|
The
War Profiteers - War Crimes, Kidnappings & Torture |
|
The Blackwater Killings in Baghdad |
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Newest Media Report: Security Firms Told They Lose
Immunity in Iraq: Official (20/11/2008/Agence
France Presse) Newest Government Report: DOD/State Dept.
Have Improved Oversight of Priv. Contractors (31/7/2008/U.S. GAO) Newest Legal Document: Reply in Support of
Plaintiff’s Motion (19/5/2008/Estate
of H. S. Atban v. Blackwater 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 Court Cases: Case File of
the Civil Suit I re Baghdad Killings on September 16th, 2007 Case
File of the Civil Suit II re Baghdad Killings on September 9th,
2007 The Media Archive: Diverse Archives: Diagrams
of the Killings - Diagrams included in New York Times/Washington
Post articles from September/October 2007. The Blackwater Killings - Short CNN Documentary from September 19th,
2007 |
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
November 21st, 2008 - Security Firms Told They Lose
Immunity in Iraq: Official 1 news
article by Agence France Presse November 14th, 2008 - Feds Draft Indictment Against
Blackwater Guards 2 news
articles by the Associated Press & ABC News October 28th, 2008 - Report on Iraq Security Lists
310 Contractors 1 news
article by the New York Times October 10th, 2008 - Blackwater to Check Itself on
US Arms Export Law 1 news
article by the Associated Press |
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Civil Suit I:
Estate of Himoud Saed Atban 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 several estates of
killing victims on October 11th, 2007 before the U.S. District
Court in Washington, DC. Civil Suit 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 before the U.S. District Court in
Washington, DC. |
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Estate of Himoud Saed Atban 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: May 19th, 2008 - Reply in Support of
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint “[…] Blackwater’s Opposition to the Motion for Leave
to File a Third Amended Complaint does not provide this Court with any
legally-sound reason to deny leave to amend at this early juncture.
Blackwater does not – and cannot – demonstrate the presence of any of the
‘adverse factors’ required to oppose leave to amend: undue delay, bad faith,
prejudice to the defendants, or futility of the amendment. […] “Blackwater’s only legal argument – that spoliation
cannot occur before a civil action is filed – is simply wrong. Lacking any
legal basis to argue any of the Rule 15 adverse factors, Blackwater instead
attacks the motives and personal integrity of lead counsel, claiming that
victims’ counsel filed the motion to amend in bad-faith in order to ‘inject
sensational and unfounded allegations’ into the record for publicity
purposes. […] “Such an attack is legally-irrelevant ‘table
pounding’ of the type a Defendant uses when neither law nor facts support
their argument. Nonetheless, because victims’ counsel has not had the
privilege of appearing before this Court in the past, the following sets
forth in detail why the victims’ legal team reached the reasoned conclusion
that the victims needed to file a motion to amend. […]” May 7th, 2008 - Defendant’s Memorandum of
Points and Authorities “[…] Plaintiffs have moved for leave to file yet
another complaint - the fourth to date - in Case Number 1:07-cv-01831, Estate
of Himoud Saed Abtan et al. v. Blackwater Worldwide et al. […] , seeking to
add a count for ‘tortious spoliation of evidence’ […]. Plaintiffs’ proposed
Third Amended Complaint contains groundless allegations of spoliation and
improper destruction of evidence relating to (1) the government-authorized
repair of damaged security vehicles in Iraq shortly after September 16, 2007,
and (2) the supposed shredding of certain unidentified documents in North
Carolina. […]. Because of the pendency of a motion to dismiss based on
improper venue, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend should be denied without
prejudice or deferred until after the Court resolves the venue issue. “At the outset, Defendants feel compelled to respond
to Plaintiffs’ brief, but inaccurate, incomplete, and misleading, account of
correspondence between the parties before this Motion was filed. See Memorandum
of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File
a Third Amended Complaint (‘Memorandum’) […]. Rather than burden the Court by
drawing attention to all the omissions and inaccuracies in Plaintiffs’
description of the events leading to the filing of this Motion, Defendants
attach to this Opposition an email chain between counsel regarding this issue
and invite the Court to review it. […]” April 29th, 2008 - Defendants’ Reply in Support of
their Motion to Dismiss “[…] Given the obvious error Plaintiffs make in
arguing for venue in this District under Section 1391(a)(3) and Section
1391(b)(2), this Court should dismiss both Complaints pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1406(a). Plaintiffs make no effort to rebut or even engage the arguments for
dismissal rather than transfer that Defendants made in their opening brief.
[…] Indeed, Plaintiffs persist in erroneously arguing against transfer under
Section 1404(a). […] Defendants, however, have consistently argued for
dismissal (or in the alternative transfer) under Section 1406(a). […] “It is appropriate for this Court to dismiss (or in
the alternative transfer) these cases under Section 1406(a) because that
provision controls when a case is filed in a district, as here, where venue
is improper, not merely inconvenient. Section 1404(a) applies by its own
terms to transfers ‘to any other district or division where [the case] might
have been brought.’ […] As demonstrated here and in Defendants’ opening
brief, dismissal is appropriate because Plaintiffs have repeatedly - with
three different filed complaints and a fourth proposed complaint in Abtan -
made no effort to connect their allegations to any plausible basis for venue
in this Court. “Defendants respectfully request that the Court
grant their Motion and enter an order dismissing in their entirety the Second
Amended Complaint in Abtan and the Amended Complaint in Albazzaz; or, in the
alternative, transferring both cases to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, where Plaintiffs concede that venue is proper.
[…]” April 28th, 2008 - Motion for Leave to File an
Amended Complaint “[…] Blackwater has been destroying documents and
other tangible evidence relating to the September 16, 2007, massacre in
Nisoor Square, Iraq. This conduct constitutes tortious spoliation of
evidence. The plaintiffs (both living victims of the massacre and the estates
of the murdered victims) therefore seek leave from the Court under Rules
15(a) and 18(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to file an amended
complaint setting forth a spoliation claim as an additional count and grounds
for damages. A proposed Order granting leave for the filing and the proposed
Third Amended Complaint are attached. The parties have met and conferred, but
Blackwater refuses to consent to the victims’ motion for leave to amend. […] “(2) Shredding of documents - On or before March 18,
2008, Blackwater executives Gary Jackson and Dave Jackson, as well as unknown
others, met in Blackwater’s North Carolina compound to discuss the company’s
legal exposures arising from the ongoing governmental investigations.
(Blackwater is under criminal investigation by the United States Attorneys in
both the District of Columbia and North Carolina.) During that meeting,
Blackwater executives directed that documents be shredded. After that
meeting, Blackwater employees shredded an unknown number of documents that
related to the company’s criminal and civil legal exposures. […]” Case
File of Civil Suit I re Killings of September 16th, 2007 |
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
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 March 28th, 2008 - Entry Case consolidated pursuant to order filed on
3/28/08. All filings are to made in the lead case No. 07-CV-1831. March 28th, 2008 - Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave
to Amend “[…] Plaintiff hereby moves the Court pursuant to
Rules 15(a), 20 and 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for leave to amend his
complaint. As set forth in the accompanying memorandum of points and
authorities, the proposed First Amended Complaint adds the Estate of Kadhum
Kayiz Aziz. Mr. Aziz was shot and killed by Blackwater during the September
9, 2007, massacre. […]” March 28th, 2008 - Minute
Order Based upon the response of the parties to the
Court’s minute order to show cause entered on March 14, 2008, and in
accordance with a minute order entered this same date in Atban v. Blackwater
USA, Civil Action No. 07-1831 (RBW) (D.D.C.), it is ordered that this case is
consolidated with Atban v. Blackwater USA, Civil Action No. 07-1831 (RBW)
(D.D.C.), for purposes of pre-trial discovery and briefing. It is further
ordered that future filings in these consolidated cases shall be made in the
first instance in Atban v. Blackwater USA, Civil Action No. 07-1831 (RBW)
(D.D.C.), and “spread” to this docket by the parties using the Court’s Case
Management/Electronic Case Filing system once consolidation has been
effectuated by the Clerk of the Court. It is further ordered that this case
is administratively closed unless and until the case proceeds to trial, at
which time the case shall be re-opened. Signed by Judge Reggie B. Walton on
3/28/08. March 21st, 2008 - Defendants’ Response to the
Order to Show Cause “[…] The Court entered an order on March 14, 2008,
instructing the parties to show cause why this case should not be
consolidated with Abtan et al. v. Blackwater Worldwide et al., Case No.
1:07-cv-01831, also pending before the Court. Defendants do not oppose
consolidation of this case with the Abtan case for purposes of pretrial
discovery and proceedings. Defendants do, however, oppose consolidation for
purposes of trial. […]” March 14th, 2008 - Minute
Order to Show Cause In the interests of judicial economy, it is ordered
that on or before March 21, 2008, the parties shall show cause, if any they
wish to assert, why the Court should not consolidate this case with Atban v.
Blackwater USA, Civil Action No. 07-1831 (RBW) (D.D.C.). Signed by Judge
Reggie B. Walton on 3/14/08. Case
File of Civil Suit II re Killings of September 9th, 2007 |
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
July 31st, 2008 - DOD & State Dept. Have
Improved Oversight of Priv. Sec. Contractors in Iraq Report by the U.S.
Government Accountability Office (GAO) “[…] Since the Nisour Square incident in September
2007, DOD and the State Department have taken action to improve oversight of
PSCs in Iraq,. However staffing and training challenges remain for DOD. In
November 2007 MNF-I established the Armed Contractor Oversight Division to
provide oversight and serve as MNF-I’s overall point of contact on policies
that govern DOD’s PSCs. MNF-I has also published comprehensive guidance
related to the oversight of DOD PSCs and has made military units more
responsible for providing oversight of PSCs in terms of incident reporting
and investigating as well as contract management. “However, while DOD has incorporated information on
working with PSCs into senior military staff and unit training programs and
exercises, this training does not reflect the increased PSC oversight
responsibilities and organizational structures established since the
September 2007 incident. Thus, military units may not be aware of and trained
on how to carry out their expanded oversight responsibilities and the
required incident investigations may not occur. “Further, while DOD has increased the number of personnel
in Iraq devoted to providing contract oversight and management over private
security contracts it is not clear whether DOD can sustain this increase
because limited number of oversight personnel in the workforce. In the
short-term, DOD has increased the number of oversight personnel in Iraq by
shifting existing oversight personnel from other locations into Iraq.
However, if DOD is unable to sustain the increase in oversight personnel, the
improvements in contract oversight gained by the current personnel increases
may well be lost. “The State Department has implemented 11 of the 18
actions recommended by a panel that reviewed the Department’s use of PSCs in
Iraq and continues to implement others. Among the recommendations it has
implemented or is in the process of implementing are recommendations to
install video recording equipment in its security vehicles, place a
diplomatic security agent in each PSC motorcade, and increase the number of
Diplomatic Security agents stationed in Iraq to improve contract oversight
and management. To provide these additional agents, the State Department
moved personnel from other assignments both in the U.S. and abroad which
negatively affected other Diplomatic Security missions. The State Department
has requested and received funding for an additional 100 diplomatic security
agents in its fiscal year 2008 supplemental appropriations request. […]” November 16th, 2007 - Memorandum/Testimony of
Howard J. Krongard Memorandum
by the U.S. House of Representatives/Committee on Oversight & Government
Reform “[…] On Wednesday, November 14, 2007, the full
Committee held a hearing entitled, ‘Assessing the State Department Inspector
General.’ At this hearing, Inspector General Howard J. Krongard testified
that his brother, Alvin ‘Buzzy’ Krongard, told him that he was not on the
board of Blackwater USA and had no connections to Blackwater. Yesterday, in
response to a letter from the CommiÍtee, Buzzy Krongard called the Committee
staff and said that contrary to Howard Krongard’s testimony, he did tell his
brother about his relationship with Blackwater. “The information from Buzzy Krongard raises serious
questions about the veracity of Howard Krongard’s testimony before the
Committee. To help answer these questions, I expect the Committee to hold a
hearing immediately after the Thanksgiving recess at which Howard Krongard
and Buzzy Krongard will be invited to testify. […]” |
||||||||
|
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 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 |
||||||||
