Blackwater case dismissed

[PatekPhilippe]

You said it in your first sentence Dr. The prosecution MUST prove it beyond a reasonable doubt...if you incriminate yourself you just made their job easier.

So now it's not about the truth, but how 'easy' you make it for others to find you guilty if you committed a crime? I would say if you incriminate yourself you've more likely than not done something wrong....

That's the beauty of our system....and the horror of it too....innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. NO OTHER COUNTRY has the presumption of innocence of the accused with respect to their legal system. That's why your statement in the reply to Si Modo doesn't make sense. If you are in front of a judge in court and are asked if you committed a crime then you are ALREADY A SUSPECT!!! Why else would you be asked a question like this in court? When you incriminate yourself you just admitted to breaking the law. How is that "not done something wrong"?

 

[eots]

we should just waterboard everybody periodically then we could all be safe and protect are freedoms and liberties while insuring our security

 

[PatekPhilippe]

we should just waterboard everybody periodically then we could all be safe and protect are freedoms and liberties while insuring our security

I agree...let's start with you and find out why you believe all those fucked up conspiracy theories and who is your handler.

 

[Si modo]

It's part of our system down here too. You have to prove a charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

As for the fifth...let's see, a guy gets asked a question in front of a Grand Jury and takes the fifth. I've gone from not knowing whether the guy is in some way guilty, to definitely thinking they are guilty of at least something, why take the fifth otherwise. ....

Your attitude is EXACTLY the reason for the 5th. Presumed innocent.

.... The irony being, I'm sure it was put in to make ineligible statements made under duress...when taking into consideration this thread...

Let me in on the irony.

1) So I go into a court knowing NOTHING about a case, and a person takes the fifth and so now I'm going to believe he is more innocent? Don't think so. How about if they just told the truth - unless they have something to hide...
2) Irony being that this judge has decided the the govt didn't fulfil its side of the bargain with regard to Blackwater, which in my opinion goes against the spirit of the fifth, while at the same time we're talking about Iraq, where I'm sure many a statement has been made under duress. Something the fifth was probably put in place to stop. Now you see the irony?

Nope, I do not see the irony. And you don't get the Fifth. But thankfully, you won't be serving on any juries here.

 

[Dr Grump]

You said it in your first sentence Dr. The prosecution MUST prove it beyond a reasonable doubt...if you incriminate yourself you just made their job easier.

So now it's not about the truth, but how 'easy' you make it for others to find you guilty if you committed a crime? I would say if you incriminate yourself you've more likely than not done something wrong....

That's the beauty of our system....and the horror of it too....innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. NO OTHER COUNTRY has the presumption of innocence of the accused with respect to their legal system. That's why your statement in the reply to Si Modo doesn't make sense. If you are in front of a judge in court and are asked if you committed a crime then you are ALREADY A SUSPECT!!! Why else would you be asked a question like this in court? When you incriminate yourself you just admitted to breaking the law. How is that "not done something wrong"?

If you think you are the only country in the world that has the presumption of innocence until proven guilty then you have obviously not studied the NZ system. Exactly the same.

Yeah, but why take the fifth. If I didn't commit the crime, I wouldn't take the fifth, I'd say I didn't do it. How is that incriminating me? ie "Did you kill such and such"...instead of taking the fifth, I say "No way did I do that"..How am I incriminating myself...

Um, you can only incriminate yourself if you admit to committing the crime, or at least in part,

 

[Dr Grump]

Your attitude is EXACTLY the reason for the 5th. Presumed innocent.

Let me in on the irony.

1) So I go into a court knowing NOTHING about a case, and a person takes the fifth and so now I'm going to believe he is more innocent? Don't think so. How about if they just told the truth - unless they have something to hide...
2) Irony being that this judge has decided the the govt didn't fulfil its side of the bargain with regard to Blackwater, which in my opinion goes against the spirit of the fifth, while at the same time we're talking about Iraq, where I'm sure many a statement has been made under duress. Something the fifth was probably put in place to stop. Now you see the irony?

Nope, I do not see the irony. And you don't get the Fifth. But thankfully, you won't be serving on any juries here.

I am not surprised you don't get the irony...

...and if you think I am the only person who thinks that while on jury duty I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn..

...it's like when a jury is told by a judge to "disregard that testimony". Do you think they do? If so, the bridge just got a little cheaper if you're interested...

The fifth is very easy to get...

 

[Colin]

You said it in your first sentence Dr. The prosecution MUST prove it beyond a reasonable doubt...if you incriminate yourself you just made their job easier.

So now it's not about the truth, but how 'easy' you make it for others to find you guilty if you committed a crime? I would say if you incriminate yourself you've more likely than not done something wrong....

That's the beauty of our system....and the horror of it too....innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. NO OTHER COUNTRY has the presumption of innocence of the accused with respect to their legal system. That's why your statement in the reply to Si Modo doesn't make sense. If you are in front of a judge in court and are asked if you committed a crime then you are ALREADY A SUSPECT!!! Why else would you be asked a question like this in court? When you incriminate yourself you just admitted to breaking the law. How is that "not done something wrong"?

Actually the presumption of innocence – being considered innocent until proven guilty – is a legal right that the accused in criminal trials has in most 'civilised' countries and ALL countries belonging to the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, which has to convince the court that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In principle, the defense does not have to 'prove' anything. It certainly isn't unique to the USA.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

1) So I go into a court knowing NOTHING about a case, and a person takes the fifth and so now I'm going to believe he is more innocent? Don't think so. How about if they just told the truth - unless they have something to hide...
2) Irony being that this judge has decided the the govt didn't fulfil its side of the bargain with regard to Blackwater, which in my opinion goes against the spirit of the fifth, while at the same time we're talking about Iraq, where I'm sure many a statement has been made under duress. Something the fifth was probably put in place to stop. Now you see the irony?

Nope, I do not see the irony. And you don't get the Fifth. But thankfully, you won't be serving on any juries here.

I am not surprised you don't get the irony...

...and if you think I am the only person who thinks that while on jury duty I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn..

...it's like when a jury is told by a judge to "disregard that testimony". Do you think they do? If so, the bridge just got a little cheaper if you're interested...

The fifth is very easy to get...

Regardless of what a juror thinks they must remain unbiased and apply the law to the facts here in America. I'm not sure your legal system is that great if you insinuate that your juries are biased by unproven hearsay and unanswered questions.

 

[Dr Grump]

Regardless of what a juror thinks they must remain unbiased and apply the law to the facts here in America. I'm not sure your legal system is that great if you insinuate that your juries are biased by unproven hearsay and unanswered questions.

Theories are great...

...practicalities and realities are another thing altogether....

 

[goldcatt]

No, I missed the part in the article where he gave examples of said "contradictory, unbelievable and not credible" explanations from the govt....

Oh? How about the part where the Government tried to use information obtained after granting immunity?

That was not in the article in the OP.....

No, but it was in a later article from another poster - Patek, I believe. The guards were required to give statements to the State Department, and did so under a promise of immunity from prosecution. It was those statements that were forwarded to the Justice Department for use at trial. Somebody really screwed up. You have no idea how much it ticks me off that these guys are walking free, but we have to follow our own rules or we're no better than they are.

 

[asaratis]

So now it's not about the truth, but how 'easy' you make it for others to find you guilty if you committed a crime? I would say if you incriminate yourself you've more likely than not done something wrong....

That's the beauty of our system....and the horror of it too....innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. NO OTHER COUNTRY has the presumption of innocence of the accused with respect to their legal system. That's why your statement in the reply to Si Modo doesn't make sense. If you are in front of a judge in court and are asked if you committed a crime then you are ALREADY A SUSPECT!!! Why else would you be asked a question like this in court? When you incriminate yourself you just admitted to breaking the law. How is that "not done something wrong"?

If you think you are the only country in the world that has the presumption of innocence until proven guilty then you have obviously not studied the NZ system. Exactly the same.

Yeah, but why take the fifth. If I didn't commit the crime, I wouldn't take the fifth, I'd say I didn't do it. How is that incriminating me? ie "Did you kill such and such"...instead of taking the fifth, I say "No way did I do that"..How am I incriminating myself...

Um, you can only incriminate yourself if you admit to committing the crime, or at least in part,

I believe we have some rules about a spouse having to testify against a defendant also...and a believe the 5th Amendment is available to anyone under oath, including witnesses.

"Fifth Amendment" Defined & Explained
Note the bottom line...as applied to the Blackwater dismissal. Judge just followed the law. Prosecutors enabled it...just like they will do in the terrorist circus trials to come.

FIFTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution] - 'No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.'

The Fifth Amendment 'can be asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory; and it protects against any disclosures which the witness reasonably believes could be used in a criminal prosecution or could lead to other evidence that might be so used.' Kastigar v. U.S., 406 U.S. 441, 44-45 ('72). A reasonable belief that information concerning income or assets might be used to establish criminal failure to file a tax return can support a claim of Fifth Amendment privilege. See U.S. v. Rendahl, 746 F.2d 553, 55-56 (9th Cir.'84).

The only way the Fifth Amendment can be asserted as to testimony is on a question-by-question basis. Rendahl, 746 F.2d at 555, citing with approval U.S. v. Bell, 448 F.2d 40, 42 (9th Cir.'71) (Fifth Amendment challenge premature on appeal from enforcement order; appellant must present himself for questioning after enforcement and as to each question elect to raise or not to raise the defense).

The appropriate device for compelling answers to incriminating questions is a government grant
of use immunity. See Sharp, 920 F.2d at 1172.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Regardless of what a juror thinks they must remain unbiased and apply the law to the facts here in America. I'm not sure your legal system is that great if you insinuate that your juries are biased by unproven hearsay and unanswered questions.

Theories are great...

...practicalities and realities are another thing altogether....

Very true Dr.....that's why there are Appellate Courts...checks and balances.

 

[Colin]

WASHINGTON - A federal judge has dismissed all charges against five Blackwater Worldwide security guards charged in a deadly Baghdad shooting.

U.S. District Judge Ricardo Urbina said Thursday the Justice Department overstepped its bounds and wrongly used evidence it was not allowed to see. He said the government’s explanations have been contradictory, unbelievable and not credible.

Judge dismisses all charges in Blackwater shooting - BostonHerald.com

Thank god.

Seems your commander of US forces in Iraq doesn't share your opinion.

The commander of US forces in Iraq, Gen Ray Odierno, said the court's decision could create local resentment against other security firms operating in the country.

"Of course we're upset when we believe that people might have caused a crime and they are not held accountable," Reuters quoted him as saying.

BBC News - Iraq 'regrets' US decision to clear Blackwater guards

 

[JakeStarkey]

Once given immunity, that testimony should never have been used independently to frame cases against the guards. That is what the government did against that scum, LTC Oliver North. Yes, he compromised his oath to defend the Constitution and he lied to Congress, but the 5th is sancrosanct. When we violate constitutional protections of trials and cruel punishment, then we descend to the Rule of Man, and we become like our Muslim enemies and Americans like Dick Cheney. God help us.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So now it's not about the truth, but how 'easy' you make it for others to find you guilty if you committed a crime? I would say if you incriminate yourself you've more likely than not done something wrong....

That's the beauty of our system....and the horror of it too....innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. NO OTHER COUNTRY has the presumption of innocence of the accused with respect to their legal system. That's why your statement in the reply to Si Modo doesn't make sense. If you are in front of a judge in court and are asked if you committed a crime then you are ALREADY A SUSPECT!!! Why else would you be asked a question like this in court? When you incriminate yourself you just admitted to breaking the law. How is that "not done something wrong"?

If you think you are the only country in the world that has the presumption of innocence until proven guilty then you have obviously not studied the NZ system. Exactly the same.

Yeah, but why take the fifth. If I didn't commit the crime, I wouldn't take the fifth, I'd say I didn't do it. How is that incriminating me? ie "Did you kill such and such"...instead of taking the fifth, I say "No way did I do that"..How am I incriminating myself...

Um, you can only incriminate yourself if you admit to committing the crime, or at least in part,

The innocent have the most to fear from openly talking to the police without a lawyer. The cops are allowed to lie to you. They are past masters of taking what you say out of context and stretching it to fit what THEY have already decided happened.

I notice you did not address the fact that the reason this case was dropped is because the Government GAVE IMMUNITY to the men and then tried to use their IMMUNE statements against them.

 

[goldcatt]

That's the beauty of our system....and the horror of it too....innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. NO OTHER COUNTRY has the presumption of innocence of the accused with respect to their legal system. That's why your statement in the reply to Si Modo doesn't make sense. If you are in front of a judge in court and are asked if you committed a crime then you are ALREADY A SUSPECT!!! Why else would you be asked a question like this in court? When you incriminate yourself you just admitted to breaking the law. How is that "not done something wrong"?

If you think you are the only country in the world that has the presumption of innocence until proven guilty then you have obviously not studied the NZ system. Exactly the same.

Yeah, but why take the fifth. If I didn't commit the crime, I wouldn't take the fifth, I'd say I didn't do it. How is that incriminating me? ie "Did you kill such and such"...instead of taking the fifth, I say "No way did I do that"..How am I incriminating myself...

Um, you can only incriminate yourself if you admit to committing the crime, or at least in part,

The innocent have the most to fear from openly talking to the police without a lawyer. The cops are allowed to lie to you. They are past masters of taking what you say out of context and stretching it to fit what THEY have already decided happened.

I notice you did not address the fact that the reason this case was dropped is because the Government GAVE IMMUNITY to the men and then tried to use their IMMUNE statements against them.

It's not clear whether they were actually granted immunity or whether it was merely promised by somebody without the authority to actually grant it. But the principle is the same. They were promised immunity by a government agent in exchange for information, they upheld their end of the deal, their statements can't be used. The rules are clear on that.

 

[ba1614]

That's the beauty of our system....and the horror of it too....innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. NO OTHER COUNTRY has the presumption of innocence of the accused with respect to their legal system. That's why your statement in the reply to Si Modo doesn't make sense. If you are in front of a judge in court and are asked if you committed a crime then you are ALREADY A SUSPECT!!! Why else would you be asked a question like this in court? When you incriminate yourself you just admitted to breaking the law. How is that "not done something wrong"?

If you think you are the only country in the world that has the presumption of innocence until proven guilty then you have obviously not studied the NZ system. Exactly the same.

Yeah, but why take the fifth. If I didn't commit the crime, I wouldn't take the fifth, I'd say I didn't do it. How is that incriminating me? ie "Did you kill such and such"...instead of taking the fifth, I say "No way did I do that"..How am I incriminating myself...

Um, you can only incriminate yourself if you admit to committing the crime, or at least in part,

The innocent have the most to fear from openly talking to the police without a lawyer. The cops are allowed to lie to you. They are past masters of taking what you say out of context and stretching it to fit what THEY have already decided happened.

I notice you did not address the fact that the reason this case was dropped is because the Government GAVE IMMUNITY to the men and then tried to use their IMMUNE statements against them.

I agree RGS.
I support our Police and respect the job they do, but anyone who speaks with them without representation, after being read their rights is a fool, regardless of innocence.

 

[jillian]

U.S. District Judge Ricardo Urbina said Thursday the Justice Department overstepped its bounds and wrongly used evidence it was not allowed to see. He said the government’s explanations have been contradictory, unbelievable and not credible.

Now shut the fuck up.

what an elegant turn of phrase.

No matter how large you write the words, these animals should have been tried.

you're all for using evidence obtained by torture... but what evidence did you object to here? there's no 5th amendment as pertains to one's employer... there is only a 5th amendment privilege with regard to government.

and why you'd have an interest in seeing criminals not be tried is beyond me....

And you are all for lying and cheating for any case? The statements were privileged. Given with IMMUNITY. As a Lawyer you KNOW what that means. The Government can NOT use statements after granting immunity for them to be made. You are all for the total destruction of our legal system just cause you don't like a couple guys.

what are you talking about? lying and cheating? Are you done with your delusional rant?

Good. now hush your ridiculous mouth because no one bullies me, snooks, not in real life and not on messageboards.

"Immunity"? Given by whom? Do you even know? I'm pretty sure it was the state department. Since when do they have the right to give prosecutorial immunity?

It's the same right wing nutcase insanity that wants people tortured if they are Arab but if they're American, they're supposed to be able to go into any country they want and use civilians for target practice...which is what these people did? It's not that I "don't like" them; it's that you and yours don't care that they shot at Iraqi civilians... in a place we had no business being in the first place.

So tell us again how mean Saddam Hussein was to HIS people.

 

[Si modo]

So now it's not about the truth, but how 'easy' you make it for others to find you guilty if you committed a crime? I would say if you incriminate yourself you've more likely than not done something wrong....

That's the beauty of our system....and the horror of it too....innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. NO OTHER COUNTRY has the presumption of innocence of the accused with respect to their legal system. That's why your statement in the reply to Si Modo doesn't make sense. If you are in front of a judge in court and are asked if you committed a crime then you are ALREADY A SUSPECT!!! Why else would you be asked a question like this in court? When you incriminate yourself you just admitted to breaking the law. How is that "not done something wrong"?

Actually the presumption of innocence – being considered innocent until proven guilty – is a legal right that the accused in criminal trials has in most 'civilised' countries and ALL countries belonging to the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, which has to convince the court that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In principle, the defense does not have to 'prove' anything. It certainly isn't unique to the USA.

The Fifth is to protect the innocent especially. If not for our right not to self incriminate, our right to remain silent may also be subject to such erosion as happened in the 90s chez toi.

 

[namvet]

As an agnostic I doubt justice will be done. But, if there is a just God, and therefore a devil, those who murder innocents overtly or covertly will burn in hell.

U.S. District Judge Ricardo Urbina said Thursday the Justice Department overstepped its bounds and wrongly used evidence it was not allowed to see. He said the government’s explanations have been contradictory, unbelievable and not credible.

Now shut the fuck up.

what an elegant turn of phrase.

No matter how large you write the words, these animals should have been tried.

you're all for using evidence obtained by torture... but what evidence did you object to here? there's no 5th amendment as pertains to one's employer... there is only a 5th amendment privilege with regard to government.

and why you'd have an interest in seeing criminals not be tried is beyond me....

the used tampon eater strikes again