Immunity Deals Offered to Blackwater Guards

[Gunny]

By DAVID JOHNSTON
Published: October 29, 2007

WASHINGTON, Oct. 29 — State Department investigators offered Blackwater security guards immunity during an inquiry into last month’s deadly shooting of 17 Iraqi civilians, government officials said today, calling it a potentially serious investigative misstep that could complicate efforts to prosecute the company’s employees involved in the episode.

The State Department investigators from the agency’s investigative arm, the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, offered the immunity grants even though they did not have the authority to do so, the said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing. Prosecutors at the Justice Department, who do have such authority, had no advance knowledge of the arrangement, they added.

Most of the guards who took part in the episode were offered what officials described as limited-use immunity, which means that they were promised they would not be prosecuted for anything they said in their interviews with the authorities as long as their statements were true.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/29/w...64f75280233c24&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

"Confess to what we tell you to so we can get the goods on your higher-ups, and we'll let you go free ...."

 

[Diuretic]

I don't know what US law is on inducements but in my jurisdiction that would mean the end of the prosecution attempt, never to be seen again.

 

[maineman]

I do not know if the state department has the authority to offer immunity from prosecution.

 

[Dr Grump]

If the US had any balls, and prosecuted the head honcho of Blackwater, they'd throw away the key. Good riddence to bad medicine.


However, they haven't, so they won't.

The guy is the scum of the Earth. A piece of shit...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I do not know if the state department has the authority to offer immunity from prosecution.

They did not, BUT ( Jillain can correct me if I am wrong) if they made statements believing they had immunity at the very least those statements have to be thrown out, it sounds like since they offered it the problem is what to do now. If they take it back, no statements and they can not even allude to them.

My question is, what were the statements, how could the big brass at the company be in trouble for the detachment firing on what they claim they preceived as a threat.

From what I can tell the initial fire was directed at a vehicle that did not stop and they felt was a threat and it escalated from there, some claiming the Iraqi army unit near by started firing and causing the guards to think they were under attack.

As for Gumps claim of scum... back it up, provide us with a link or a quote to substantiate the claim. The State Department hires these guys, I doubt they would hire a shady operator. More importantly in all the years they have guarded the officials NO official has died or been captured.

 

[Dr Grump]

As for Gumps claim of scum... back it up, provide us with a link or a quote to substantiate the claim. The State Department hires these guys, I doubt they would hire a shady operator. More importantly in all the years they have guarded the officials NO official has died or been captured.

His whole attitude during the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing reeked of Holier than Thou, arrogant, above-the-law rhetoric. I don;t give a shit if no official has died or been captured. I rate the lives of the 17 Iraqis who were killed by his minions on the same level as the officials. You?

BTW, as an aside, if you have made a typo re my avatar, cool. If not, from now on you are referred to as retiredrunnyfaggot. Cool?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Feel free ( since you are on this board) to call me anything you please. As for your name I have just now noticed the R, I will in future try to remember it, but for some reason ( no slight intended) Gump comes in my mind.

And no I did not think of Forrest till just now ).

 

[jillian]

They did not, BUT ( Jillain can correct me if I am wrong) if they made statements believing they had immunity at the very least those statements have to be thrown out, it sounds like since they offered it the problem is what to do now. If they take it back, no statements and they can not even allude to them.

My question is, what were the statements, how could the big brass at the company be in trouble for the detachment firing on what they claim they preceived as a threat.

From what I can tell the initial fire was directed at a vehicle that did not stop and they felt was a threat and it escalated from there, some claiming the Iraqi army unit near by started firing and causing the guards to think they were under attack.

As for Gumps claim of scum... back it up, provide us with a link or a quote to substantiate the claim. The State Department hires these guys, I doubt they would hire a shady operator. More importantly in all the years they have guarded the officials NO official has died or been captured.

I think the police are allowed to lie and say anything they want to obtain a confession. My guess is the state department could do even more in that regard since they aren't a law enforcement agency. The guy wasn't under "custodial interrogation" so no Miranda rights kick in. And to assert a fifth amendment privilege, the guy would have had to assert it. I'd think they're SOL.

 

[Paulie]

If the US had any balls, and prosecuted the head honcho of Blackwater, they'd throw away the key. Good riddence to bad medicine.

Erik Prince and Bush go way back. They're cronies of the highest order.

I don't need to provide a link for that, there's several available if anyone wants to go take 2 seconds of their time.

Just another example of the cronyism in this administration.

 

[jillian]

Erik Prince and Bush go way back. They're cronies of the highest order.

I don't need to provide a link for that, there's several available if anyone wants to go take 2 seconds of their time.

Just another example of the cronyism in this administration.

Prince was a white house intern under daddy bush. his family started the FRC with Gary Bauer, the psycho rabid christian.

Since 1998, Prince has personally donated over $200,000 to Republican causes

I'd say that qualifies as croneyism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Prince

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Prince was a white house intern under daddy bush. his family started the FRC with Gary Bauer, the psycho rabid christian.



I'd say that qualifies as croneyism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Prince

Of course you don't mind when they are Democrats donating thousands and thousands and even millions to the Clinton's or the Democratic party. Remind me of how Bush FIRED employees, falsified charges against them and then hired his buddies. I can do that for Bill Clinton and Hillary.

 

[Paulie]

Of course you don't mind when they are Democrats donating thousands and thousands and even millions to the Clinton's or the Democratic party.

No RGS, you just ASSUME so.

I personally have a problem with any politician who lies in bed with people doing business with government. I can't understand how anyone would condone such a thing.

The system is so deeply corrupt that it travels all the way down to your local city.

You have a 400 million dollar bridge being built in your city? You think that contract didn't have anything to do with cronyism? Come on...

Politicians get paid to be where they're at by the rich businessmen who use them for their power in office.

It's how it will always be until people care enough to start looking into a candidate before just voting for the lesser of 2 evils.

If you only have 2 evils to pick from, then either don't vote or write someone else in...but quit fucking electing CROOKS for christs sake!

Hillary Clinton does NOT have to get elected president, no matter how much the media wants you to think she will.

JUST DON'T VOTE FOR HER.

 

[jillian]

Of course you don't mind when they are Democrats donating thousands and thousands and even millions to the Clinton's or the Democratic party. Remind me of how Bush FIRED employees, falsified charges against them and then hired his buddies. I can do that for Bill Clinton and Hillary.

Well, how 'bout you start first with Bush making the justice department the GOP's own private fiefdom? Or you can look at FEMA and say how well the croneyism worked for NO. (Brownie did a hell of a job, didn't he?)

I'm not particularly interested in the whole Clinton thing. After 40 million dollars of our money being spent on investigating the Clinton's all Ken Starr got was a blue dress.

Anything else is just garbage and repetition of the same BS repeated when he was president.

And we all put our friends to work... making sure they're competent when you do that is pretty important, no?

 

[Alpha1]

Well, how 'bout you start first with Bush making the justice department the GOP's own private fiefdom? Or you can look at FEMA and say how well the croneyism worked for NO. (Brownie did a hell of a job, didn't he?)

I'm not particularly interested in the whole Clinton thing. After 40 million dollars of our money being spent on investigating the Clinton's all Ken Starr got was a blue dress.

A little more to it than that....

Starr has had remarkable success inside the courtroom. The second Webster Hubbell indictment aside , all but two of Starr's indictments have led to convictions or guilty pleas. Starr successfully prosecuted former Arkansas governor Jim Guy Tucker for conspiracy and mail fraud; James McDougal on 18 counts, including conspiracy and wire, bank, and mail fraud; and Susan McDougal for mail fraud, misapplication of funds, and false statements. Starr got Hubbell, a former chief justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court and associate attorney general of the United States, to acknowledge felonious mail fraud and tax evasion.

Starr has also ensured that minor figures connected to the plundering of Madison Guaranty and other Arkansas malfeasance get their comeuppance: Charles Matthews and Eugene Fitzhugh will be punished for bribery, Robert Palmer for conspiracy, Neal Ainley for willfully delivering and disclosing fraudulent documents, Christopher Wade for bankruptcy fraud, William Marks for conspiracy to defraud the IRS, John Haley for aiding and abetting the same, and Stephen Smith and Larry Kuca for conspiracy. At a minimum, Starr has done much to expose rampant corruption among Clinton cronies in Arkansas, and to clean it up. Where Starr has gone to trial, Arkansas juries have agreed with him.
Last but not least, the admittance of PERJURY from a sitting President...though no conviction


Anything else is just garbage and repetition of the same BS repeated when he was president.

And we all put our friends to work... making sure they're competent when you do that is pretty important, no?

-----

 

[jillian]

You afraid to link all that?

And what has Bill or Hillary been convicted of or even charged with besides a blue dress?

I just love that Starr f'd up his shot at a supreme court seat.

 

[Alpha1]

You afraid to link all that?
Try Google
And what has Bill or Hillary been convicted of or even charged with besides a blue dress?

Charges ?
Article I: Perjury before the grand jury

Article II: Perjury in the Jones case
Article alleges perjury in the Paula Jones civil case, charging that the president provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony as part of his answers in the affidavit and in his January 17 deposition

Article III: Obstruction of justice
Article alleges obstruction of justice, charging Clinton with encouraging Lewinsky to submit a false affidavit and give false testimony in court, plotting to hide his gifts to her and attempting to find Lewinsky a job to prevent her truthful testimony. It also claims Clinton made false and misleading statements to key White House staff and allowed his attorney, Bob Bennett to make false statements about the Lewinsky affidavit.

Article IV: Abuse of power
Article alleges abuse of power, charging the president with making misleading statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States, his Cabinet and White House aides. The last charge also contends Clinton frivolously asserted executive privilege and made perjurious statements to Congress

No convictions, but disbarred and fined $25,000
I just love that Starr f'd up his shot at a supreme court seat.

888

 

[jillian]

888

The impeachment was about a blue dress.

And, in case you've forgotten, he was found "not guilty" by the senate.

 

[Shogun]

it really is a fucking joke that killer mercenaries running rampant in iraq prompts this crowd to bring up, of all things, bill fucking clinton.

purgery /= killing civilians in a war zone where our troops get to face the consequences.


'Trophy' video exposes private security contractors shooting up Iraqi drivers
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/11/27/wirq27.xml


U.S. Military Probing Video Of Road Violence
British Contractors Appear To Shoot at Iraqi Civilians
Details about the origin of the video clip and the location shown in it are unknown. It was originally posted last month on a Web site maintained by former employees of Aegis Specialist Risk Management, a London-based company that has a $293 million U.S. government contract to provide security services in Iraq. The video has since been removed from the site.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/08/AR2005120802356.html


Iraqis angry at Blackwater shooting
US security firm Blackwater says it acted "lawfully and appropriately" after its convoy was "violently attacked by armed insurgents" in Baghdad earlier this week.

Blackwater security guards then opened fire in a busy Baghdad square.

Eyewitnesses and recovering victims of the shooting - in which 11 Iraqi civilians died - say the Blackwater account is wrong.

Asked by the BBC if anyone shot at the convoy, an Iraqi policeman, speaking anonymously, answered unequivocally: "No."

Two men shot and wounded in the incident corroborated the policeman's account.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7003473.stm

 

[Shogun]

The impeachment was about a blue dress.

And, in case you've forgotten, he was found "not guilty" by the senate.

well, purgery for dancing around admitting the blue dress...

still, bringing up Clinton is lamer than shit.

 

[jillian]

well, purgery for dancing around admitting the blue dress...

still, bringing up Clinton is lamer than shit.

It also wasn't the subject of my inquiry. It was all the other garbage in his earlier post.

Yet, the same partisan hacks who still whine about Clinton 7 years after his presidency, during which they did nothing but "investigate" the Clintons, will tell you that it's just partisanship when Democrats ask for oversight of the actions taken by and on behalf of this admin. And you rightly point out that we're talking about people dying because of butchered intel and no planning which has led to the deaths of thousands. Those deaths can be placed at the doorstep of this admin and its henchmen.

But they still whine about a blue dress.