Blackwater case dismissed

[PatekPhilippe]

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?

First of all...our military has the same rules applied to them...no foreign prosecutions allowed....you got that down yet? Second of all Blackwater(now Xe) was used, and is still being used, for security of high ranking Iraqi officials and Diplomats....THIS IS NOT WHAT THE MILITARY DOES..you got that yet? The same basic rules that apply TO STATE DEPARTMENT DIPLOMATIC SECURITY AGENTS who protect diplomats and high ranking officials in U.S. Embassy's around the world were written into the Blackwater contract!....You getting all this yet?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

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.

Hey...personally speaking ....I think there should be a trial...but prosecutorial misconduct is INEXCUSIBLE!!!!!!

 

[goldcatt]

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

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.

 

[HUGGY]

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.

Never...not as long as there are assholes like you subverting our country.

 

[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.

Hey...personally speaking ....I think there should be a trial...but prosecutorial misconduct is INEXCUSIBLE!!!!!!

I agree completely. We can fight about something else, but not this. Not this. The government screwed up big time and these murderers are going to walk.

 

[goldcatt]

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.

Hey...personally speaking ....I think there should be a trial...but prosecutorial misconduct is INEXCUSIBLE!!!!!!

I agree completely. We can fight about something else, but not this. Not this. The government screwed up big time and these murderers are going to walk.

Yep. But the reason why is important. So is the fact that they can be charged again. Watch this one carefully, I know I will be!

 

[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?

First of all...our military has the same rules applied to them...no foreign prosecutions allowed....you got that down yet? Second of all Blackwater(now Xe) was used, and is still being used, for security of high ranking Iraqi officials and Diplomats....THIS IS NOT WHAT THE MILITARY DOES..you got that yet? The same basic rules that apply TO STATE DEPARTMENT DIPLOMATIC SECURITY AGENTS who protect diplomats and high ranking officials in U.S. Embassy's around the world were written into the Blackwater contract!....You getting all this yet?

Man, it's too bad you don't have internet access because if you did you would have been able to find out your claim is absolutely bogus.

"Unfortunately the south Korean government does not have statistics on US soldiers' crimes committed before 1967, because SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) went into effect in 1967, allowing the south Korean court jurisdiction over crimes committed by US soldiers with narrow and limited application."
Statistics on Crimes Committed by US Troops in south Korea

Sure seems to me that says US soldiers were tried by a foreign government.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I certainly hope they will be charged again and done in the right way.

I would rather we just ship them back to Iraq.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

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?

First of all...our military has the same rules applied to them...no foreign prosecutions allowed....you got that down yet? Second of all Blackwater(now Xe) was used, and is still being used, for security of high ranking Iraqi officials and Diplomats....THIS IS NOT WHAT THE MILITARY DOES..you got that yet? The same basic rules that apply TO STATE DEPARTMENT DIPLOMATIC SECURITY AGENTS who protect diplomats and high ranking officials in U.S. Embassy's around the world were written into the Blackwater contract!....You getting all this yet?

Man, it's too bad you don't have internet access because if you did you would have been able to find out your claim is absolutely bogus.

"Unfortunately the south Korean government does not have statistics on US soldiers' crimes committed before 1967, because SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) went into effect in 1967, allowing the south Korean court jurisdiction over crimes committed by US soldiers with narrow and limited application."
Statistics on Crimes Committed by US Troops in south Korea

Sure seems to me that says US soldiers were tried by a foreign government.

It's too bad you know next to NOTHING about SOFA's and how they are applied as you have never served your country....
Here's the glaring point you so deftly missed...

with narrow and limited application

are you getting all this yet?

 

[JakeStarkey]

SOFAs are particular and unique to each country we negotiate with in creating them.

In Korea, I helped to send a young GI to a Korean court who convicted him of rape and sent him to do his time on a prison rice farm. What a hole. Perhaps he was freed in one of the amnesties later on. I do not know.

 

[Dr Grump]

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.

What a cop out...

...then again, what type of judicial system does Iraq have...

 

[Dr Grump]

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

The term terrorist can be subjective for sure....

 

[Dr Grump]

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.

Blackwater accused of murder in 'crusade to eliminate Muslims' - Times Online

The term terrorist can be subjective for sure....

 

[CurveLight]

First of all...our military has the same rules applied to them...no foreign prosecutions allowed....you got that down yet? Second of all Blackwater(now Xe) was used, and is still being used, for security of high ranking Iraqi officials and Diplomats....THIS IS NOT WHAT THE MILITARY DOES..you got that yet? The same basic rules that apply TO STATE DEPARTMENT DIPLOMATIC SECURITY AGENTS who protect diplomats and high ranking officials in U.S. Embassy's around the world were written into the Blackwater contract!....You getting all this yet?

Man, it's too bad you don't have internet access because if you did you would have been able to find out your claim is absolutely bogus.

"Unfortunately the south Korean government does not have statistics on US soldiers' crimes committed before 1967, because SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) went into effect in 1967, allowing the south Korean court jurisdiction over crimes committed by US soldiers with narrow and limited application."
Statistics on Crimes Committed by US Troops in south Korea

Sure seems to me that says US soldiers were tried by a foreign government.

It's too bad you know next to NOTHING about SOFA's and how they are applied as you have never served your country....
Here's the glaring point you so deftly missed...

with narrow and limited application

are you getting all this yet?

You dumbass. You cited the very sentence that proves your claim wrong then try to say it supports your bullshit. You claimed soldiers cannot be prosecuted by foreign governments:

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


So in response I gave one example of a foreign government prosecuting US soldiers and you still try to say your claim is legit? Rotfl! SOFA limitations show you are fucking clueless. The SOFA, like the VFA, is what grants local governments jurisdiction over our military. Apparently, you want to further embarrass yourself so let me help out by giving you more facts:

"However, most crimes by service members against local civilians occur off duty, and in accordance with the local SOFA are considered subject to local jurisdiction. Details of the SOFAs can still prompt issues. In Japan, for example, the U.S. SOFA includes the provision that service members are not turned over to the local authorities until they are charged in a court."
Status of Forces Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"The text of the VFA (under Article V) is unequivocal on Philippine jurisdiction over visiting US military personnel convicted of violating our national laws. Moreover, the High Court's ruling made it clear that Philippine authorities should have custody over the convicted rapist Smith."
Press Release - Pia: Suspend VFA until convicted US soldier-rapist is taken under RP custody


I've provided examples of three different foreign governments who possess the legal authority to prosecute US soldiers. How the fuck are you going to dance around this one? Then you try to claim if someone hasn't served they cannot know about SOFAs? Thasssss some seriously dumb shit. I've never served inside the space shuttle but I am aware it exists.

 

[CurveLight]

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.

What a cop out...

...then again, what type of judicial system does Iraq have...

The immunity is bullshit but they cannot be prosecuted until a court says the contract on immunity was illegal.
TPMmuckraker | Talking Points Memo | Contractors Could Leave Iraq in Wake of Immunity Change

 

[CurveLight]

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.

Blackwater accused of murder in 'crusade to eliminate Muslims' - Times Online

The term terrorist can be subjective for sure....

Terrorism is the poor version of the US military.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Patek is rather stupid, curvelight.

 

[namvet]

Patek is rather stupid, curvelight.

be sure and plug your fuckin brain into the wall tonite.​

 

[Yurt]

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

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.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Man, it's too bad you don't have internet access because if you did you would have been able to find out your claim is absolutely bogus.

"Unfortunately the south Korean government does not have statistics on US soldiers' crimes committed before 1967, because SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) went into effect in 1967, allowing the south Korean court jurisdiction over crimes committed by US soldiers with narrow and limited application."
Statistics on Crimes Committed by US Troops in south Korea

Sure seems to me that says US soldiers were tried by a foreign government.

It's too bad you know next to NOTHING about SOFA's and how they are applied as you have never served your country....
Here's the glaring point you so deftly missed...

with narrow and limited application

are you getting all this yet?

You dumbass. You cited the very sentence that proves your claim wrong then try to say it supports your bullshit. You claimed soldiers cannot be prosecuted by foreign governments:

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


So in response I gave one example of a foreign government prosecuting US soldiers and you still try to say your claim is legit? Rotfl! SOFA limitations show you are fucking clueless. The SOFA, like the VFA, is what grants local governments jurisdiction over our military. Apparently, you want to further embarrass yourself so let me help out by giving you more facts:

"However, most crimes by service members against local civilians occur off duty, and in accordance with the local SOFA are considered subject to local jurisdiction. Details of the SOFAs can still prompt issues. In Japan, for example, the U.S. SOFA includes the provision that service members are not turned over to the local authorities until they are charged in a court."
Status of Forces Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"The text of the VFA (under Article V) is unequivocal on Philippine jurisdiction over visiting US military personnel convicted of violating our national laws. Moreover, the High Court's ruling made it clear that Philippine authorities should have custody over the convicted rapist Smith."
Press Release - Pia: Suspend VFA until convicted US soldier-rapist is taken under RP custody


I've provided examples of three different foreign governments who possess the legal authority to prosecute US soldiers. How the fuck are you going to dance around this one? Then you try to claim if someone hasn't served they cannot know about SOFAs? Thasssss some seriously dumb shit. I've never served inside the space shuttle but I am aware it exists.

You are a worthless libtard anti-military piece os shit....what the fuck are you babbling about now? VFA...SOFA...make up your mind...

At any rate...not only did Starkey LIE about being involved in a case, your ignorance of anything military is so glaringingly obvious that when you make a post about military subjects you appear to be the class dunce.

SOFA's ARE NEVER applied in time of war with respect to combat operations.

Your so fucking dishonest...first we go from war time operations where U.S. soldiers NEVER have the SOFA, if there is even one in place, applied to their cases to Korea and then to the Philippine VFA....wow...you're really grasping for straw to prove an unprovable point...best you just shut the fuck up while you're behind.