Trump pardons Blackwater Security Contractors convicted of killing civilians

The wikipedia entry was sourced. http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/10/01/blackwater.report/index.html And maybe you don't trust CNN (I don't either), but CNN's claim is that Blackwater's own reports is that in 80 percent of the armed engagements in Iraq they fired first. So if CNN lied about that, Blackwater could have successfully sued them for libel. That didn't happen. So I accept that report as fact.

If a mob is violently approaching you in a war zone where such mobs have been known to surround and murder, and half of them are armed, you'd be a fool not to fire some warning shots.
 
Any of the resident Trumpers want to weigh in on this?

Blackwater Xe Academi mercenaries are massing at a secret location with sealed warrants as we speak and mustn't be interrupted.

Arrests imminent!

They may have, but I'm not going to take that as a fact because of a wikipedia entry. You're talking about a war zone. There are often legitimate reasons to fire weapons in a war zone, and sometimes if you don't fire first you won't get the chance to fire at all. I'm guessing you've never been in the military, or spent any time in a war zone.

How about taking it as a fact because a jury convicted them?

I dare say they had more information than we do.

So you're a coward. Fair enough, but I don't think that's anything to brag about.

Declining to volunteer to kill people he doesn't know for no reason in exchange for money isn't cowardice.
 
If a mob is violently approaching you in a war zone where such mobs have been known to surround and murder, and half of them are armed, you'd be a fool not to fire some warning shots.

Are there any circumstances under which you would convict military contractors who unloaded on civilians?
 
So you're a coward. Fair enough, but I don't think that's anything to brag about.

I don't agree that that makes me a coward. Soldiers of generations past who fought with a chivalry that would have them prefer to die than to kill innocent civilians indiscriminately were not cowards on account of that restraint and willingness to sacrifice themselves for causes they truly considered worth that. And I also didn't mean it as a brag.

But the only way I can make sense of you saying this is that you must believe the Iraq War was a just and worthy cause for a mercenary to voluntarily sign up to kill people, including killing innocent civilians as one of the hazards of the job, in exchange for money, and in fact that you support this so strongly that you think those who wouldn't voluntarily do that are cowards.

We're not talking about members of the military who had been wooed and lied to by recruiters right out of high school, didn't know what they were getting themselves into, and then found themselves stuck in an impossible position. If we were talking about kids like that, I would have more sympathy for them as another sort of victim of the crimes of people higher up than them right along with the other victims. But these guys aren't that.
 
Last edited:
unfortunately Trump is not libertarian.

that doesn't give the right for the democrats to destroy the integrity of the elections.
 
I don't agree that that makes me a coward. Soldiers of generations past who fought with a chivalry that would have them prefer to die than to kill innocent civilians indiscriminately were not cowards on account of that restraint and willingness to sacrifice themselves for causes they truly considered worth that. And I also didn't mean it as a brag.

But the only way I can make sense of you saying this is that you must believe the Iraq War was a just and worthy cause for a mercenary to voluntarily sign up to kill people, including killing innocent civilians as one of the hazards of the job, in exchange for money, and in fact that you support this so strongly that you think those who wouldn't voluntarily do that are cowards.

We're not talking about members of the military who had been wooed and lied to by recruiters right out of high school, didn't know what they were getting themselves into, and then found themselves stuck in an impossible position. If we were talking about kids like that, I would have more sympathy for them as another sort of victim of the crimes of people higher up than them right along with the other victims. But these guys aren't that.

They weren't soldiers, they were civilians themselves protecting other American civilians. You think they should be held to a higher standard then the military, I disagree. Civilians should be allowed to defend themselves whether it's here or on the other side of the world. It has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in the war.
 
Blackwater Xe Academi mercenaries are massing at a secret location with sealed warrants as we speak and mustn't be interrupted.

Arrests imminent!



How about taking it as a fact because a jury convicted them?

I dare say they had more information than we do.



Declining to volunteer to kill people he doesn't know for no reason in exchange for money isn't cowardice.

If you believe juries are never wrong, and the laws they convict on never unjust, then no one should be pardoned ever.
 
Are there any circumstances under which you would convict military contractors who unloaded on civilians?

Yes, if it's not self-defense. Civilian or military makes no difference. Liberals use the word civilian as if it means innocent victim. Civilians can be aggressors, murderers, and terrorists. The fact they were civilians is immaterial, both sides were civilians. We don't try self-defense cases in America by passing guilty verdicts automatically because the dead is a civilian.
 
They weren't soldiers, they were civilians themselves protecting other American civilians. You think they should be held to a higher standard then the military, I disagree. Civilians should be allowed to defend themselves whether it's here or on the other side of the world. It has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in the war.

I think the military should be held to the same standard. But I also understand the mitigating factor of individual members of the military who, unlike these mercenaries, didn't know what they were signing up for and who, unlike these mercenaries, couldn't simply de-enlist without suffering severe consequences.

Whether or not I believe in a war has everything to do with whether or not that war is just. This should matter to you too. If justice doesn't matter to you, then the moral failing there is your own. And whether or not a war is just has everything to do with whether or not a person should choose to go and fight in it as a mercenary. To call someone a coward for choosing not to fight as a mercenary for an unjust cause makes no sense.

We are not talking about anybody simply defending themselves. We are talking about people traveling to the other side of the world by choice to attack other people, when they could simply have not chosen to do that at all (and would not be cowards for choosing not to), and then while there, killing innocent people who didn't attack them. If it was also the case that there were other non-innocent people in the vicinity who did attack them, against whom it would have been just to use violence in self-defense, that doesn't justify the use of it against other bystanders, especially since, again, it was the Blackwater mercenaries who chose to travel to the other side of the world to put themselves in a position like this.
 
Last edited:
Yes, if it's not self-defense. Civilian or military makes no difference. Liberals use the word civilian as if it means innocent victim. Civilians can be aggressors, murderers, and terrorists. The fact they were civilians is immaterial, both sides were civilians. We don't try self-defense cases in America by passing guilty verdicts automatically because the dead is a civilian.

Okay. Let me rephrase my question. If unarmed civilians who weren't attacking those contractors were killed because the contractors recklessly discharged their weapons would you vote for a conviction even if the contractors had reason to believe they were being attacked by somebody somewhere? And this guilty verdict wasn't passed "automatically." They received a trial and by all accounts it was a fair one.
 
If you believe juries are never wrong, and the laws they convict on never unjust, then no one should be pardoned ever.

Juries are often wrong, usually by acquitting guilty people...

...but also, convicted people should often be pardoned, because the underlying laws are unjust.

However, this isn't one of those cases; these murderers should hang.
 
This must be coincidence, also. Certainly wouldn't be about clearing the names and reputation of his past employees, as he attempts a reboot.

'Blackwater is Back' - Erik Prince wants to reboot Blackwater (October 2020, entertaining read)
https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...ater-roger-stone-trump-2020-election-1077089/

The Blackwater founder wants to bring back his company's glory days — and he's campaigning for Donald Trump's help to do it. But he's haunted by past failures and is facing questions about a mercenary fiasco in Libya
 
Back
Top