Blackwater shooting suspect is from Wash.
SEATTLE (AP) - Somewhere in Western Washington state resides a former Blackwater contractor who might under normal circumstances be on trial for the high-profile killing of an Iraqi in Baghdad's Green Zone.
But federal officials say he's not in custody. They barely acknowledge his existence, let alone release his name or discuss the status of the investigation.
The shadowy case highlights the murky legal issues surrounding the controversial security firm's Iraq-based employees, who may be exempt from both U.S. and Iraqi law.
"What normally would be a major option would be to have him prosecuted in Iraq," said Ron Slye, director of the international comparative law program at Seattle University Law School. "The problem is of course, under Iraqi law as put into place by the U.S., there's no jurisdiction over these people."
The Blackwater worker, 26, was wandering drunk around the Green Zone after a party last Christmas Eve when he encountered - and fatally shot - a 32-year-old guard to Iraqi Vice President Adil Abd-al-Mahdi, according to a congressional report released this week. Blackwater immediately arranged to have the State Department fly him back to the United States, fired him and fined him, and paid the slain guard's family $15,000.
Amid an outcry from Iraqis who questioned how an American could kill someone in those circumstances and return to the U.S. a free man, the Justice Department announced it would investigate. The case has been turned over to the U.S. attorney's office for Western Washington, where the man lives, Bush administration officials told The Associated Press, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
Mark Bartlett, the first assistant U.S. attorney in Seattle, said Tuesday he had no comment, joining a long list of federal officials here who would not confirm or deny anything about the former contractor's case. Robbie Burroughs, a spokeswoman for the FBI, said she could say only that the man is not in custody.
"It's been 10 months and the Justice Department has not done anything to him," Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney, D-N.Y., said in questioning Blackwater's chairman, Erik Prince, during a congressional hearing Tuesday. "If he was a U.S. citizen or in America, he would have been arrested immediately. He would have faced criminal charges. ... But if you work for Blackwater, you get packed up and you leave within two days and you face a $1,000 fine."
Federal prosecutors and legal experts interviewed by The Associated Press noted the incredible complexity in trying to determine who has jurisdiction over crimes committed by U.S. citizens in Iraq, let alone the logistical difficulties of actually building a case, accumulating evidence and deposing witnesses.
If prosecutors were to take the former Blackwater contractor's case to a grand jury, it would likely be under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000, which provides that any member of the military, Department of Defense worker or contractor, or anyone "supporting the mission of the Department of Defense overseas" can be prosecuted in the U.S. for crimes committed abroad.
However, that poses a hurdle: Blackwater was hired to provide security to the State Department in the Green Zone; prosecutors would have to show that the arrangement supported the Defense Department's mission in Iraq.
Another option would be to take the case to a military court. The U.S. Code of Military Justice was amended in 2006 to address crimes committed by those serving with the armed forces in the field, said Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice.
Cases such as that of the Blackwater contractor are "the purpose of the statute," Fidell said, but "whether it's constitutional or not is another good question."
The Supreme Court has held that civilians cannot be tried in military court - most famously in the 1950s, in the cases of women accused of killing their enlisted husbands.
Slye said one other avenue exists, however unlikely it may be: trying the former Blackwater employee under the 1996 War Crimes Act, which covers any U.S. national who commits a war crime. First, prosecutors would have to prove that the war in Iraq is an armed conflict to which Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies. Common Article 3 generally prohibits harm to anyone not taking active part in hostilities. The Bush administration has been hostile to the notion that the conventions apply in Iraq and the war on terror.
"If what this guy did was sort of arbitrarily kill someone with no reason, one could make the argument that that's a violation of Common Article 3," Slye said.
And beyond that there are the logistical concerns of gathering evidence and building a criminal case, he added.
"Those are logistical concerns, but I don't think they're insurmountable concerns," Slye said. "If what this gentleman did was relatively minor, you might consider whether it was worth trouble and expense."
But federal officials say he's not in custody. They barely acknowledge his existence, let alone release his name or discuss the status of the investigation.
The shadowy case highlights the murky legal issues surrounding the controversial security firm's Iraq-based employees, who may be exempt from both U.S. and Iraqi law.
"What normally would be a major option would be to have him prosecuted in Iraq," said Ron Slye, director of the international comparative law program at Seattle University Law School. "The problem is of course, under Iraqi law as put into place by the U.S., there's no jurisdiction over these people."
The Blackwater worker, 26, was wandering drunk around the Green Zone after a party last Christmas Eve when he encountered - and fatally shot - a 32-year-old guard to Iraqi Vice President Adil Abd-al-Mahdi, according to a congressional report released this week. Blackwater immediately arranged to have the State Department fly him back to the United States, fired him and fined him, and paid the slain guard's family $15,000.
Amid an outcry from Iraqis who questioned how an American could kill someone in those circumstances and return to the U.S. a free man, the Justice Department announced it would investigate. The case has been turned over to the U.S. attorney's office for Western Washington, where the man lives, Bush administration officials told The Associated Press, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
Mark Bartlett, the first assistant U.S. attorney in Seattle, said Tuesday he had no comment, joining a long list of federal officials here who would not confirm or deny anything about the former contractor's case. Robbie Burroughs, a spokeswoman for the FBI, said she could say only that the man is not in custody.
"It's been 10 months and the Justice Department has not done anything to him," Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney, D-N.Y., said in questioning Blackwater's chairman, Erik Prince, during a congressional hearing Tuesday. "If he was a U.S. citizen or in America, he would have been arrested immediately. He would have faced criminal charges. ... But if you work for Blackwater, you get packed up and you leave within two days and you face a $1,000 fine."
Federal prosecutors and legal experts interviewed by The Associated Press noted the incredible complexity in trying to determine who has jurisdiction over crimes committed by U.S. citizens in Iraq, let alone the logistical difficulties of actually building a case, accumulating evidence and deposing witnesses.
If prosecutors were to take the former Blackwater contractor's case to a grand jury, it would likely be under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000, which provides that any member of the military, Department of Defense worker or contractor, or anyone "supporting the mission of the Department of Defense overseas" can be prosecuted in the U.S. for crimes committed abroad.
However, that poses a hurdle: Blackwater was hired to provide security to the State Department in the Green Zone; prosecutors would have to show that the arrangement supported the Defense Department's mission in Iraq.
Another option would be to take the case to a military court. The U.S. Code of Military Justice was amended in 2006 to address crimes committed by those serving with the armed forces in the field, said Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice.
Cases such as that of the Blackwater contractor are "the purpose of the statute," Fidell said, but "whether it's constitutional or not is another good question."
The Supreme Court has held that civilians cannot be tried in military court - most famously in the 1950s, in the cases of women accused of killing their enlisted husbands.
Slye said one other avenue exists, however unlikely it may be: trying the former Blackwater employee under the 1996 War Crimes Act, which covers any U.S. national who commits a war crime. First, prosecutors would have to prove that the war in Iraq is an armed conflict to which Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies. Common Article 3 generally prohibits harm to anyone not taking active part in hostilities. The Bush administration has been hostile to the notion that the conventions apply in Iraq and the war on terror.
"If what this guy did was sort of arbitrarily kill someone with no reason, one could make the argument that that's a violation of Common Article 3," Slye said.
And beyond that there are the logistical concerns of gathering evidence and building a criminal case, he added.
"Those are logistical concerns, but I don't think they're insurmountable concerns," Slye said. "If what this gentleman did was relatively minor, you might consider whether it was worth trouble and expense."