Good 2007 Fox article about the U.S. State Dept. granting immunity to Blackwater killers.
State Department officials have reportedly granted several Blackwater employees immunity from prosecution in its case of last month's deadly shootings of 17 Iraqi civilians,
…one source indicated the Department of Justice and the FBI feel hamstrung by the immunity grant, which blocked the FBI investigative team in Baghdad from collecting essential information from those allegedly involved in the shootings.
Senior federal law enforcement officials confirm that an FBI investigative team returned home Monday to Washington, D.C., from Baghdad. The team had been trying to collect evidence in the Sept. 16 embassy convoy shooting, and was not able to collect statements from Blackwater employees who were given immunity.
"Once you give immunity, you can't take it away," a senior law enforcement official familiar with the investigation told The Associated Press.
The Reverend gave his cynical take on October 30, 2007
…for a few years of the Iraq quagmire I thought we weren't going to be successful in spreading the American brand of democracy, that the Relevent One had promised, to all those Iraqis living on top of all our oil.
But now, with another stroke of genuis from a White House full of Einstein types, in granting immunity to Blackwater mass murderers over in Iraq, I can almost guarantee that American democracy will now catch on like wildfire.
Then, last week, the AP reported….
The case against the five men fell apart because, after the shooting, the State Department ordered the guards to explain what happened. In exchange for those statements, the State Department promised the statements would not be used in a criminal case. Such limited immunity deals are common in police departments so officers involved in shootings cannot hold up internal investigations by refusing to cooperate.
Because of the immunity deal, prosecutors had to build their case without those statements, a high legal hurdle that Urbina said the Justice Department failed to clear. Prosecutors read those statements, reviewed them in the investigation and used them to question witnesses and get search warrants, Urbina said. Key witnesses also reviewed the statements and the grand jury heard evidence that had been tainted by those statements, the judge said.
The Justice Department set up a process to avoid those problems, but Urbina said lead prosecutor Ken Kohl and others "purposefully flouted the advice" of senior Justice Department officials telling them not to use the statements.
I wonder why Ken Kohl "purposefully flouted the advice" of senior DOJ officials…..don't you?
What seems clear, at least to me, is that Condi Rice's State Department decision to demand statements from Blackwater guards while simultaneously granting them immunity, was strategic. As it proved out, Rice's decision actually led to the case being dismissed on a "technicality." Not that the Blackwater killers aren't guilty, they most certainly are.
My question about this ruling, even as foul as it is….is this: President Obama has told the American people that pictures of American abuse of detainees in Iraq cannot be made public, can't be seen, for fear that they would further inflame Iraqi and Muslim hatred against America in general, and our troops, in particular. Releasing those pictures to the public would, as George W. Bush said about keeping everything secret, "endanger our troops."
Shouldn't the federal judicial ruling which dismissed charges against Blackwater mass killers of innocent Iraqis have been kept secret? Shouldn't some kind of gag order against releasing this "state secret" information been given? Because, obviously, this piece of information, just like the information that could be revealed in those taboo pictures, will inflame Iraqi and Muslim sentiments against the U.S…….right? And doesn't that "endanger our troops?"
Iraq expressed anger on Friday with a U.S. federal court ruling that threw out all charges against five Blackwater Worldwide security guards accused of gunning down Iraqi civilians in 2007.
The ruling was “unjust and unacceptable” Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said in a statement,….
There were a quarter of a million Google sources pertaining to the Blackwater case dismissal……I mean, when is enough, enough? How long will the U.S. "free press" continue to recklessly endanger our U.S. military personnel by reporting on stuff?
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
You and that Orly Taitz woman should get together on this one, Reverend.
Because the Reverend generally leaves out more of the story than he tells (for maximum ideological effect), following is an account of the "Blackwater massacre" from wikipedia:
"An Iraqi investigation into the events stated that as the convoy drew close to Nisour Square, a distant Kia sedan with a woman and her grown son in it was driving slowly on the wrong side of the road, and ignored a police officer's whistle to clear a path for the convoy.[11] The report said the security team fired warning shots and then lethal fire at the Kia [suspecting a car bomb]. After this, the report said that stun grenades were fired off by contractors to clear the scene. The report continues by saying Iraqi police and Army soldiers, mistaking the stun grenades for frag grenades, opened fire at the Blackwater team, to which the Blackwater team again responded.[12][13] A Reuters report showed some of the vehicles which were left at the scene. According to Iraqi investigators, a Blackwater helicopter present during the attack fired several times from the air. Blackwater has denied these charges.[14][15]
Iraqi Brigadier-General Abdul-Karim Khalaf has stated the US firm "opened fire randomly at citizens." Among those killed was one Iraqi policeman; however, no State Department officials were wounded or killed.[16]
Blackwater has stated that a car bomb detonated close to the meeting point[17] and that their security team then evacuated the State Department officials. Blackwater says the convoy passed through Nisour Square, between the Sunni controlled al-Mansour and al-Yarmukh neighborhoods, and was attacked. According to Blackwater VP Marty Strong, it was hit with "a large explosive device" and "repeated small arms fire" which disabled a vehicle.[17] Several sources have stated that the explosion was caused by a mortar round, though this is not reflected in the Department of State incident report.[18][19] Blackwater has denied Iraqi allegations that one of their helicopters fired from the air during the incident.[14][15]
A State Department report states that eight to ten attackers opened fire "from multiple nearby locations, with some aggressors dressed in civilian apparel and others in Iraqi police uniforms."[20] The report says that as the convoy tried to leave, its route was blocked by insurgents armed with machine guns at 12:08 pm. According to the report, "The team returned fire to several identified targets" before leaving the area and a second convoy en route to help was "blocked/surrounded by several Iraqi police and Iraqi national guard vehicles and armed personnel."[19] A US Army convoy, possibly the same one delayed by Iraqi forces, arrived approximately a half hour later, backed by air cover, to escort the convoy back to the Green Zone.[17]
On September 27, the New York Times reported that during the incident at Nisour Square, one member of the Blackwater security team continued to fire on civilians, despite urgent cease-fire calls from colleagues. The incident was resolved after another Blackwater contractor pointed his own weapon at the man still firing and ordered him to stop.[21]
US Military reports confirm the Iraqi government's claim that Blackwater was guilty of using excessive force and opening fire without provocation.[4]"
—-
To me, this sounds primarily like the confusion of a war zone, when lives are at stake. Mistakes made, and maybe a pretty good case to not use private contractors in a war zone.
"confusion of a war zone"
Convenient choice of words.
Thanks for including more from the wikipedia link….it proves the horrible injustice of the judge's most reason ruling.
Since the "war" is everywhere, including America, then mass killings of civilians in the "confusion of a war zone" (the world) will no doubt be repeated from time to time. That should help the cause of peace and safety.
Why was my choice of words "convenient" ? Convenient for whom ?
My father was in WWII, and he told me of many occasions when people were shot at by mistake, and even when Americans unintentionally shot at each other. It isn't nearly as organized and seamless as you may think. Unless you've been in war, with your own life on the line, you don't know what it's like. I can tell from your snap judgements that you have not been.