First it was an Iraqi government investigation that concluded that Blackwater guards opened fire on unarmed innocents in the September 16th shooting incident that killed 17 Iraqi civilians. Then the Pentagon's report on the incident confirmed that. Now the FBI's investigation into the incident has also confirmed that conclusion.
Federal agents investigating the Sept. 16 episode in which Blackwater security personnel shot and killed 17 Iraqi civilians have found that at least 14 of the shootings were unjustified and violated deadly-force rules in effect for security contractors in Iraq, according to civilian and military officials briefed on the case.
Some of the details:
Investigators have concluded that as many as five of the company's guards opened fire during the shootings, at least some with automatic weapons. Investigators have focused on one guard, identified as "turret gunner No. 3," who fired a large number of rounds and was responsible for several fatalities.Investigators found no evidence to support assertions by Blackwater employees that they were fired upon by Iraqi civilians. That finding sharply contradicts initial assertions by Blackwater officials, who said that company employees fired in self-defense and that three company vehicles were damaged by gunfire.
Government officials said the shooting occurred when security guards fired in response to gunfire by other members of their unit in the mistaken belief that they were under attack. One official said, "I wouldn't call it a massacre, but to say it was unwarranted is an understatement."
Among the 17 killings, three may have been justified under rules that allow lethal force to be used in response to an imminent threat, the F.B.I. agents have concluded. They concluded that Blackwater guards might have perceived a threat when they opened fire on a white Kia sedan that moved toward Nisour Square after traffic had been stopped for a Blackwater convoy of four armored vehicles.
Two people were killed in the car, Ahmed Haithem Ahmed and his mother, Mohassin, a physician. Relatives said they were on a family errand and posed no threat to the Blackwater convoy.
Investigators said Blackwater guards might have felt endangered by a third, and unidentified, Iraqi who was killed nearby. But the investigators determined that the subsequent shootings of 14 Iraqis, some of whom were shot while fleeing the scene, were unprovoked...
A separate military review of the Sept. 16 shootings concluded that all of the killings were unjustified and potentially criminal. One of the military investigators said the F.B.I. was being generous to Blackwater in characterizing any of the killings as justifiable.
But here's the problem:
Prosecutors have yet to decide whether to seek indictments, and some officials have expressed pessimism that adequate criminal laws exist to enable them to charge any Blackwater employee with criminal wrongdoing. Spokesmen for the Justice Department and the F.B.I. declined to discuss the matter.The case could be one of the first thorny issues to be decided by Michael B. Mukasey, who was sworn in as attorney general last week. He may be faced with a decision to turn down a prosecution on legal grounds at a time when a furor has erupted in Congress about the administration's failure to hold security contractors accountable for their misdeeds.
Representative David E. Price, a North Carolina Democrat who has sponsored legislation to extend American criminal law to contractors serving overseas, said the Justice Department must hold someone accountable for the shootings.
"Just because there are deficiencies in the law, and there certainly are," Mr. Price said, "that can't serve as an excuse for criminal actions like this to be unpunished. I hope the new attorney general makes this case a top priority. He needs to announce to the American people and the world that we uphold the rule of law and we intend to pursue this."
Congress needs to immediately pass legislation that places American military contractors under either American criminal and civil law while operating in Iraq, or the UCMJ, or some combination of the two. Those people must be accountable under the law.
Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Comments
Hey, here's a thought. As the rule of law doesn't cover any of these security contractors couldn't we pay one of the other companies to....take care of the problem for us?
(hmmm...could be the basis of a reality TV show)
Posted by: Katt | November 15, 2007 10:14 AM
Clearly the FBI hates freedom and wants the terrorists to win.
I'm sure Bill O'Reilly is outraged by the way they're spreading hatred of America by reporting this just because it happens to be true.
Posted by: Ian Gould | November 15, 2007 10:42 AM
"Just because there are deficiencies in the law, and there certainly are," Mr. Price said, "that can't serve as an excuse for criminal actions like this to be unpunished."
I'm not trying to condone the actions of Blackwater. I'm appalled at what those men did. But I quote the above simply to point out the logical inconsistency of calling the action criminal and at the same time stating that there is apparently no law against it. If they haven't broken a law they're not criminals, no mater how heinous and deplorable their actions.
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 15, 2007 11:51 AM
It comes as no surprise that the State Dept. Inspector General
Howard Krongard has a brother, Buzz Krongard, that works as an advisor for Blackwater. When confronted by Harry Waxman yesterday, chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Howard denied any knowledge of his brother serving as a Blackwater board member.
Aren't we all proud of the brotherly love felt at the State Department? Just don't expect any justice to be served...
http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=940
Posted by: pensy | November 15, 2007 12:05 PM
Oh, come on Abby. Criminal behavior is criminal behavior. That inadequacies in the law may get them off this case is merely a technicality.
Posted by: tacitus | November 15, 2007 12:33 PM
As of this year, I believe PMCs were placed under UCMJ, but unfortunately I have no clue how they would enforce that. I mean seriously, a PMC is going to laugh at an Article 15.
Posted by: Brando | November 15, 2007 1:34 PM
I believe that currently only PMC's working for the defense department are currently covered under the UCMJ. In the case of these particular killings Blackwater was working for the State Dept. and therefore not covered by the UCMJ.
Posted by: ratel | November 15, 2007 1:49 PM
I find it funny that discussions about the Blackwater shooting seem to assume that Iraq is a law-abiding nation. I don't see any reason why in the war zone of Iraq, it is unable to declare the US occupation law invalid and prosecute these individuals based on pre-occupation law. Heck, I don't see why Iraq would have no problem punishing them under ex post facto laws.
To me the question isn't whether they can be tried. (Iraq could find a way, even if its legality questionable.) The question is whether we'd actually extradite the contractors to Iraq for trial. I doubt we'd do it but if the court system was fair enough for Saddam Hussein....
Posted by: Reed A. Cartwright | November 15, 2007 3:29 PM
Tacitus, defining criminal behavior simply by saying it's criminal behavior doesn't strike me as particularly helpful. I would suggest that a more useful definition is: criminal behavior occurs when someone breaks the law.
Otherwise the government gets to simply declare someone is a criminal. Is that what you're advocating?
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 15, 2007 5:37 PM
OK, the bottom line here is why is it that our State Department is using PMC's for security. Wars started by our Government need to be taken care of by our Government's military. As prior military, I find it embarrassing that my country cannot defend itself and needs to rely upon paramilitary to protect the State Department employees. Do we have _ANY_ integrity left?
Posted by: dr d | November 16, 2007 7:12 PM