Blackwater case dismissed

[CurveLight]

Why were they tried in the USA? The alleged crime was committed in Iraq and they have a democratically elected government and all that.
The Blackwater persons were civilian mercenaries not military.

The bush admin made sure Blackwater was immune from prosecution by any Iraqi agency when their contracts were drawn.

Why does the Bush admin hate our military so much anyways? Why didn't it trust our military? Is our military really that shitty the government had to outsource security?

 

[namvet]

The guards should be tried. If the U.S. can't do it, then ship them to Iraq.

spoken like a true communist

 

[namvet]

Why were they tried in the USA? The alleged crime was committed in Iraq and they have a democratically elected government and all that.
The Blackwater persons were civilian mercenaries not military.

The bush admin made sure Blackwater was immune from prosecution by any Iraqi agency when their contracts were drawn.

Why does the Bush admin hate our military so much anyways? Why didn't it trust our military? Is our military really that shitty the government had to outsource security?

libtards hate the military. Osama and his brown shirts have no use for them at all

 

[goldcatt]

The guards should be tried. If the U.S. can't do it, then ship them to Iraq.

I don't know for sure, but I think RGS is right about that. There is an agreement that US employees and contractors (including Blackwater among others) were not subject to Iraqi jurisdiction. I don't know the details, but Bush and Co. would have been incredibly, criminally stupid to use civilian contractors in a war zone and not protect them in a legal sense.

Of course, the flip side of that is they actually need be tried and held accountable for their actions at home. We see how well that worked out. No wonder the Iraqis are a little upset.

 

[Yurt]

Why were they tried in the USA? The alleged crime was committed in Iraq and they have a democratically elected government and all that.
The Blackwater persons were civilian mercenaries not military.

The bush admin made sure Blackwater was immune from prosecution by any Iraqi agency when their contracts were drawn.

Why does the Bush admin hate our military so much anyways? Why didn't it trust our military? Is our military really that shitty the government had to outsource security?

you do realize obama has the same agreements in place and is still using Xe in iraq

 

[Yurt]

Why were they tried in the USA? The alleged crime was committed in Iraq and they have a democratically elected government and all that.
The Blackwater persons were civilian mercenaries not military.

Because our law permits that.

We should ship the guards back to Iraq for appropriate disposal of the case (and of them).

please cite the exact law that permits that....

 

[Yurt]

Well, I don't have to deal the with the 5th where I'm from. In saying that I've never understood the purpose of it myself - think it is unnecessary...

do you actually know what the 5th amendment says?

Verbatim? Nope, not without looking it up. But I do believe it says you have the right not to say anything that might incriminate you in a court of law...sounds like a silly thing to put in the constitution IMO...

where are you from?

and there is much more to the 5th amendment than the right against self incrimination....you should really look it up before spouting off how you think the whole amendment is unnecessary

 

[Yurt]

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.

so if a police officer is ordered to talk about an alleged crime for an internal investigation and is the standard practice, to grant immunity for anything said under that questioning.....are you claiming the prosecution can ignore that immunity?

are you actually claiming if the government, the state dept, grants immunity, that the government's lawyers are not bound by that?

 

[Si modo]

The guards should be tried. If the U.S. can't do it, then ship them to Iraq.

I don't know for sure, but I think RGS is right about that. There is an agreement that US employees and contractors (including Blackwater among others) were not subject to Iraqi jurisdiction. I don't know the details, but Bush and Co. would have been incredibly, criminally stupid to use civilian contractors in a war zone and not protect them in a legal sense.

Of course, the flip side of that is they actually need be tried and held accountable for their actions at home. We see how well that worked out. No wonder the Iraqis are a little upset.

It might be part of the SOFA for Iraq. SOFAs are SOP for the military and the Iraq SOFA might include contractors.

 

[goldcatt]

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.

so if a police officer is ordered to talk about an alleged crime for an internal investigation and is the standard practice, to grant immunity for anything said under that questioning.....are you claiming the prosecution can ignore that immunity?

are you actually claiming if the government, the state dept, grants immunity, that the government's lawyers are not bound by that?

The problem is only the prosecutors are usually authorized to grant immunity. Period.

But did these guys know that? Did the folks at State claim they had that authority, or even believe themselves that they did? That's the question. I'd say from what I've read the answer is most likely "yes". And failing to bind the government by that offer would have serious 5th Amendment implications.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The guards should be tried. If the U.S. can't do it, then ship them to Iraq.

I don't know for sure, but I think RGS is right about that. There is an agreement that US employees and contractors (including Blackwater among others) were not subject to Iraqi jurisdiction. I don't know the details, but Bush and Co. would have been incredibly, criminally stupid to use civilian contractors in a war zone and not protect them in a legal sense.

Of course, the flip side of that is they actually need be tried and held accountable for their actions at home. We see how well that worked out. No wonder the Iraqis are a little upset.

Sounds like a job for the Iraqi judiciary to sort out. Send the guards to Iraq.

 

[Colin]

Why were they tried in the USA? The alleged crime was committed in Iraq and they have a democratically elected government and all that.
The Blackwater persons were civilian mercenaries not military.

The bush admin made sure Blackwater was immune from prosecution by any Iraqi agency when their contracts were drawn.

Why does the Bush admin hate our military so much anyways? Why didn't it trust our military? Is our military really that shitty the government had to outsource security?

Don't know enough about the company, but could it be that some high ranking officials have some sort of financial interest in Blackwater. After all, I've never heard of an honest politician yet! And we all know that their first priority is about lining their own pockets.

 

[CurveLight]

Why were they tried in the USA? The alleged crime was committed in Iraq and they have a democratically elected government and all that.
The Blackwater persons were civilian mercenaries not military.

The bush admin made sure Blackwater was immune from prosecution by any Iraqi agency when their contracts were drawn.

Why does the Bush admin hate our military so much anyways? Why didn't it trust our military? Is our military really that shitty the government had to outsource security?

Don't know enough about the company, but could it be that some high ranking officials have some sort of financial interest in Blackwater. After all, I've never heard of an honest politician yet! And we all know that their first priority is about lining their own pockets.

It was more rhetorical than anything. Way back when the invasion and occupation was happening it was being pointed out how private contractors get paid ten times the amount of what our Troops get paid for doing the exact same thing. Erik Prince doesn't have just financial but also extremist religious connections. He's the perfect pedigree of the Christian Right/Neocon marriage.

 

[Kalam]

No matter. If the atrocities continue, and I've little doubt that they will, the people of Iraq will pick up the slack left by the capricious American justice system and take care of the Blackwater problem themselves. They have made it quite clear that mercenaries are not welcome; I feel inclined to share their sentiment, especially in light of the murders that were recently excused.

You must be so proud of your terrorist heroes' feats in that pic.

I find it difficult to feel sympathy for dead Crusaders, if that's what you mean. I must say, it bewilders me that some people truly believe that foreign mercenaries are "heroes" and those who attempt to address the problem are "terrorists." I would certainly attempt to do similar things to foreign mercenaries who occupied the US, as would many other posters here of fighting age, I imagine.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6740735.ece

 

[del]

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.

so if a police officer is ordered to talk about an alleged crime for an internal investigation and is the standard practice, to grant immunity for anything said under that questioning.....are you claiming the prosecution can ignore that immunity?

are you actually claiming if the government, the state dept, grants immunity, that the government's lawyers are not bound by that?

The problem is only the prosecutors are usually authorized to grant immunity. Period.

But did these guys know that? Did the folks at State claim they had that authority, or even believe themselves that they did? That's the question. I'd say from what I've read the answer is most likely "yes". And failing to bind the government by that offer would have serious 5th Amendment implications.

"Less than two weeks after the shootings in Nisour Square in Baghdad in September 2007, lawyers at the State Department, which employed the guards, expressed concern that prosecutors might be improperly using the compulsory reports in preparing a criminal case against them, according to the decision.

The prosecutors were also concerned, even using what they called a “taint team” to try to prevent information in the guards’ compulsory statements from influencing the investigation, according to the 90-page ruling by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina of Federal District Court in Washington. The judge said the prosecutors had failed to take “common sense precautions” to avoid the problem. "

U.S. Lawyers Knew About Legal Pitfalls in Blackwater Case - NYTimes.com

Memorandum of Dismissal of Charges Against Blackwater Guards - The New York Times

justice dept dropped the ball. EOF

the judge had no choice but to dismiss under garrity.

 

[Kalam]

They weren't excused you moron. The Judge dismissed the case WITHOUT PREJUDICE! You got that!?

I see murderers and a judge who failed to punish them. Legal technicalities notwithstanding, their crimes were excused whether that was the intention of the court or not. Rightfully expressing contempt for hired thugs working for a "Crusader" organization certainly seems to strike a nerve with some posters here. I can't imagine why.

Now go post your sick fucking pictures on your jihadi website.

Did you want to see more?

 

[goldcatt]

They weren't excused you moron. The Judge dismissed the case WITHOUT PREJUDICE! You got that!?

I see murderers and a judge who failed to punish them. Legal technicalities notwithstanding, their crimes were excused whether that was the intention of the court or not. Rightfully expressing contempt for hired thugs working for a "Crusader" organization certainly seems to strike a nerve with some posters here. I can't imagine why.

Now go post your sick fucking pictures on your jihadi website.

Did you want to see more?

Without prejudice means the charges can be brought again. Unfortunately, it would have to be with new and untainted evidence. Kind of hard to do that more than two years later, but the good news is there's no statute of limitations on murder. One can always hope!

 

[Yurt]

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.

so if a police officer is ordered to talk about an alleged crime for an internal investigation and is the standard practice, to grant immunity for anything said under that questioning.....are you claiming the prosecution can ignore that immunity?

are you actually claiming if the government, the state dept, grants immunity, that the government's lawyers are not bound by that?

The problem is only the prosecutors are usually authorized to grant immunity. Period.

But did these guys know that? Did the folks at State claim they had that authority, or even believe themselves that they did? That's the question. I'd say from what I've read the answer is most likely "yes". And failing to bind the government by that offer would have serious 5th Amendment implications.

thats not true, it is not only prosecutors that can grant immunity, congress grants immunity frequently....the facts of the case are clear, the statements were given under promise of immunity (i believe contractual) because they were forced to give statements to the government

 

[PatekPhilippe]

They weren't excused you moron. The Judge dismissed the case WITHOUT PREJUDICE! You got that!?

I see murderers and a judge who failed to punish them. Legal technicalities notwithstanding, their crimes were excused whether that was the intention of the court or not. Rightfully expressing contempt for hired thugs working for a "Crusader" organization certainly seems to strike a nerve with some posters here. I can't imagine why.

Now go post your sick fucking pictures on your jihadi website.

Did you want to see more?

Without prejudice means the charges can be brought again. Unfortunately, it would have to be with new and untainted evidence. Kind of hard to do that more than two years later, but the good news is there's no statute of limitations on murder. One can always hope!

Exactly correct...but Kalam, the boards resident "expert" legal opinion giver obviously got his law degree from The University of Buffoonery.

 

[JakeStarkey]

OK, this is surreal: Patek, Yurt, and I are in agreement on something besides we like breathing.

Yeah, the judge ruled rightly, just as the jury did in the OJ case. When evidence is tainted or compromised, letting the guilty go protects all of us.

Thank heavens for a free judiciary.