Scott Horton: Justice Dept Prosecutors May Have Sabotaged Their Own Case. (Against Blackwater)

[Junkdrawer]

Via Democracy now:

...

SCOTT HORTON: Well, first of all, I should note that General Odierno’s statement is completely incorrect; that is, the decision to dismiss these charges had nothing to do with lack of evidence or weak evidence against the Blackwater employees. To the contrary, there was copious evidence. There was plenty of evidence prosecutors could have used that they evidently weren’t prepared to, including eyewitnesses there. The decision to dismiss was taken as a punishment measure against Justice Department prosecutors based on the judge’s conclusion that they engaged in grossly unethical and improper behavior in putting the case together.

And specifically what they did is they took statements that were taken by the Department of State against a grant of immunity; that is, the government investigators told the guards, “Give us your statement, be candid, be complete, and we promise you we won’t use your statement for any criminal charges against you.” But the Justice Department prosecutors took those statements and in fact used them. They used them before the grand jury. They used them to build their entire case. And they did this notwithstanding warnings from senior lawyers in the Justice Department that this was improper and could lead to dismissal of the case. It almost looks like the Justice Department prosecutors here wanted to sabotage their own case. It was so outrageous.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you think that’s possible?

SCOTT HORTON: I think it is possible. Specifically in this case, there were briefings that occurred on Capitol Hill early on in which senior officials of the Justice Department told congressional investigators, staffers and congressmen that essentially they didn’t want to bring the case. In fact, one of the congressmen who was present at these briefings told me they were behaving like defense lawyers putting together a case to defend the Blackwater employees, not to prosecute them. And I think we see the evidence of that copiously in Judge Urbina’s opinion.

...


http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/4/judge_dismisses_all_charges_against_blackwater

[G_j]

1. that was my thinking

entirely possible, even probable.

[Nikki Stone1]

2. Not surprised.

Hmmm....

[jaksavage]

3. My thoughts exactly. nt

[MNDemNY]

4. Now that's "Change we can believe in" !

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: gobama.

[Junkdrawer]

7. To be fair, Much of the misconduct was under Bush... HOWEVER...

here's the part where the Obama Administration could, and in fact may be required to fix it:

...

SCOTT HORTON: Absolutely. In fact, this decision puts the US in breach of its treaty obligations to prosecute this case, which was an absolute international law obligation. Now, this case was being prosecuted in US court because of an order that was issued by the US occupation authorities that granted these people immunity from Iraqi criminal prosecution and accountability.

I think the rule of international law is quite well settled. If the US cannot, for technical reasons—that’s this ruling here, it is purely technical, has nothing to do with the merits of the case—if the US cannot, for technical reasons, prosecute the case, the US is really obligated to waive the immunity under that order and surrender these individuals to the Iraqi authorities for prosecution, probably with an agreement as to what charges will be brought and an agreement that any prison term they were sentenced to could be served in the United States.

In addition to that, there’s also the possibility, that was alluded to in the setup here, for a civil action, and civil claims on behalf of the families of the victims are already pending in US courts. And the Iraqi government has now announced it’s going to directly support those claims.
...

[votingupstart]

14. small hijack here -

first this is in no way meant to lighten or somehow disregard the Blackwater case -- just a technical question

this seems like a very slippery slope to go down - (hypothetical) what happens when an US citizen is accused of treason for spreading democracy in China or North Korea or Spying for walking around Iran? are we ready to start extraditing US citizens for crimes in other countries, when the US case has been dropped?

i just had this flash of "well we don't torture here so lets send them to Egypt or Syria or where ever and get it done there"

if they are not able to be convicted here (the US) then are we going to shop them around from country to country until we find someone who will convict them?

sorry for the Hijack

[Junkdrawer]

20. I think our legal obligations as an occupying power are greater n/t

[votingupstart]

23. perhaps i am not understanding

again this is not a defense of the blackwater case or a dismissal of it -- i am concerned about the precedent this could (hypothetically) set

doesn't typically an occupying power sets its own legal obligations / rules?

do we have an established accord with the Iraqi government that defines the extradition/trial/incarceration of US citizens convicted of crimes in Iraq?

if we are bringing the "terrorists" / "fighters" / whoever is in Guantanamo, here to the states to be tried under our court system because it is more just/fair/reliable/whatever than a military tribunal, then why are we sending (or contemplating sending) US citizens to a foreign court system when we cant prosecute them for the same crimes here.

either we have a standard of prosecution for US citizens and those accused of crimes by the US or we don't. i am concerned that this is how the decision to farm out interrogations was reached.

[merh]

13. The bite of the poisonous tree happened under Bushco's admin

Like the Stevens case.

The Bush admin were feeling the heat about their politicizing the DOJ, they needed to show that they were prosecuting repukes and their allies.

They went out of their way to corrupt the cases.

I wonder if anyone will investigate the individual performances.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

18. I believe its "fruit of the,,,

What is not clear is how much they would have known without those statements to guide them. They should never have accepted them into the case file or read them.

[merh]

19. Well yes and no. The whole tree was poisonous, not just the fruit

After all, we are talking Blackwater.

They knew what they shouldn't have done, we know what they shouldn't have done.

They did it anyway.

[Fumesucker]

5. Eh, sounds like the Ted Stevens case.. n/t

[Canuckistanian]

21. My very first thought as well

These guys aren't idiots. Nor are they articling clerks. They knew exactly what they were doing.

[Octafish]

6. It's how they got Ollie North off.

Works every time.

[hootinholler]

11. Interesting.

A strategery perhaps.

-Hoot

[Octafish]

16. Easy when they own the courts. Just give the designated 'Fall Guy' a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card...

What Robert Perry found:

Firewall: Inside the Iran-Contra Cover-up

By Robert Parry
ConsortiumNews.com

EXCERPT...

'Fall Guy'

As part of that strategy, virtually all of Reagan's top advisers, including Shultz, gave false and misleading testimony to Congress and prosecutors. Their accounts essentially blamed the illegalities on Marine Lt. Col. Oliver North and his bosses at the National Security Council, McFarlane and Poindexter. Pretty much everyone else -- at the CIA, Defense Department, the Vice President's Office and the White House -- claimed ignorance.

Even though Oliver North testified in 1987 that he was the "fall guy" in this implausible scenario, the Democrats and much of the press corps still fell for it. There was a clicking of wine glasses around Washington as the "men of zeal" cover story was enshrined as the official history of the Iran-contra affair. A painful Watergate-style impeachment battle had been averted.

The story might have stopped there but for the work of Walsh and his small team of lawyers. Yet Walsh's investigation was hampered from the start by congressional rashness and hostility from key elements of the media. Congress was so ready to accept the theory of a rogue operation that it rushed ahead with televised hearings designed to make North and his NSC superiors, McFarlane and Poindexter, the primary culprits. Without even questioning North ahead of time, the Iran-contra committee granted the charismatic Marine officer and his pipe-smoking boss, Poindexter, limited immunity.

Three years later, that immunity came back to haunt Walsh's hard-won convictions of North and Poindexter. Conservative judges on the federal appeals court, particularly Reagan loyalists Laurence Silberman and David Sentelle, exploited the immunity opening to reverse North's conviction. Sentelle, a protege of Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., also joined in the decision to wipe out Poindexter's conviction.

In his book, Walsh described the GOP majority on the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia as "a powerful band of Republican appointees waited like the strategic reserves of an embattled army, ... a force cloaked in the black robes of those dedicated to defining and preserving the rule of law."

Still, despite the legal and political obstacles, Walsh's investigation broke through the White House cover-up in 1991-92. Almost by accident, as Walsh's staff was double-checking some long-standing document requests, the lawyers discovered hidden notes belonging to Weinberger and other senior officials. The notes made clear that there was widespread knowledge of the 1985 illegal shipments to Iran and that a major cover-up had been orchestrated by the Reagan and Bush administrations.

CONTINUED...

http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/story34.html

Now, Walsh was a REPUBLICAN. So, how many BFEE related scoundrels have gone to jail for their treasons?

[jgraz]

8. But they were NAILS when defending Rummy and Yoo against torture lawsuits.

What a surprise. :banghead:

[dixiegrrrrl]

9. There were several instance of Bush Gov. lawyers

"making mistakes" that were beneficial to the corporate defendants.
So even when DOJ did bring suit, they "goofed" and the case was set aside or dismissed, etc.

[ljm2002]

10. Well, duh!

I mean, if that was not the first thought that popped into your head when you saw the headline that the cases were dismissed, then you have not been paying attention.

Not meaning this as a slam at anyone, just noting the fact that the elites who run this country know how to game the system and will do so at every turn.

Laws are for peons.

[Solly Mack]

12. K&R

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

15. DUH.

[burrowowl]

17. Amy is as always

GREAT!

[slipslidingaway]

22. knr nt