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.
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
