Breaking: Blackwater Bodyguards Were Given Immunity in Deadly Baghdad Shooting

[babylonsister]

Charges uncertain in Blackwater shooting

AP NewsBreak: Blackwater Bodyguards Were Given Immunity in Deadly Baghdad Shooting

LARA JAKES JORDAN
AP News

Oct 29, 2007 16:45 EDT

The State Department promised Blackwater USA bodyguards immunity from prosecution in its investigation of last month's deadly shooting of 17 Iraqi civilians, The Associated Press has learned.

As a result, it will likely be months before the United States can — if ever — bring criminal charges in the case that has infuriated the Iraqi government.

"Once you give immunity, you can't take it away," said a senior law enforcement official familiar with the investigation.

A State Department spokesman did not have an immediate comment Monday. Both Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd and FBI spokesman Rich Kolko declined comment.

FBI agents were returning to Washington late Monday from Baghdad, where they have been trying to collect evidence in the Sept. 16 embassy convoy shooting without using statements from Blackwater employees who were given immunity.

more...

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2007/10/charges_uncertain_in_blackwate.php

[cal04]

1. MSNBC has the story up now

Blackwater bodyguards promised immunity
State Department gave protection to all guards in deadly Iraq incident


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21533017/

[ThomWV]

2. By what authority would the State Department be able to give immunity to anyone?

Since when are they either a Court or Prosecutor?

[Lex]

5. Exactly. Where do they get this authority?

Answer: They don't.

[TomInTib]

7. Ask LPaulJerryBremer

I am most certain he will have a very credible explanation for you.

[Horse with no Name]

12. Typical MO of this crime family

Do what you want and if you get caught, make up new rules and convince everyone that there is no room for discussion.

[Canuckistanian]

28. I was wondering the same myself

If it ever came down to a court case against Blackwater, how would a government agency (an outside party) be able to "grant" immunity?

[TomInTib]

3. Outrageous.

Well, that's democracy, ain't it?

[babylonsister]

10. So the FBI, et al., were sent on a wild goose chase? The Iraqis aren't

going to like this...

[TomInTib]

15. Appeasement.

A false flag, a charade sent to tamp down the Natives' outrage.

[Lex]

4. The State Department doesn't have the AUTHORITY to decide

such things.

WTF?

[Beetwasher]

6. Guess They Will Have To Tried in IRAQ

I don't think the State Dept. can immunize them from charges in Iraq. :shrug:

This is pretty fucking revolting.

[Lex]

8. The State Dept. can't unilaterally decide to give them immunity here

either.

I mean, really. What'd they do, wave a magic neo-con wand over themselves?

[OzarkDem]

11. or the Hague n/t

[me b zola]

9. Outfreakingragious!

Will someone in Congress stand up against this? This is likely to intensify the anger over our presence in Iraq.

[VP505]

13. Chalk up another

positive reason for stopping team Bu$h/Cheney with impeachment. The arrogance of doing what ever they want that Bu$hCo has been showing seems to be trickling down through the rest of his Admin.

[Solly Mack]

14. How much more shame can America stand?

"Prosecutors will have to prove that any evidence they use in bringing charges against Blackwater employees was uncovered without using the guards' statements to State Department investigators. They "have to show we got the information independently," one official said."


and there it is...

[babylonsister]

16. And why didn't Condi mention this to Waxman last week?

:grr: :nuke:

[Solly Mack]

17. and yet

Rice agreed (at the hearing) that "there is a hole" in U.S. law that has prevented prosecution of contractors.

All the while offering up immunity

[riderinthestorm]

18. There's another thread downstream that has a quote from a State Dept official

denying State Dept involvement in this immunity grant.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2161060

If the State Dept didn't give the Blackwater guards immunity, who did??!! (cheney-cough?! the acting AG whose name I can't remember?! Who?!)

edit. to add link to thread

[babylonsister]

19. That's the question of the moment if the State Dept. denies involvement.

Who indeed?

[Az_lefty]

20. I'm so sick of these fascists acting like their above the law...

:puke:

[ProSense]

21. Frankly, I think this report is spin

In this first foray, I want to address both Sandy’s earlier post concerning privatization as evasion of accountability and David’s post outlining the limitations of the various criminal liability provisions, and I want to suggest that there is in fact a workable legal framework potentially available. David has admirably detailed some of that framework in his post, but I think it's important to stress that, while there are still some loopholes (which Congress is working hard to close) in SMTJ/MEJA, the problem is actually less with the formal legal framework than with its enforcement. (And by the way, I think there's a strong argument that CPA Order 17 shouldn’t be read to immunize contractors for abuses of force. First, Clause 4.3 contains the proviso “pursuant to the terms and conditions of a contract,” and I don’t think the contracts should be read to authorize criminal acts. Second, under international law a grant of immunity of this sort can’t immunize actors (state or non-state) against war crimes. To me that follows from the Nuremberg principle. And though there is arguably an idea of diplomatic immunity from prosecution before national (as opposed to international) tribunals, contractors would likely be ineligible for such immunity. Now, this is not to say that the Blackwater employees in this case committed war crimes, only to say that we shouldn’t assume that Order 17 completely disables criminal liability. And while I wouldn't necessarily advocate prosecution in Iraq, given the current state of the Iraqi legal system, that again is more a problem of enforcement than legal infrastructure.) Thus, I think we need to pay greater attention to encouraging enforcement of the law that does exist, rather than focusing (as the public discourse currently tends to do) only on the possible shortcomings of that legal framework.

Posted here

[flyarm]

22. And while I wouldn't necessarily advocate prosecution in Iraq, given the current state of the Iraqi

"And while I wouldn't necessarily advocate prosecution in Iraq, given the current state of the Iraqi legal system"

why this is the legal system little lord pissy pants said Saddam should be tried under..not the international courts..

because we know, then Saddam would have blown the whistle on pissy pants papa!!

what hypocrites

fly

[babylonsister]

24. Lots of sources are spinning it then. Here's two more:

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/10/29/guess-who-has-immunity-now/

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/29/blackwater-immunity/

[spanone]

23. More Reason to IMPEACH. NOW.

hey, while we're at it, why don't we give erik prince executive privilege? (no sarcasm)

[spanone]

25. kicking cause this REALLY pisses me off.

[L. Coyote]

26. Bureau of Diplomatic Security chief Richard Griffin last week announced his resignation

[Disturbed]

27. Immunity for murder?

I don't think that the Iraqi Govt. is going to go along with that.