Blackwater case dismissed

Perfect example of how the idiot curvelight tried AND FAILED to derail the conversation from Iraq to South Korea.:cuckoo: Korea had nothing to do with the conversation and there was NO SOFA in place in Iraq...so I'm right with respect to our soldiers status in Iraq until the current SOFA went into effect. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM WHO WAS ACCUSED OF COMMITTING A CRIME WERE ALL TRIED BY A MILITARY COURT....NOT THE IRAQI'S

This is what the conversation was about and then curvelight brought in South Korea...what's the matter...too much kimchee and soju?


You are one truly dumb tampon. You claimed our soldiers never face foreign prosecution so I used Korea as an example you are flat out wrong. Then funny gunny comes along tries to help you and reveals his own ignorance.

Here's an idea. Get about 5 or 6 of your ilk together and see if all your brains working together at full capacity would qualify to try out for Stupid Pet Tricks.

Ahhhh...right....OK.....
The subject was Iraq dumb fuck.....you lose.


You're the dumbass that claimed "no foreign prosecutions."
 
Essentially, then, the case is closed. I highly doubt that this will happen. :doubt:

The Civil suits may shed new light.

No they will not.

exactly....they will not be able to use any exclusionary evidence...and if the DOJ couldn't even put on a trial without using the exclusionary evidence, there is no way a civil case is going to win...and they won't even have to testify as the case also relates to a criminal matter....
 
You are one truly dumb tampon. You claimed our soldiers never face foreign prosecution so I used Korea as an example you are flat out wrong. Then funny gunny comes along tries to help you and reveals his own ignorance.

Here's an idea. Get about 5 or 6 of your ilk together and see if all your brains working together at full capacity would qualify to try out for Stupid Pet Tricks.

Ahhhh...right....OK.....
The subject was Iraq dumb fuck.....you lose.


You're the dumbass that claimed "no foreign prosecutions."

with respect to the subject of the conversation which was Iraq, Blackwater, Diplomatic Security and our troops IN IRAQ...then you butted in with some shit totally irrelevant to the topic at hand. Now trundle off little ankle biter.....go sulk somewhere else.
 
Last edited:
The Civil suits may shed new light.

No they will not.

exactly....they will not be able to use any exclusionary evidence...and if the DOJ couldn't even put on a trial without using the exclusionary evidence, there is no way a civil case is going to win...and they won't even have to testify as the case also relates to a criminal matter....


There are several civil suits in process which means a lot of investigating. If during that time investigators find new evidence that is not brought to civil trial it is quite possible the evidence could be used.
 
Ahhhh...right....OK.....
The subject was Iraq dumb fuck.....you lose.


You're the dumbass that claimed "no foreign prosecutions."

with respect to the subject of the conversation which was Iraq, Blackwater, Diplomatic Security and our troops IN IRAQ...then you butted in with some shit totally irrelevant to the topic at hand. Now trundle off little ankle biter.....go sulk somewhere else.


Your arrogance is so fucking predictable. Here ya go sooper jackass:

"American troops could face trial before Iraqi courts for major crimes committed off base and when not on missions, under a draft security pact hammered out in months of tortuous negotiations, Iraqi officials familiar with the accord said Wednesday."
Iraq: US agrees to limited Iraqi jurisdiction

How will you try to weasel out of this? It will be good for a laugh or two........
 
Under what circumstances does Congress grant immunity, Yurt? And to whom?

While you're figuring that out, go back to first premises. We're talking about a criminal prosecution here. Under the Fifth, nobody can be compelled to testify against himself (or herself). That includes statements under oath in court or statements given to investigators, interrogators or any other government entity eliciting information which could lead to criminal penalties.

The only way testimony can be compelled is under a grant of immunity from prosecution, thereby removing any criminal penalty for the forced testimony. With no possibility of criminal penalty resulting from the testimony, the Fifth is not compromised.

There is no reason to offer, promise or grant immunity other than to compel otherwise self-incriminating testimony - none. With me so far?

Blackwater was employed by the Department of State. No contract to which the State Department is a party, such as the contract between the US Government and Blackwater, can confer immunity for criminal acts. The State Department has no prosecutorial discretion and cannot use contempt powers, only the Department of Justice has that power. Think it through.

Any statement or testimony compelled by a government agent under promise of immunity, even if that agent cannot actually grant the immunity, cannot be used in court as evidence if that person is brought up on criminal charges. Further, no information gained as a result of the tainted statement can be used as evidence. The statement itself is a "poisonous tree", any information gained as a result is its "fruit" and also tainted

From there it gets complicated, but the gist of the ruling here is that the statements were compelled and therefore tainted under the Fifth. The prosecution did not properly insulate the rest of its evidence which resulted in that also being tainted. The judge dismissed the charges without prejudice, meaning if the government can get its act together and try again with clean evidence it is free to do so. I personally hope they can and do.

Sorry about the novel here but if you think about it, it really isn't all that complicated.

you really don't know that congress can and does grant immunity, yet you want to continue to debate this with me? good lord, a 5 second google search could have saved you this embarrassment....

do you even realize you just argued against your earlier statement? you just proved my point and the judges ruling....and yet, with all that analysis (spot on btw), you still don't know that congress can and does grant immunity....

i'm surprised....i doubt the government will retry the case....if they had a case without the excluded evidence, they would have built it...after repeated warnings from higher ups, the guys trying the case continued to use exclusionary evidence, a no no and an important foundation of our legal system. this case is done.

Read my post, dumbass., I said "usually". When you're talking about these issues there are all sorts of levels of complexity and nuance involved. Of course Congress can grant immunity in some cases. But they do not and cannot grant blanket immunity to individual criminal defendants. And they have not granted immunity that covers these particular defendants.

Riddle me this: If these defendants had obtained Congressional imunity from prosecution somehow, magically, without an Act to sustain it, how is it the judge dismissed the charges without prejudice?

"Without prejudice" of course meaning he did not find they are immune from prosecution, and can be charged again. With clean evidence.

One more time: The problem is evidentiary, NOT that these bastards are immune. Immunity, jurisdiction and evidence are three distinct and separate issues. Don't confuse them. Some of my earlier posts may not have been clear, and for that I apologize. But the only way immunity enters into the picture here is as it relates to the statements compelled from the defendants and the fruit of those statements. There is no grand conspiracy or blanket immunity, somebody just plain old screwed the pooch.

look asswipe, you said ONLY, your usual makes no sense when saying ONLY and when i mentioned congress you questioned me and asked for proof....not signs that you really believe others besides the prosecution can grant immunity

and AGAIN....i've never said it was anything more than evidentiary....your reading comprehension skills are abysmal....you have been arguing with me over my question to jillian about her claim that the state dept's grant of immunity does not bind the government's lawyers....you argued and claimed the problem with my question is ONLY prosecutors are usually authorized to grant immunity....

wtf have you been arguing with me when i said the exact same thing you said? :cuckoo:
 
You're the dumbass that claimed "no foreign prosecutions."

with respect to the subject of the conversation which was Iraq, Blackwater, Diplomatic Security and our troops IN IRAQ...then you butted in with some shit totally irrelevant to the topic at hand. Now trundle off little ankle biter.....go sulk somewhere else.


Your arrogance is so fucking predictable. Here ya go sooper jackass:

"American troops could face trial before Iraqi courts for major crimes committed off base and when not on missions, under a draft security pact hammered out in months of tortuous negotiations, Iraqi officials familiar with the accord said Wednesday."
Iraq: US agrees to limited Iraqi jurisdiction

How will you try to weasel out of this? It will be good for a laugh or two........

Your so fucking stupid it's pathetic...there was NO SOFA IN PLACE DURING THE TIMEFRAME DISCUSSED and you knew that....but you insist on being a stubborn bitch.

Now..would you please SHUT YOUR PIE HOLE...You lost...get over it....move on....get a life.
 
with respect to the subject of the conversation which was Iraq, Blackwater, Diplomatic Security and our troops IN IRAQ...then you butted in with some shit totally irrelevant to the topic at hand. Now trundle off little ankle biter.....go sulk somewhere else.


Your arrogance is so fucking predictable. Here ya go sooper jackass:

"American troops could face trial before Iraqi courts for major crimes committed off base and when not on missions, under a draft security pact hammered out in months of tortuous negotiations, Iraqi officials familiar with the accord said Wednesday."
Iraq: US agrees to limited Iraqi jurisdiction

How will you try to weasel out of this? It will be good for a laugh or two........

Your so fucking stupid it's pathetic...there was NO SOFA IN PLACE DURING THE TIMEFRAME DISCUSSED and you knew that....but you insist on being a stubborn bitch.

Now..would you please SHUT YOUR PIE HOLE...You lost...get over it....move on....get a life.


Here is your original claim from post 161:

(posted by pp)
"First of all...our military has the same rules applied to them...no foreign prosecutions allowed....you got that down yet?"


So how many times are you going to change your claim you dumb ****? You're so fucking pathetic you will never admit you fucked up because little bitches like you are incapable of anything but being ignorant arrogant childish twats that do nothing but whine.
 

Forum List

Back
Top