
defense team shows Evan Liberty. - undated - Liberty Defense Team/AP; 2) This handout photo provided by Dustin Heard’s
defense team shows Dustin Heard. - undated - Heard Defense Team/AP; 3) This handout photo provided by Donald Ball’s
defense team show Donald Ball. - undated - Ball Defense Team/AP; 4) This handout photo provided by Nick Slatten’s
defense team shows Nick Slatten. - undated - Liberty Defense Team/AP; 5) This handout photo provided by Paul Slough’s
defense team shows Paul Slough. - undated - Slough Defense Team/AP; 6) Blackwater Worldwide security guard Evan Liberty leaves
federal court in Salt Lake City. Five guards were indicted for the 2007
shooting of Iraqi civilians. - December 8th, 2008 - Douglas C.
Pizac/Associated Press; 7) Blackwater Worldwide security guard Dustin Heard
and his attorney, David Schertler, rear, leave federal court in Salt Lake
City. - December 8th, 2008 - Douglas C. Pizac/Associated Press; 8) Blackwater Worldwide security guard Donald Ball,
center, and his attorney Steven McCool, right, leave federal court in Salt
Lake City. - December 8th, 2008 - Douglas C. Pizac/Associated
Press; 9) Blackwater Worldwide security guard Nick Slatten
leaves federal court in Salt Lake City. Wild, unprovoked gunfire and grenades
killed 14 innocent Iraqis and hurt dozens more in a 2007 Baghdad attack,
prosecutors said Monday in announcing charges with mandatory 30-year prison
terms against five Blackwater Worldwide security guards. - December 8th,
2008 - Douglas C. Pizac/Associated
Press; 10) Blackwater Worldwide security guard Paul Slough
leaves federal court in Salt Lake City. - December 8th, 2008 -
Douglas C. Pizac/Associated Press; The Lead
Executives of Blackwater 1) - 4) Erik
Prince, Gary Jackson, Cofer Black & Joseph Schmitz - undated - The 4
photos were published by the Viriginian-Pilot as part of an article on
Blackwater on July 24th, 2006. The original sources of the photos
are unknown. |
||||||||||||
|
Back to
the Second Gulf War/Iraq Invasion II Back to U.S.
Department of Defense |
||||||||||||
