If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Activist Judge)   Liberal activist judges allow families of contractors killed in Iraq to sue Blackwater Security   (newsobserver.com) divider line 202
    More: Hero  
•       •       •

9426 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Aug 2006 at 4:35 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



202 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-08-26 01:56:41 PM
Why yes, yes they did allow the suit to move forward.

Not sure if I understand the headline, Sumby.
 
2006-08-26 02:01:03 PM
Wow. Blackwater security really really REALLY does not want that lawsuit to get anywhere near a fair hearing in an unbiased court of law.

Kinda makes ya wonder what they've got to hide.
 
2006-08-26 02:04:39 PM
Weaver95--The usual. And how much cash they've made. Which is to say, the usual...
 
2006-08-26 02:08:16 PM
hubiestubert: Weaver95--The usual. And how much cash they've made. Which is to say, the usual...

The real consquence here is they are an american company so they can run from the ICC (assuming the case tries to head there) if needed. However running will mean they effectively can't work anymore because they'll get cuffed for stepping on ICC territory.
 
2006-08-26 02:09:38 PM

Mainpage,late saturday afternoon, I'm going to guess and play this

img138.imageshack.us

 
2006-08-26 02:10:32 PM
The guys signed a contract saying they wouldn't sue. They were told right up front, and knew exactly what they were getting in to. The families have no right to sue whatsoever.
 
2006-08-26 02:12:32 PM
PhysicsJunky--If they have the cash in pocket, that's less of an issue, and I suspect that they will have sufficient funds squirrelled away in a Grand Caymans' account. This whole Blackwater Security thing smelled to the high heaven from the start, and I think there are plenty of details they don't want exposed. And I suspect there are plenty of folks who will pay good coin to keep this thing quiet, or them nice and calm, and with sufficient valuta to keep them that way.
 
2006-08-26 02:13:10 PM
Churchill2004: The guys signed a contract saying they wouldn't sue. They were told right up front, and knew exactly what they were getting in to. The families have no right to sue whatsoever.

I would tend to agree, but then union strikes go on in this country so this wouldn't be that huge of a step you know?

I still say they take it to the ICC because it happened overseas
 
2006-08-26 02:14:15 PM
Churchill2004
Any idiot knows those, not liable contracts are worthless.
 
2006-08-26 02:14:41 PM
hubiestubert: PhysicsJunky--If they have the cash in pocket, that's less of an issue, and I suspect that they will have sufficient funds squirrelled away in a Grand Caymans' account. This whole Blackwater Security thing smelled to the high heaven from the start, and I think there are plenty of details they don't want exposed. And I suspect there are plenty of folks who will pay good coin to keep this thing quiet, or them nice and calm, and with sufficient valuta to keep them that way.

They have too many people employeed, they can't pay out on each person injured.
 
2006-08-26 02:17:54 PM
Are they even suing for financial damages? Seems to me like they just want information in this round.
 
2006-08-26 02:18:30 PM
"It sounds crude, but basically our job is to be a bullet sponge." -blackwater contracter "gonzo", name withheld

The article (pops)

They knew what theyweregetting into
 
2006-08-26 02:20:37 PM
Action Replay Nick: Are they even suing for financial damages? Seems to me like they just want information in this round.

FTA
"A North Carolina-based security contractor lost a federal appeal Thursday in a wrongful-death lawsuit brought by the families of four men killed and publicly mutilated in Fallujah, Iraq, in 2004."

So yes, wrongful death would imply money, or it would simpy be public disclosure
 
2006-08-26 02:21:39 PM
Yagottabeshiattinme.
 
2006-08-26 02:21:55 PM
PhysicsJunky--Oh, the contractors did know what they were getting into. The question is still are some of the details that some folks don't want revealed, which may make payout in a settlement much more attractive soon enough.

Of course, if they do that, then they will be nibbled to naught soon enough. So, flight and bankruptsy might be the better option, after funds are set aside on the down low.
 
2006-08-26 02:24:20 PM
Crakerasscracker: Churchill2004
Any idiot knows those, not liable contracts are worthless.




Well, I'm no lawyer, but they shouldn't be. Companies that specifically need people to do dangerous jobs like this have enough to worry about without a lawsuit shoved up their ass every time something they know is going to happen, namely somebody getting killed/maimed, happens.

Lawsuits are for the wronged. These men were not wronged by their employer, they were told that this part of the job. End of story.
 
2006-08-26 02:26:38 PM
The last time we let a mercenary group set up shop here in the U.S. and paid them to recruit soldiers to fight a war for us was in the 80s.

The person heading up the group? Bin Laden.

Hosting a mercenary army on our own soil and paying them to fight wars for us has not proven to be a good thing in the past.

Additionally, if any of you have seen the videos that have gotten out of Blackwater guys driving down the street, shooting people at random for sport in Iraq, you can appreciate the need for control over the people fighting for us.
 
2006-08-26 02:28:15 PM
Churchill2004: The guys signed a contract saying they wouldn't sue. They were told right up front, and knew exactly what they were getting in to. The families have no right to sue whatsoever.

The families didn't sign any contract.

The families have every right to sue, especially seeing as how the deaths took place in another country, under a few different legal jurisdictions.
 
2006-08-26 02:29:32 PM
PhysicsJunky: They have too many people employeed, they can't pay out on each person injured.

If you look at how much money they've received from the government and compare it to how much money their mercenaries make, they easily have enough money to pay out on each person injured.
 
2006-08-26 02:30:40 PM
The families have every right to sue, especially seeing as how the deaths took place in another country, under a few different legal jurisdictions.

I dunno. I'm not a lawyer. But any time any corporation acts THAT guilty, I get curious.
 
2006-08-26 02:34:16 PM
SchlingFo: If you look at how much money they've received from the government and compare it to how much money their mercenaries make, they easily have enough money to pay out on each person injured.

You're kidding me. Sure, they're taking a awful lot of money, we all know that. Most of that is going toward expenses, helicoptors and such are very expensive to operate. Their profit is more in the hundred millions realm.

Figure at a couple million per head their profit flies out the window with lawsuits.

They have to fight this if they want to stay alive
 
2006-08-26 02:35:34 PM
hubiestubert: Of course, if they do that, then they will be nibbled to naught soon enough. So, flight and bankruptsy might be the better option, after funds are set aside on the down low.

That's my personal guess with public sympathy so far against them, puts Bush in a bit of a corner though. The military needs these people for the high risk areas
 
2006-08-26 02:41:42 PM
PhysicsJunky: You're kidding me. Sure, they're taking a awful lot of money, we all know that. Most of that is going toward expenses, helicoptors and such are very expensive to operate. Their profit is more in the hundred millions realm.

Figure at a couple million per head their profit flies out the window with lawsuits.


They don't have an army like the U.S. Army. They're not flying around in blackhawks or anything. 90% of their work over there is as security for our bigwhigs.

With that said, I don't know what their exact profit levels are. They bill their guys out at about $1,000/day, and their guys make about $100k-$150/yr.

Go from there, I guess.

They have to fight this if they want to stay alive

I'm all for them not staying alive. The last mercenary army we allowed on our shores and we allowed to fight for us ended up bringing about al Qaeda and resulting in the deaths of a shiatload of Americans.

We condemn other countries for having mercenary armies running around, and for good reason. We need to shut this one down.
 
2006-08-26 02:45:28 PM
PhysicsJunky: The military needs these people for the high risk areas

That's absolutely incorrect.

Here's what's happening with our SPECOPs troops:

They join the military and receive a whole shiatload of government-paid training. They get a few years experience under their belt, and then they jump ship to go work for Blackwater for 5 times what they were making in the military.

Essentially, the government is deciding to use our tax dollars to pay these guys 5 times more than what they have to.

All the government needs to do is bar any SPECOPs troop from working in a comparable position for a civilian company for 10 years after they leave the military.
 
2006-08-26 02:49:30 PM
Churchill2004--The crux being if the fellas were promised equipment that wasn't provided.

Not surprising in the least, since the Army is often put in exactly that same position, but this is going to be hashed out in the courts as to what was actually in the contracts and what was promised to be provided.

The lack of details for so long is what prompted the suit though--with the lack of details, it was assumed that they were hiding something by the families, and they pursued it to get better details. Had the company been a bit more forthecoming, they might have avoided the whole thing, and now, I suspect, that it is about punishing them for making the families wait so long to find out what happened. And I can understand that urge.

This is going to be interesting to watch.
 
2006-08-26 02:50:06 PM
SchlingFo: All the government needs to do is bar any SPECOPs troop from working in a comparable position for a civilian company for 10 years after they leave the military.

Like a non-compete for the army. I like the cut of your jib, sir.

If they would double military pay across the board, maybe more people would sign up for the actual military and they wouldn't have to pay these guys obscene amounts of money to do the work we should have soldiers doing. (Of course, the people running Blackwater are close friends of the Bush/Cheney cabal, so that's obviously not going to happen...)
 
2006-08-26 02:51:26 PM
Here is the decision (pdf, pops)

This appeal was about of jurisdictional crap between the federal and state courts and preemption arguments. The issue of the contractual release wasn't at issue. However, contractual waivers like that aren't sacrosanct.
 
2006-08-26 02:52:09 PM
SchlingFo: That's absolutely incorrect.

Read the article from CNN I posted up top, they're not going to camp.

I'm not defending the practice, I don't really care about the issue
 
2006-08-26 02:53:36 PM
SchlingFo: All the government needs to do is bar any SPECOPs troop from working in a comparable position for a civilian company for 10 years after they leave the military.

While we're dreaming, we should also bar former adminstration officals, government agency employees and any former office holder from joining or forming a lobbying firm for 10 years after they leave office. They can go flip burgers or something after their term of public service is up, but they shouldn't be allowed to influence public policy after their no longer accountable to the public!
 
2006-08-26 02:57:02 PM
Weaver95: While we're dreaming, we should also bar former adminstration officals, government agency employees and any former office holder from joining or forming a lobbying firm for 10 years after they leave office.

No kidding, though I'm not sure we'd still have a government if that happened. I certainly wouldn't put up with it without a pay out.
 
2006-08-26 02:59:04 PM
Weaver95--Not a bad idea at all. Would certainly put a serious crimp though in military contracts and lobbying firms.

Which is why the folks who pay our Congresscritters would never stand for it...
 
2006-08-26 03:09:04 PM
PhysicsJunky: Read the article from CNN I posted up top, they're not going to camp.

I'm not defending the practice, I don't really care about the issue


The reason the military is short on SPECOPs personnel is because they're all leaving to go work for Blackwater and other mercenary groups.

The trained personnel are available. Our government is just choosing to let them work for Blackwater and paying 5 times what we have.

I had to sign a non-compete when I signed on for my current position, and my job isn't anywhere near as essential as SPECOPs.

So, to reiterate, the entire reason the military doesn't have the personnel is because the military is letting the personnel go work for Blackwater and other mercenary groups.

Make them sign non-compete agreements, and the problem goes away. Taxpayers save money. We get back control over the people fighting for us. Everyone wins except for a handful of executives.
 
2006-08-26 03:20:47 PM
do these guys have brothels to keep them busy while they are over there?
 
2006-08-26 03:33:21 PM
My big ? is why are there contrators duing the military's work in Iraq in the 1st place. B/c Bush screwed up so. These companies are paying these people up to $100,000 EACH.

Makes you wonder why. I also qwould refrain from calling the judges activits. These companioes ahve to be answerable to the people. After thye got paid our money. Someday we will all get to judge the horrors of what Bushie did!
 
2006-08-26 03:52:38 PM
The right to sue can't be negotiated (if I've got my law correct). Certainly, Blackwater's liability for such an event can be waived (and very likely has been) but much like the right to vote, you cannot contract away your right to sue.

If the contractors signed a contract agreeing that Blackwater has no liability for anything that happens to them in Iraq, then the families are just wasting everyone's time and money. They'll lose their case. But they still have the right to sue.
 
2006-08-26 03:55:41 PM
You can contract away your right to sue. Such covenants are routinely included in contracts and settlement agreements. You could still "bring suit" but if the covenant is enforceable (there are a number of requirements) it will be dismissed very quickly.
 
2006-08-26 04:00:35 PM
Abagadro: You could still "bring suit" but if the covenant is enforceable (there are a number of requirements) it will be dismissed very quickly.

I see. Good to know.
 
2006-08-26 04:06:35 PM
SchlingFo

Additionally, if any of you have seen the videos that have gotten out of Blackwater guys driving down the street, shooting people at random for sport in Iraq, you can appreciate the need for control over the people fighting for us.

I've seen them, and while the Elvis soundtrack is in questionable taste, there's no way to tell that they were shooting people "at random for sport".
 
2006-08-26 04:43:50 PM
Blackwater is shady - no getting around it - they can field a private army for use against sovreign states. Who goes into business for that? Psychopaths?? I'd love to see their business plan. It probably has dollar breakdowns for their cost effectiveness vs government troops. "Go with Blackwater! You get more kills for your dollar!" or maybe another catchy slogan. "Blackwater - The Geneva convention is for Pussies!"
 
2006-08-26 04:45:01 PM
They died during an 'act of war or terrorism', insurance won't pay, I'm not so sure Blackwater will have to. They have zero control over the events that brought the death of the contractors.

There was no 'assumed sercurity or safety' measures in place in a location of ongoing military action.

If this does go through, I expect to see families of reporters suing the stations they worked for that were killed in a war zone.
 
2006-08-26 04:46:16 PM
Churchill2004: They were told right up front, and knew exactly what they were getting in to.

made me think of this guy:

www.photosagogo.com
 
2006-08-26 04:47:05 PM
www.indcjournal.com
 
2006-08-26 04:47:50 PM
So does "Support the Troops" include mercenaries?

If yes are supposed to support the individual mercenaries on the ground who get shot at for several times the pay of soldiers doing the same work or the mercenary companies as a whole?

Do mercenaries fall under geneva either in terms of what they can do or what can be done to them or are they more like illegal combatants opperating beyond the law?

If American contractors can't be prosecuted under local laws in Iraq because Americans granted themselve immunity when they wrote those laws and they can't be brought in front of the International Criminal Court because Americans are immune there too and they can't be sued or sue in American courts because it is outside their jurisdiction who exactly makes sure that they play by the rules? Do they actually have any rules they must follow?
 
2006-08-26 04:49:11 PM
"2006-08-26 02:45:28 PM SchlingFo [TotalFark]

PhysicsJunky: The military needs these people for the high risk areas

That's absolutely incorrect.

Here's what's happening with our SPECOPs troops:

They join the military and receive a whole shiatload of government-paid training. They get a few years experience under their belt, and then they jump ship to go work for Blackwater for 5 times what they were making in the military.

Essentially, the government is deciding to use our tax dollars to pay these guys 5 times more than what they have to.

All the government needs to do is bar any SPECOPs troop from working in a comparable position for a civilian company for 10 years after they leave the military."


Hmmm. Well, my brother is a Navy S.E.A.L. in Afghan, currently. He has served for about 10 years. He HAS been very highly trained, he has also put himself in considerable peril, but he loves his job. SO when he gets out, after he fullfils the terms of his enlistment, he should be free to use those skills. You can't "jump ship" out of the military!!! Its called going AWOL, and they come and take you to jail. If you serve the terms of your enlistment, why can't you use your skills? Thats like saying someone who goes to college and gets an engineering degree, can't be an engineer for 10 years. Tuition pays for some, but not all of schools expenses. A lot comes from the state, Federal gov. or endowments,etc. Oh, and BTW, this company tried to recruit him ,but he re-upped and taught BUDS instead.
 
2006-08-26 04:49:14 PM
SchlingFo: Make them sign non-compete agreements, and the problem goes away. Taxpayers save money. We get back control over the people fighting for us. Everyone wins except for a handful of executives.

lol, did u forget you live in the United States? Silly infidel swine.
 
2006-08-26 04:50:34 PM
Schling:
The US paid Bin Laden to fight to Soviets the same way Saddam paid the 9-11 hijackers.

/They didn't
//They had a common goal but there was no money connection
 
2006-08-26 04:51:49 PM
As I sit here in Iraq, awaiting my next trip to Fallujah, I say this... If I happen to eat a mortar walking out of my tent tomorrow morning, my wife will not sue. If I am captured and tortured and publicly beheaded, she will not sue. We knew the risks of this job when I signed up. If these people want info, give them an eye full. But I think once they have the info, they will just try to twist it into a further lawsuit.
 
2006-08-26 04:52:39 PM
churchill2004 Lawsuits are for the wronged. These men were not wronged by their employer, they were told that this part of the job. End of story.

If you finished reading the story, it also said this:
The families charged in the lawsuit that Blackwater hadn't provided their employees with crucial things that they had been promised: armored vehicles, maps, machine guns, additional personnel and time to familiarize themselves with the area. These things could have prevented the deaths, family members have said.
 
2006-08-26 04:52:45 PM
SchlingFo

Everyone wins except for a handful of executives.

Except, of course, the men in these jobs that don't get to make the larger amount of money. But they don't matter. Just bullet sponges, afterall.
 
2006-08-26 04:53:18 PM
Churchill2004 The guys signed a contract saying they wouldn't sue. They were told right up front, and knew exactly what they were getting in to. The families have no right to sue whatsoever.

Signing away your right to sue in advance of a possible unknown tort means nothing. It is a psychological ploy with no legal meaning and no basis in law. Example: the so-called dude rench waiver, yet dude ranches get sued anyway when a horse injures someone.

Go back to law school.
 
Displayed 50 of 202 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report