El Blog de noticias sobre Derecho Anglo-Americano

El Gertrude Ryan Law Observatory ha creado un espacio dedicado al análisis y comentario de
temas de actualidad en el mundo jurídico de los Estados Unidos, orientado a promover y
fomentar la universalización del Derecho en todas sus áreas


martes, 30 de octubre de 2007

El País: Gobierno iraquí retira inmunidad a contratistas de seguridad americanos

El Gobierno iraquí aprueba la ley para retirar la inmunidad a las empresas de seguridad extranjeras

Una de estas compañías, Blackwater, está implicada en la muerte de 17 iraquíes en un tiroteo

REUTERS - Bagdad - 30/10/2007
El Gobierno iraquí ha aprobado hoy una ley con la que retira la inmunidad a las empresas de seguridad privada, según ha anunciado el portavoz del ejecutivo, Ali Al Dabbagh. Así, este tipo de empresas, cuyas actuaciones a veces bordean la legalidad, podrán ser perseguidas por los tribunales iraquíes.

La decisión se produce apenas un mes después de que agentes de una de estas empresas, la estadounidense Blackwater, que bajo el paraguas de empresa de seguridad emplea mercenarios, mataran a 17 iraquíes en un tiroteo. Aunque no ha sido el único incidente en el que se han visto envueltas estas empresas, sí ha sido el más sonado, y colmó la paciencia del Gobierno iraquí, que estima que los miembros de estas empresas actúan en ocasiones como ejércitos privados que no rinden cuentas a nadie.

Por ello, ha aprobado una ley que deroga la Orden 17, una controvertida medida que puso en marcha en 2004 la Autoridad Provisional estadounidense tras la invasión del país y antes de ceder formalmente el poder a los iraquíes. Esta Orden daba a los contratistas extranjeros del Gobierno iraquí inmunidad en su actuación, de forma que no podían ser juzgados en el país.

"El Gabinete ha aprobado una ley que pone a las empresas no iraquíes y a sus empleados bajo la ley iraquí", ha explicado Dabbagh tras una reunión del Gabinete. La ley ha sido ahora enviada al Parlamento iraquí para su aprobación definitiva. Según la nueva ley, los agentes de estas empresas podrán ser registrados en los controles de las fuerzas de seguridad iraquíes y se les obliga a llevar encima sus licencias de armas. Además, las empresas de seguridad tendrán que registrarse en Irak.

Washington Post: Trabas en el caso Blackwater

Immunity Jeopardizes Iraq Probe
Guards' Statements Cannot Be Used in Blackwater Case

By Karen DeYoungWashington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, October 30, 2007; 9:41 AM
Potential prosecution of Blackwater guards allegedly involved in the shooting deaths of 17 Iraqi civilians last month may have been compromised because the guards received immunity for statements they made to State Department officials investigating the incident, federal law enforcement officials said yesterday.
FBI agents called in to take over the State Department's investigation two weeks after the Sept. 16 shootings cannot use any information gleaned during questioning of the guards by the department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security, which is charged with supervising security contractors.

Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Some of the Blackwater guards have subsequently refused to be interviewed by the FBI, citing promises of immunity from State, one law enforcement official said. The restrictions on the FBI's use of their initial statements do not preclude prosecution by the Justice Department using other evidence, the official said, but "they make things a lot more complicated and difficult."

Under State Department contractor rules, Diplomatic Security agents are charged with investigating and reporting on all "use of force" incidents. Although there have been previous Blackwater shootings over the past three years -- none of which resulted in prosecutions -- the Sept. 16 incident was by far the most serious. The Bureau of Diplomatic Security was under pressure to quickly determine what had happened in what soon became a major controversy in Baghdad and Washington.

It is unclear when or by whom the grant of immunity was explained to the guards. Under federal case law applying to government workers, only voluntary answers to questions posed by the employing agency can be used against them in a criminal prosecution. If an employee is ordered to answer under threat of disciplinary action, the resulting statements cannot be used.
"You can't use the fruits of that statement," another law enforcement official said. "It doesn't prevent them from talking [to the FBI], but . . . why run the risk? I think any lawyer would advise against it. "

Diplomatic Security spokesman Brian Leventhal declined to comment on the situation, first reported yesterday by the Associated Press. Anne Tyrrell, a spokeswoman for North Carolina-based Blackwater Worldwide, also declined to comment.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack referred all questions to the Justice Department. "But if anyone has broken the rules or applicable laws, they should be held to account," McCormack said.

Blackwater chief executive Erik Prince has said the personal security guards, contracted by the State Department from his company to protect U.S. diplomats in Iraq, came under fire in a Baghdad traffic circle and shot only in self-defense. But the Iraqi government, which has conducted its own investigation, concluded that the Blackwater guards fired the only shots in the incident and were completely at fault. A U.S. military investigation also concluded that the shootings were unprovoked.

Amid growing diplomatic tension and congressional criticism, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asked the FBI to take over the case to avoid an appearance of a conflict of interest between the department's Diplomatic Security agents in Baghdad and the Blackwater personnel they supervise.

Although the FBI maintains an office at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, a team of Washington-based agents was dispatched as additional insurance against what one administration official called a possible "taint" on the investigation's objectivity. To ensure a firewall, FBI investigators were barred from reading interviews and reports on the incident gathered by Diplomatic Security agents.

Several of the Blackwater personnel, however, asserted that they had already told their stories, under immunity grants from the State Department, and declined FBI interviews that could be used against them, law enforcement officials said.
The immunity claim rests on what are called "Garrity warnings" and "Kalkines warnings," both named after federal court cases from the 1960s and '70s that recognized the special circumstances of government employees in criminal cases involving their jobs. "The government wears two hats" when it launches internal criminal investigations, one law enforcement official said. The rulings were intended to protect the rights of government employees.

The FBI investigators sent to Baghdad are due to return to Washington early this week and will then turn the information they gathered over to the Justice Department, which will decide whether prosecution is warranted. An earlier case, involving the shooting of a bodyguard of an Iraqi vice president by a Blackwater contractor last Christmas Eve, was referred to Justice months ago, but there has been no prosecution.

Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

Law enforcement officials have said it is unclear whether the contractors are liable under any U.S. law. The administration has said it opposes a bill passed by the House last month that would place State Department contractors under laws that currently apply only to Pentagon contractors.

Administration officials have said that the Christmas Eve case has languished because of the legal uncertainties. But in congressional testimony last week, Rice said that the holdup was "not the absence of law . . . it's a question of evidence."

Private contractors have been immune from Iraqi prosecution under an order promulgated by the U.S. occupation government in 2004. This morning, however, Iraq's cabinet approved a law that would remove such immunity, Reuters reported.

Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh told the wire service that the new law, which has been referred to parliament, would allow the prosecution of foreign security companies for alleged wrongdoing. It would also make foreign guards subject to searches at Iraqi security force checkpoints and require them to carry weapons licenses. Foreign security companies would also have to register in Iraq.

"The cabinet has approved a law that will put non-Iraqi firms and those they employ under Iraqi law," Dabbagh said.

It was not immediately clear whether the new law would have any impact on investigations of security firm actions that took place before its passage.
Staff writer Dan Eggen contributed to this report.

Washignton Post: Daños Punitivos de Exxon Valdez ante el Supremo

Justices to Examine Punitive Damages In Exxon Oil Spill

By Robert BarnesWashington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, October 30, 2007; Page A03
The worst oil spill in U.S. history begat the costliest punishment in U.S. history, but the Supreme Court agreed yesterday to decide whether Exxon Mobil has been penalized too much for the environmental damage caused when the Exxon Valdez ran aground in pristine Alaskan waters in 1989.

The court agreed to consider the $2.5 billion in punitive damages approved by a federal appeals court for a group of nearly 33,000 fishermen, landowners and others who brought a suit over the environmental disaster.

Fishing boats connected to an oil skimmer by containment booms, patrol the waters off Erlington Island on Prince William Sound, Alaska, in this April 12, 1989 file photo, as workers continues to clean up crude left over from the spill of the tanker Exxon Valdez. The Supreme Court on Monday, Oct. 29, 2007, agreed to decide whether Exxon Mobil Corp. should pay $2.5 billion in punitive damages in connection with the huge Exxon Valdez oil spill that fouled more than 1,200 miles of Alaskan coastline in 1989. output += ' will be displayed with your comment.'
POST A COMMENTYou must be logged in to leave a comment.

Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Even though the punishment is only half the $5 billion originally awarded by a federal jury in Alaska in 1994, it is still the largest-ever U.S. punitive damages total. The award is on top of the $3.4 billion the company said it has paid in cleanup costs and other penalties for the oil spill, which polluted 1,200 miles of Alaskan coastline.

That, said the company's petition to the court, filed by Washington lawyer Walter Dellinger, is "more than enough to deter and punish anyone for anything."

Dellinger said in the petition that the damages award is not only the largest in history but also "larger than the total of all punitive damages awards affirmed by all federal appellate courts in our history."

Anchorage lawyer David W. Oesting countered in his brief opposing Exxon Mobil's appeal that the amount "represents barely more than three weeks of Exxon's current net profits."

The Supreme Court was urged to take the case by an array of business interests, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which said last year that these justices are the most friendly to business in years.

But in taking the case, the court said it will not consider whether the punitive damages award is so large that it violates the Constitution's guarantee of due process, as Exxon Mobil had asked; other business defendants have used that argument in trying to reduce jury awards.
Instead, the justices will consider whether the Clean Water Act and maritime laws allow for punitive damages, and if so, whether the award is excessive.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. did not take part in the decision to hear the case. Although he gave no reason, his 2006 financial disclosure statement shows that he owns considerable Exxon Mobil stock. If only eight justices hear the case and they deadlock -- as happened earlier this term -- the award will stand.

At the 83-day trial in 1994, the group suing Exxon presented evidence showing that ship captain Joseph Hazelwood was drunk at the time the Valdez ran aground in Prince William Sound and had turned over control of the ship to someone unfamiliar with the bay's reefs. More than 11 million gallons of oil spilled.

"Unlike any other shipowner of which we are aware," Oesting wrote in his brief, "Exxon placed a relapsed alcoholic, who it knew was drinking aboard its ships, in command of an enormous vessel carrying toxic cargo across treacherous and resource-rich waters."

But the company's petition argued that the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to uphold the punitive damages award "based on the misconduct of a vessel's master, contrary to the shipowner's policy and hostile to its vital interests, departs from the maritime-law rule to which every other circuit confronting this issue adheres."
The case is Exxon Shipping Co. v. Grant Baker (07-219).