| On Wednesday federal judge Ricardo Urbina denied a motion to dismiss charges against five Blackwater guards accused of killing Iraqi civilians in a bloody rampage at a busy traffic circle in Baghdad in September 2007.
Attorneys for the mercenaries in essence argued that their clients were unaccountable and above the law, arguing that the government had no authority to bring charges against the men. They were indicted in December on charges of voluntary manslaughter, attempted manslaughter and the use of a firearm in a crime of violence after a rampage that the security company later blatantly lied to cover up.
The five men who have been charged with loosing an unprovoked attack on civilians that left many dead and many more wounded.
The charges were brought under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000, which allows U.S. prosecutors to charge American service members, their family members and those employed by the military for illegal acts committed overseas.
A 2004 amendment expanded the act to cover those working "in support" of Defense Department missions, a provision that prosecutors argue covers security contractors, such as Blackwater.
Attorneys for the guards argued yesterday that Blackwater was not supporting the military mission and, thus, the Justice Department does not have jurisdiction to bring charges. The company, which has since renamed itself Xe, had a contract with the State Department and the guards were providing security for diplomats, not the military, they argued.
"What Blackwater was doing does not create jurisdiction over this case," argued Mark Hulkower, a defense attorney.
Although Urbina said the guards' legal arguments "are rather strong," he declined to toss out the charges. Such questions should be addressed by the judge or jury after prosecutors present their case in court, Urbina said.
Judge Urbina also rejected an argument offered by the defendants that the indictment should be dismissed because the government had no authority to bring the charges in the District, instead of the home state of one of the defendants. That rejected argument was just the opening salvo - the defense attorneys are expected to file a flurry of motions in the coming months with the sole purpose being derailment of the prosecution. |
