Ding Dong

1

Yay LHP!

LHP!!

Jane!!!! I hope she is doing well.

Thanks lhp, I was wondering about this.

“Immunity is not some causal thing that you can accidentally or carelessly sprinkle about like pocket lint. “

That image just made my day. ;)

LHP. What I’d like to know is where was the State Department’s General Counsel in all this? It seems as though the modus operandi of this administration is to not bother with passing legal stuff past legally trained specialists. After all, the law is just for little people. We make our own reality.

When is the legal profession going to come out big time against this travesty?

Aren’t silencers produced with the express purpose of keeping murder quiet?

LHP! I read that story about the silencers earlier today. It does make one wonder why they need silencers on protection duty.

Maybe so. But a good defense lawyer would say that their client was promised immunity, so anything divulged under that promise is not admissible. Poison fruits etc.

Now this can be disputed, and perhaps cases can go forward. But it substantially muddies the case, adds time and trouble, and helps all of this fade from the public eye.

Heckuva job Condi!

Would say, Mukasey for example, if he were the AG, be able to make application for immunity?

Blackwater have been bad boys with their “gun running”; exporting suppressors to Iraq is a “no no”.

SWR

OT, but I’m so appalled I have to post about Short Ride’s response to criticism of Kyl-Lieberman (via TPM):

Chuckling a bit, apparently in disbelief, Lieberman asked, “How can you vote against a request that the administration impose economic sanctions on a group that the U.S. military has presented us ample evidence is a terrorist group killing American soldiers?”

Really, Joe, “ample evidence”? Perhaps you could share some of that with the American people before asking us to believe it. I haven’t heard of any “evidence” other than a dog-and-pony show in Iraq with military briefers who didn’t even want their names used. I would think that after the debacle of the “evidence” for the Iraq War, warmongers would be ashamed to refer to The Big Lie as “evidence,” but of course, Joe has no shame.

Lieberman acknowledged Tuesday that some senators don’t trust Bush, but said, “At some point, we’ve got to get over this distrust and partisanship.”

You know how you “get over” distrust, Joe? The first step is for the guy you distrust to stop lying to you and deceiving you. Otherwise it’s not called “getting over it.” It’s called “being a sucker.”

The American people have made it pretty damn clear they don’t want any more of that.

LHP,

If I pretend I’m a “defense attorney” for a moment (a real stretch since IANAL at all), would I have a compelling argument in court that my client “believed” the Government when it said my client had “immunity” from prosecution?

What I’m asking is would a Judge “tend” to rule in my client’s favor to toss out any and all evidence related to my client’s “conversation” with investigators?

I am getting too cynical (I blame it mostly on a cold that will not go away) – but all I could think of as I read your post was “I bet there’s some sort of signing statement or executive order floating around that they think covers this”. I hate what’s happened to our country & it makes me really cranky that I thought this for even a second.

The silencers? It’s so Blackwater guys can fell like real men. Macho posturing so they can be more badass than anyone else.

There’s nothing about escorts and personal protection that requires a silencer. If anything, they reduce the effectiveness of the firearm.

They’re probably the last guys you’d choose to go off on a special ops mission for a little close-in wet work. At the very least they’d be bragging the next night down in the bar.

Do we think AG Mukasey could facilitate the President’s political agenda?

Lieberman is a bad lawyer.

They don’t need to follow no stinkin’ laws anymore…they now have Administrative Orders.

Now this can be disputed, and perhaps cases can go forward. But it substantially muddies the case, adds time and trouble, and helps all of this fade from the public eye.

I don’t think it muddies the case at all. There either was legally binding immunity conferred, or there wasn’t. The State Department was not (and is not empowered to) doing a criminal investigation, so I don’t even see why any warning had to be given at all.

My guess is that the FBI is going to put together a case that doesn’t use any self-incriminating testimony… and if/when the defense lawyers try to argue “poison fruit”, the FBI can say “even if there was an immunity deal, this isn’t poison fruit — and there was no immunity deal.”

LHP:
Assuming facts not in evidence, namely that anyone in W’s administration acts in accordance with the rule of law.

J’immunity Cricket!

Just to be clear: Is it legally possible and/or likely that Dept of State investigators could have interviewed Blackwater agents involved in the killings, and prior to the interviews, given them verbal or written assurances that none of the statements made in those interviews would be used against the agents in a criminal prosecution?

If so, could these agreements be legally binding on DoJ prosecutors?

It wouldn’t mean they couldn’t be prosecuted; but it would mean the prosecution would have to be based on evidence obtain entirely independent of these interviews.

jon @ 15

The silencers? It’s so Blackwater guys can fell like real men. Macho posturing so they can be more badass than anyone else.

There’s nothing about escorts and personal protection that requires a silencer. If anything, they reduce the effectiveness of the firearm.

They’re probably the last guys you’d choose to go off on a special ops mission for a little close-in wet work. At the very least they’d be bragging the next night down in the bar.

In comments section somewhere I read that silencers do things like eliminate the flash that might temporarily blind a coworker at night, and other technical reasons, and that we should not all jump to conclusions.
Hahahahahahaha.

Any one who opposes the Bush Middle East actions is either a communist, a fascist, or a nazi.

AP – President Bush compared Congress’ Democratic leaders Thursday to people who ignored the rise of Lenin and Hitler early in the last century, saying “the world paid a terrible price” then and risks similar consequences for inaction today.

Scarecrow @ 22

Just to be clear: Is it legally possible and/or likely that Dept of State investigators could have interviewed Blackwater agents involved in the killings, and prior to the interviews, given them verbal or written assurances that none of the statements made in those interviews would be used against the agents in a criminal prosecution?

If so, could these agreements be legally binding on DoJ prosecutors?

It wouldn’t mean they couldn’t be prosecuted; but it would mean the prosecution would have to be based on evidence obtain entirely independent of these interviews.

IANAL (obviously) but given the propensity of Blackwater folks to play fast and loose with the truth, wouldn’t the lies they (presumably) told under the faux immunity be enough to cancel them anyway?

So…now that Blackwater is under DOD, just who might be a marked target requiring a silencer??? That is the question. It almost sounds like they are planning a “hit”. Hmmmm….they protect diplomats from the Department of State, who they don’t work for anymore…Hmmmm…who do they have access to? What would happen if someone important got bumped? Just random thoughts about this…I think the silencer question is really important. Something stinks; especially, since they didn’t get the permit from….who else…the Department of State.

Thank You LHP!
You just made my day with that.
Someone is obviously trying to pull the wool, as they say.
Not with LooseHeadProp on the case!

Wasn’t it the FBI that investigated them?

Oklahoma kiddo @ 24

Any one who opposes the Bush Middle East actions is either a communist, a fascist, or a nazi.

AP – President Bush compared Congress’ Democratic leaders Thursday to people who ignored the rise of Lenin and Hitler early in the last century, saying “the world paid a terrible price” then and risks similar consequences for inaction today.

My rule: the side of the arguement that mentions Nazis, Hilter or Holocaust first, loses.

let me tell you that as a matter of law, it would be impossible for that to be true

You mean impossible like searches/wiretaps without warrants? Or impossible like ex post facto immunity for past crimes?

When you create your own reality, the ability to create your own law comes with the territory.

Silencers do cut down on noise pollution though.

eCAHNomics @ 29

Oklahoma kiddo @ 24

Any one who opposes the Bush Middle East actions is either a communist, a fascist, or a nazi.

AP – President Bush compared Congress’ Democratic leaders Thursday to people who ignored the rise of Lenin and Hitler early in the last century, saying “the world paid a terrible price” then and risks similar consequences for inaction today.

My rule: the side of the arguement that mentions Nazis, Hilter or Holocaust first, loses.

The eCAHN Rule: the side of the argument that mentions Nazis, Hilter or Holocaust first, loses.

I like it!

LS @ 26

So…now that Blackwater is under DOD, just who might be a marked target requiring a silencer??? That is the question. It almost sounds like they are planning a “hit”. Hmmmm….they protect diplomats from the Department of State, who they don’t work for anymore…Hmmmm…who do they have access to? What would happen if someone important got bumped? Just random thoughts about this…I think the silencer question is really important. Something stinks; especially, since they didn’t get the permit from….who else…the Department of State.

So much of our intel is now contracted out.. Why wouldn’t Blackwater have some spook contracts we don’t know about?

Another thing…

3 shots to the forehead
3 shots to the forehead
3 shots to the forehead

Another thing…

The soldier who found something in the “books” who was found…shot in the head.

So, what do you need silencers for?

What “inaction” is the President talking about exactly?

AP – President Bush compared Congress’ Democratic leaders Thursday to people who ignored the rise of Lenin and Hitler early in the last century, saying “the world paid a terrible price” then and risks similar consequences for inaction today.

Elliot @ 32
Normally I don’t mind, but if you’re going to make a formal rule of it, my name should be spelled correctly.

I’ll also mention that the last time anyone obeyed any rule of mine was: never. That (especially) includes my 26 year old wingnut son.

Eureka Springs @ 34

LS @ 26

So…now that Blackwater is under DOD, just who might be a marked target requiring a silencer??? That is the question. It almost sounds like they are planning a “hit”. Hmmmm….they protect diplomats from the Department of State, who they don’t work for anymore…Hmmmm…who do they have access to? What would happen if someone important got bumped? Just random thoughts about this…I think the silencer question is really important. Something stinks; especially, since they didn’t get the permit from….who else…the Department of State.

So much of our intel is now contracted out.. Why wouldn’t Blackwater have some spook contracts we don’t know about?

They have tons of subcontractors…and…Krongard (Buzzy) was #3 in the CIA with Cofer Black who is now Vice Chairman of Blackwater….something covert goin’ on.

eCAHNomics @ 37

Elliot @ 32
Normally I don’t mind, but if you’re going to make a formal rule of it, my name should be spelled correctly.

I’ll also mention that the last time anyone obeyed any rule of mine was: never. That (especially) includes my 26 year old wingnut son.

Oy vey…my condolences…must make for exciting conversation over Turkey…*g*

Oklahoma kiddo @ 35

What “inaction” is the President talking about exactly?

AP – President Bush compared Congress’ Democratic leaders Thursday to people who ignored the rise of Lenin and Hitler early in the last century, saying “the world paid a terrible price” then and risks similar consequences for inaction today.

The inaction of not starting any wars since they took over Congress.

LS @ 37

Eureka Springs @ 34

So much of our intel is now contracted out.. Why wouldn’t Blackwater have some spook contracts we don’t know about?

They have tons of subcontractors…and…Krongard (Buzzy) was #3 in the CIA with Cofer Black who is now Vice Chairman of Blackwater….something covert goin’ on.

And our own congress cannot get the truth even if they actually ask.

What if all of Blackwater is actually CIA?

“I’ll also mention that the last time anyone obeyed any rule of mine was: never. That (especially) includes my 26 year old wingnut son.”

My daughter is even more rad than I am. She reads my comments here and elsewhere, and will not infrequently question me as to why I’m so conservative. Like in “get a grip Papa, be more lib”.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 42

“I’ll also mention that the last time anyone obeyed any rule of mine was: never. That (especially) includes my 26 year old wingnut son.”

My daughter is even more rad than I am. She reads my comments here and elsewhere, and will not infrequently question me as to why I’m so conservative. Like in “get a grip Papa, be more lib”.

Wingnuts are radical righties. My son really believes you can bring democracy at the point of a gun, and other such fairy tales. Bad parenting, I guess.

LS @ 42

What if all of Blackwater is actually CIA?

That is perhaps a possibility… if not a probability.

LS @ 38

Eureka Springs @ 34

So much of our intel is now contracted out.. Why wouldn’t Blackwater have some spook contracts we don’t know about?

They have tons of subcontractors…and…Krongard (Buzzy) was #3 in the CIA with Cofer Black who is now Vice Chairman of Blackwater….something covert goin’ on.

But here’s the interesting twist: The Reconstruction Operations Centers are themselves outsourced, through a recently renewed $475 million contract to the British firm Aegis. And Aegis is run by the infamous old-school gun-for-hire, Tim Spicer. He’s the guy, you may recall, who tried to use his mercenary army to launch a counter-coup for the government of Sierra Leone; his associate, Simon Mann plotted the overthrow of the authorities in Equatorial Guinea. Later, in Iraq, one of his ex-employees circulated online a rather nasty “trophy video,” in which contractors are seen shooting at civilians — to the sounds of Elvis’ “Runaway Train.”

link

Nice guys.

You see for statutory immunity to be conferred—YOU NEED A COURT ORDER. Immunity is not some causal thing that you can accidentally or carelessly sprinkle about like pocket lint. It is the result of a formal application by a lawyer for the government . . .

Kind of like the government has to get a judge to sign a search warrant before a telecom turns over its records of your phone calls. Just saying “don’t worry about it — we’re the government” doesn’t cut it.

Oh, wait a minute . . . someone better tell the director of national intelligence about this newfangled “court order” thingy.

Fast.

eCAHNomics @ 44

Oklahoma kiddo @ 42

“I’ll also mention that the last time anyone obeyed any rule of mine was: never. That (especially) includes my 26 year old wingnut son.”

My daughter is even more rad than I am. She reads my comments here and elsewhere, and will not infrequently question me as to why I’m so conservative. Like in “get a grip Papa, be more lib”.

Wingnuts are radical righties. My son really believes you can bring democracy at the point of a gun, and other such fairy tales. Bad parenting, I guess.

Not your fault.

Forms? Court of law? Legal requirements? How cute. How pre-9/11 of you.

If there’s one thing this administration has shown us, it’s that they don’t need to follow the law. It’s pathetic to read people getting upset about this when it’s been happening for 6 years and no one’s stopped them yet.

They don’t need no stinkin’ badges!

Elliott @ 32

eCAHNomics @ 29

My rule: the side of the arguement that mentions Nazis, Hilter or Holocaust first, loses.

The eCAHN Rule: the side of the argument that mentions Nazis, Hilter or Holocaust first, loses.

I like it!

Eg, Godwin’s Law?

Sorry my quotes are FU’d

Bob Z @ 49

Forms? Court of law? Legal requirements? How cute. How pre-9/11 of you.

If there’s one thing this administration has shown us, it’s that they don’t need to follow the law. It’s pathetic to read people getting upset about this when it’s been happening for 6 years and no one’s stopped them yet.

They don’t need no stinkin’ badges!

Pretty much.

SadieSue @ 15 — my thoughts exactly.

We know that these guys try to short-circuit any law or law enforcement process or mechanism that threatens to touch them.

Why not here?

eCAHNomics @ 36

Elliot @ 32
Normally I don’t mind, but if you’re going to make a formal rule of it, my name should be spelled correctly.

I’ll also mention that the last time anyone obeyed any rule of mine was: never. That (especially) includes my 26 year old wingnut son.

I apologize profusely!

Elliott @ 53

eCAHNomics @ 36

Elliot @ 32
Normally I don’t mind, but if you’re going to make a formal rule of it, my name should be spelled correctly.

I’ll also mention that the last time anyone obeyed any rule of mine was: never. That (especially) includes my 26 year old wingnut son.

I apologize profusely!

‘pology accepted. That’s the most common misspelling so I’m used to it.

SDS. We need you, my comrades.

OT..

“The Senate voted 64-30 for the bill that aims to provide health insurance to about 10 million children in low-income families unable to afford private insurance but who earn too much for the federal Medicaid program for the poor.”

link

What was the vote the last time? Are the three additional need for over ride out campaigning?

Knut Wicksell @ 7

LHP. What I’d like to know is where was the State Department’s General Counsel in all this? It seems as though the modus operandi of this administration is to not bother with passing legal stuff past legally trained specialists. After all, the law is just for little people. We make our own reality.

When is the legal profession going to come out big time against this travesty?

What LHP wants to know is Where is the State Department IG in all this?

Knut, I am as mystified as you.

As for the legal profession getting up in arms, I’m doing my bit, brother

Oklahoma kiddo @ 8

Aren’t silencers produced with the express purpose of keeping murder quiet?

Yep.n Creepy isn’t it?

LS @ 48

eCAHNomics @ 44

Wingnuts are radical righties. My son really believes you can bring democracy at the point of a gun, and other such fairy tales. Bad parenting, I guess.

Not your fault.

That’s right. Or… is it left? I just got lucky (with my daughter).

jon @ 10

Maybe so. But a good defense lawyer would say that their client was promised immunity, so anything divulged under that promise is not admissible. Poison fruits etc.

Now this can be disputed, and perhaps cases can go forward. But it substantially muddies the case, adds time and trouble, and helps all of this fade from the public eye.

Heckuva job Condi!

I think that may be what is happening, b/c Justice shifted the case to a differentn unit and is creating a “chinese wall” to prevent those agents and lawyers who have had access to the “tainted” statements from interacting with the agents and lawyers now working the case

LS @ 34

Another thing…

3 shots to the forehead
3 shots to the forehead
3 shots to the forehead

Another thing…

The soldier who found something in the “books” who was found…shot in the head.

So, what do you need silencers for?

She was from a large Irish family in Massachusetts and she told them to look into it if anything happened to her.

She had a desk job in finance. And she’d found something.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 11

Would say, Mukasey for example, if he were the AG, be able to make application for immunity?

Yes. and he and his top brass are the folks who have to approve the application for immunity if made by some lawyer further down the food chain.. Read the first couple of links, it’s all explained in the US Attorney’s manual

looseheadprop @ 59

jon @ 10

Maybe so. But a good defense lawyer would say that their client was promised immunity, so anything divulged under that promise is not admissible. Poison fruits etc.

Now this can be disputed, and perhaps cases can go forward. But it substantially muddies the case, adds time and trouble, and helps all of this fade from the public eye.

Heckuva job Condi!

I think that may be what is happening, b/c Justice shifted the case to a differentn unit and is creating a “chinese wall” to prevent those agents and lawyers who have had access to the “tainted” statements from interacting with the agents and lawyers now working the case

Chinese wall? After its been in all the newspapers? Seems like a stretch to me.

She went to Mass nearly every day.

She was found outside of the church with a bullet in the head.

LHP – This ABC Report on Blackwater contains what they purport to be the actual language taken verbatim from the Blackwater statements taken by State Department.

Assuming this is accurate language, it is clearly Garrity derived. there is no question that the “immunity grants” (I agree that is somewhat deceptive, but for the sake of identification will stick with it for now) will NOT preclude criminal prosecution; if prosecution was possible in the first place, which is no given. I will say this much, the actions of State sure didn’t make prosecution any easier; quite the opposite it makes the effort more difficult. Irrespective of that fact, what is absolutely mind boggling is that State gave these Garrity agreements to ALL of the involved Blackwater personnel. That is insane; a couple of them maybe, but all of them? Amazing. There seems to be some evidence that State has been doing this all along, with all shooting investigations of Blackwater, in every incident. My guess is that it is part of their contract, that Blackwater insists on it in order to even have their people talk to State, and that it is a designed policy to further quash any attempt at ever having a criminal prosecution.

lhp! Thank you, thank you! My reaction, on hearing the news reports that “State Dept. had given them immunity” when they answered questions was, umm, WTF?
Followed by, State may have told them they had immunity, but that doesn’t mean they DID have immunity.
I haven’t practiced for awhile, but it did sound passing strange. Do you sppose there is some kind of secret court order somewhere? (or perhaps one is being cooked up as we speak, and back-dated)

Mad Dogs @ 14

LHP,

If I pretend I’m a “defense attorney” for a moment (a real stretch since IANAL at all), would I have a compelling argument in court that my client “believed” the Government when it said my client had “immunity” from prosecution?

What I’m asking is would a Judge “tend” to rule in my client’s favor to toss out any and all evidence related to my client’s “conversation” with investigators?

If there was an experienced defense lawyer present when it was said? I would not buy a minute of it. It is a defense lawyer’s business to know that these agents can’t offer immunity on their own.

Boston1775 @ 61

LS @ 34

Another thing…

3 shots to the forehead
3 shots to the forehead
3 shots to the forehead

Another thing…

The soldier who found something in the “books” who was found…shot in the head.

So, what do you need silencers for?

She was from a large Irish family in Massachusetts and she told them to look into it if anything happened to her.

She had a desk job in finance. And she’d found something.

IIRC she was shot in her quarters..a suppressed weapon would be useful in that sitruation.

I hope one thing. That is, that President H.R. Clinton takes her special position as an officer of the court extremely seriously. I can ask no more.

p.lukasiak @ 20

Now this can be disputed, and perhaps cases can go forward. But it substantially muddies the case, adds time and trouble, and helps all of this fade from the public eye.

I don’t think it muddies the case at all. There either was legally binding immunity conferred, or there wasn’t. The State Department was not (and is not empowered to) doing a criminal investigation, so I don’t even see why any warning had to be given at all.

My guess is that the FBI is going to put together a case that doesn’t use any self-incriminating testimony… and if/when the defense lawyers try to argue “poison fruit”, the FBI can say “even if there was an immunity deal, this isn’t poison fruit — and there was no immunity deal.”

That’s my take on it as well. That FBI is not gonna be left holding the bag for the f**k up by State and are going to go WAYYYY above and beyond what the law requires to try to bullet proof (no pun intended) their case

So…Blackwater is now under DOD…under Aegis, which is a British company…

Can we take away their citizenship yet, because if they are actually working for a British firm and pulled guns on US soldiers…Timing is all wrong I know, but still…

WTF is going on!!

Steve-AR @ 68

Boston1775 @ 61

She was from a large Irish family in Massachusetts and she told them to look into it if anything happened to her.

She had a desk job in finance. And she’d found something.

IIRC she was shot in her quarters..a suppressed weapon would be useful in that sitruation.

The news reports in the Boston globe said she was shot outside the chapel in the middle of a secured area.

looseheadprop @ 58

Knut Wicksell @ 7

LHP. What I’d like to know is where was the State Department’s General Counsel in all this? It seems as though the modus operandi of this administration is to not bother with passing legal stuff past legally trained specialists. After all, the law is just for little people. We make our own reality.

When is the legal profession going to come out big time against this travesty?

What LHP wants to know is Where is the State Department IG in all this?

Knut, I am as mystified as you.

As for the legal profession getting up in arms, I’m doing my bit, brother

Eliot A. Cohen is the Counselor of the Department, having moved into that office at the end of April. From his bio, there’s lots in the way of military-related experience, but little that would say he’s done much with regard to immunity and such in the civilian world.

Great post LHP.

Why does blackwater need silencers anyway?

Scarecrow @ 23

Just to be clear: Is it legally possible and/or likely that Dept of State investigators could have interviewed Blackwater agents involved in the killings, and prior to the interviews, given them verbal or written assurances that none of the statements made in those interviews would be used against the agents in a criminal prosecution?

If so, could these agreements be legally binding on DoJ prosecutors?

It wouldn’t mean they couldn’t be prosecuted; but it would mean the prosecution would have to be based on evidence obtain entirely independent of these interviews.

Is it factually possible? yes, who the hell knows what batshit crazy thing they did.

Is it legally possible? Nope. Such and act would be ultra vires, that is “beyond the power” conferred on them

eCAHNomics @ 24

jon @ 15

The silencers? It’s so Blackwater guys can fell like real men. Macho posturing so they can be more badass than anyone else.

There’s nothing about escorts and personal protection that requires a silencer. If anything, they reduce the effectiveness of the firearm.

They’re probably the last guys you’d choose to go off on a special ops mission for a little close-in wet work. At the very least they’d be bragging the next night down in the bar.

In comments section somewhere I read that silencers do things like eliminate the flash that might temporarily blind a coworker at night, and other technical reasons, and that we should not all jump to conclusions.
Hahahahahahaha.

You don’t use regular ammunition with a silenced weapon. It requires subsonic rounds – and it blows to hell any kind of accuracy over distances greater than about 30 feet

Hmmmm….Blackwater has changed their “image” on their website too!!! They are trying to become invisible it seems…making themselves “small”..it is crazy!!!

http://www.blackwaterusa.com/

WTF is going on!!

LS @ 27

So…now that Blackwater is under DOD, just who might be a marked target requiring a silencer??? That is the question. It almost sounds like they are planning a “hit”. Hmmmm….they protect diplomats from the Department of State, who they don’t work for anymore…Hmmmm…who do they have access to? What would happen if someone important got bumped? Just random thoughts about this…I think the silencer question is really important. Something stinks; especially, since they didn’t get the permit from….who else…the Department of State.

LS, the silencer investigation is not new. It pre-dates the the homicide investigation

Realist @ 31

let me tell you that as a matter of law, it would be impossible for that to be true

You mean impossible like searches/wiretaps without warrants? Or impossible like ex post facto immunity for past crimes?

When you create your own reality, the ability to create your own law comes with the territory.

Hey, I said as a matter of LAW, I didn’t say as a matter of fact. These guys make those up as they go along

looseheadprop @ 78

LS @ 27

So…now that Blackwater is under DOD, just who might be a marked target requiring a silencer??? That is the question. It almost sounds like they are planning a “hit”. Hmmmm….they protect diplomats from the Department of State, who they don’t work for anymore…Hmmmm…who do they have access to? What would happen if someone important got bumped? Just random thoughts about this…I think the silencer question is really important. Something stinks; especially, since they didn’t get the permit from….who else…the Department of State.

LS, the silencer investigation is not new. It pre-dates the the homicide investigation

Okay, but still.

Aren’t silencers illegal in this country? But then again, so is waterboarding.

LAW? What is this word? Sounds familiar — heard it in my childhood I think.

karnak12 @ 76

eCAHNomics @ 24

In comments section somewhere I read that silencers do things like eliminate the flash that might temporarily blind a coworker at night, and other technical reasons, and that we should not all jump to conclusions.
Hahahahahahaha.

You don’t use regular ammunition with a silenced weapon. It requires subsonic rounds – and it blows to hell any kind of accuracy over distances greater than about 30 feet

OK, so someone explain to me again why they would need silencers…on the types of weapons they use? At distances less than 30 feet? Why do I keep thinking, Pat Tillman, Pat Tillman, Pat Tillman?
No one needs a silencer for a weapon in a warfare situation – only in a situation where you don’t want anyone to know/hear what you are doing.
Blackwater should really be called Murder, Inc.

You don’t use regular ammunition with a silenced weapon. It requires subsonic rounds – and it blows to hell any kind of accuracy over distances greater than about 30 feet

Regular 45ACP works quite well.

Steve-AR @ 12

Blackwater have been bad boys with their “gun running”; exporting suppressors to Iraq is a “no no”.

SWR

Just so folks here realize, Blackwater is not just about protecting DoS folks. According to Dr. Hillhouse over at The Spy Who Billed Me , Blackwater is one of the private mercenary organizations that performs “Special Operations” and contract military-type functions for hire for intelligence agencies like the CIA.

The Blackwater stuff we generally read about is the “visible” stuff, and a good deal more takes place under that blackwater that we don’t.

And don’t ask if there’s any oversight of those activities. With this Administration, and this Congress?

OT (sorta)

Y’all hear about the comments Pelosi made about Bush’s legacy?

Mad Dogs @ 14

LHP,

If I pretend I’m a “defense attorney” for a moment (a real stretch since IANAL at all), would I have a compelling argument in court that my client “believed” the Government when it said my client had “immunity” from prosecution?

What I’m asking is would a Judge “tend” to rule in my client’s favor to toss out any and all evidence related to my client’s “conversation” with investigators?

The case I’d be looking at is Cooke v. Orser. Christopher Cooke was a missile launch officer who was prosecuted for passing information to the Soviets in 1980-81. As it happened, he was promised immunity if he cooperated in the investigation — but not by someone with authority to give immunity. The appellate courts nonetheless enforced the deal.

Bob Z @ 49

Forms? Court of law? Legal requirements? How cute. How pre-9/11 of you.

If there’s one thing this administration has shown us, it’s that they don’t need to follow the law. It’s pathetic to read people getting upset about this when it’s been happening for 6 years and no one’s stopped them yet.

They don’t need no stinkin’ badges!

The thing is, it took me less than 1/2 hour to line up those links.

WHY can’t the MSM find this info out and report it accurately? Why do they only steno the crap they are spoonfed. This post was not hard to research. What do their news organizations actually pay them to do all day?

TexBetsy @ 82

LAW? What is this word? Sounds familiar — heard it in my childhood I think.

Betsy – LOl – but then the laugh nearly turned to tears…
Every single day there’s some appalling piece of news.

We have sub-sonic ammunition. We bought it a WalMart. But we don’t have any silencers.

Hi Y’all,
I’m violating my “never come out of lurker” status just this once, to correct you, looseheadprop…(altho I love you)…
Check the case of Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 US 493 (1967) and follow-on cases. Yes, “immunity” can in fact be granted by an employer (*not* a prosecutor only). If a public employee is forced to answer questions on the job, those statements cannot be used in a criminal proceeding. And the fruits. Check it–I thought you and the readership would like to know.
xxx

Oh…this is sweet. The new improved, ultra innocent Blackwater…from their website:

“Innovation Begins with Experience

Blackwater Worldwide efficiently and effectively integrates a wide range of resources and core competencies to provide unique and timely solutions that exceed our customers’ stated needs and expectations.

We are guided by integrity, innovation, and a desire for a safer world. Blackwater Worldwide professionals leverage state-of-the-art training facilities, professional program management teams, and innovative manufacturing and production capabilities to deliver world-class, customer-driven solutions.

Our leadership and dedicated family of exceptional employees adheres to an essential of core corporate values- chief among these are integrity, innovation, excellence, respect, accountability, and teamwork.”

Yeah, I’ll say…gotta go sign up ASAP…

Immunity is not some causal thing that you can accidentally or carelessly sprinkle about like pocket lint.

No, it’s Pixie Dust, industrial grade…! C’mon, it’s an extension of the Unitary Executive, LHP! And just as illegal, if it ever sees the light of day…

TexBetsy @ 86

OT (sorta)

Y’all hear about the comments Pelosi made about Bush’s legacy?

I’d be more impressed with comments like that if she didn’t keep giving Bush what he wants.

Ciara Durkin died by a bullet to her head in a secure area.

looseheadprop @ 61

jon @ 10

Maybe so. But a good defense lawyer would say that their client was promised immunity, so anything divulged under that promise is not admissible. Poison fruits etc.

Now this can be disputed, and perhaps cases can go forward. But it substantially muddies the case, adds time and trouble, and helps all of this fade from the public eye.

Heckuva job Condi!

I think that may be what is happening, b/c Justice shifted the case to a differentn unit and is creating a “chinese wall” to prevent those agents and lawyers who have had access to the “tainted” statements from interacting with the agents and lawyers now working the case

I’d be pleading, as a defense guy, that any statements are inadmissible as having been coerced by a false promise of immunity.

‘Course, that still leaves open a couple of things:

1) Evidence obtained independently of “admissions” is still admissible, and

2) What if one guy who was promised immunity’s statement doesn’t implicate himself – but others? (I’d make the same argument if representing the implicated merc, but without self-implication, any argument to toss the other guy’s statement loses a lot of power.)(In fact, that would be *tough* evidence against the implicated merc(s).

lhp said:

WHY can’t the MSM find this info out and report it accurately? Why do they only steno the crap they are spoonfed. This post was not hard to research. What do their news organizations actually pay them to do all day?

That was a rhetorical question, right?

Actually, I was having this conversation just last night…I think they see themselves as entertainers now, and it figures, since it seems the only criterion for broadcast media is good looks. It’s the only explanation I can come up with. So far.

Boston1775 @ 95

Ciara Durkin died by a bullet to her head in a secure area.

the depth of depravity re: Iraq is beyond measure

TexBetsy @ 86

OT (sorta)

Y’all hear about the comments Pelosi made about Bush’s legacy?

Pelosi, Pelosi, Pelosi….stoop, please.

What did these Blackwater types do before Blackwater?

LS @ 92

Oh…this is sweet. The new improved, ultra innocent Blackwater…from their website:

“Innovation Begins with Experience

Blackwater Worldwide efficiently and effectively integrates a wide range of resources and core competencies to provide unique and timely solutions that exceed our customers’ stated needs and expectations.

We are guided by integrity, innovation, and a desire for a safer world. Blackwater Worldwide professionals leverage state-of-the-art training facilities, professional program management teams, and innovative manufacturing and production capabilities to deliver world-class, customer-driven solutions.

Our leadership and dedicated family of exceptional employees adheres to an essential of core corporate values- chief among these are integrity, innovation, excellence, respect, accountability, and teamwork.”

Yeah, I’ll say…gotta go sign up ASAP…

Boy, is there a modern corporate-speak cliche they left out?

Oklahoma kiddo @ 81

Aren’t silencers illegal in this country? But then again, so is waterboarding.

Not unless the law has changed. A suppressor is classified as a Class III weapon. Paper work, finger prints, back ground check, a letter from local law saying you are OK and $200 for the Class III tax stamp and you are good to go.

Elliott @ 99

Boston1775 @ 95

Ciara Durkin died by a bullet to her head in a secure area.

the depth of depravity re: Iraq is beyond measure

Was Ciara Durkin in Iraq or Afghanistan?

LS @ 48

eCAHNomics @ 44

Wingnuts are radical righties. My son really believes you can bring democracy at the point of a gun, and other such fairy tales. Bad parenting, I guess.

Not your fault.

I’m rather fond of the old p*k*r analogy when it comes to some adult children – just the luck of the draw or some such words. ;~)

lurker991 @ 91

Hi Y’all,
I’m violating my “never come out of lurker” status just this once, to correct you, looseheadprop…(altho I love you)…
Check the case of Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 US 493 (1967) and follow-on cases. Yes, “immunity” can in fact be granted by an employer (*not* a prosecutor only). If a public employee is forced to answer questions on the job, those statements cannot be used in a criminal proceeding. And the fruits. Check it–I thought you and the readership would like to know.
xxx

But, are they ‘Public Employees?’ I’m under the impression they’re independent contractors…

Oklahoma kiddo @ 100

What did these Blackwater types do before Blackwater?

many were in the United States Armed Forces, no?

Tithonia @ 103

Elliott @ 99

the depth of depravity re: Iraq is beyond measure

Was Ciara Durkin in Iraq or Afghanistan?

Good point. Afghanistan.

Tithonia @ 103

Elliott @ 99

the depth of depravity re: Iraq is beyond measure

Was Ciara Durkin in Iraq or Afghanistan?

you’re right Afghanistan.

Tithonia @ 103

Elliott @ 99

the depth of depravity re: Iraq is beyond measure

Was Ciara Durkin in Iraq or Afghanistan?

Afghanisan

Elliott @ 105

Oklahoma kiddo @ 100

What did these Blackwater types do before Blackwater?

many were in the United States Armed Forces, no?

Quite a few were playing henchman in South Africa and Kosovo, as I recall?

Oklahoma kiddo @ 100

What did these Blackwater types do before Blackwater?

Served their country in uniform! Rangers, Seals, Recon Marines, SF, etc…

And, where was Tillman??? Afghanistan.

Go get ‘em, LHP!

Steve-AR @ 103

Oklahoma kiddo @ 81

Aren’t silencers illegal in this country? But then again, so is waterboarding.

Not unless the law has changed. A suppressor is classified as a Class III weapon. Paper work, finger prints, back ground check, a letter from local law saying you are OK and $200 for the Class III tax stamp and you are good to go.

If this is the case, Lahoma thinks we should get some. For protection she says. ;0)

Anyone who had a hint of a brain, knows that the SD cannot offer immunity. Only a prosecutor of someone in the DOJ or local equivalent can. If the SD conducted an investigation, they should turn over their finds to the DOJ which would then decide to investigate further to bring a case if they felt there was wrong doing.

So why all the BS? Clearly just the use of private security for SD officials is of questionable wisdom. Why are not our own military doing this sort of guard duty as they do in embassies all around the world?

This is a strategy to use force outside the control and sanction of congress and courts… and courts. Not only are these private security operations woorking outside the reach of the law, but they are doing so at enormous cost to the taxpayers, way more than it costs to have US military do the same duty.

But with the DOJ completely corrupted in the pocket of the administration and many career owrkers have left, it is unlikely that anything will be done.

The AG scandal exposed how they were polluted the DOJ and turn it into a political tool for the administration.

The dems have been playing by the rules and the administration simply does work-arounds and ignores the law, the rules and steals… our taxes, our blood, our reputation, our rights and the wealth of other nations such as Iraq.

This bunch is so criminal it’s hard to comprehend. Everything they touch is tainted with crime and negligence, or gross incompetence.

Hopefully they will be sent packing in 09. But even that may be wishful thinking. They stole and rigged elections before right in plain sight with the help of the supremes. They’ll do it again.

Elliott @ 105

Oklahoma kiddo @ 100

What did these Blackwater types do before Blackwater?

many were in the United States Armed Forces, no?

20-30%?? are foreign. Serbs, South African, Peru, Chile etc.

TexBetsy @ 86

OT (sorta)

Y’all hear about the comments Pelosi made about Bush’s legacy?

Outrageous, just outrageous! Pete Stark should force her to apologize! Immediately!

CTuttle @ 105

lurker991 @ 91

Hi Y’all,
I’m violating my “never come out of lurker” status just this once, to correct you, looseheadprop…(altho I love you)…
Check the case of Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 US 493 (1967) and follow-on cases. Yes, “immunity” can in fact be granted by an employer (*not* a prosecutor only). If a public employee is forced to answer questions on the job, those statements cannot be used in a criminal proceeding. And the fruits. Check it–I thought you and the readership would like to know.
xxx

But, are they ‘Public Employees?’ I’m under the impression they’re independent contractors…

Not if Henry Waxman has anything to do with it. He thinks Blackwater is misclassifying them as Independent Contractors to avoid paying FICA etc. and he’s going after them for that.

LS @ 111

And, where was Tillman??? Afghanistan.

regrettably, depravity to go around

Ciara told her family if anything happened to her that they should look into it.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 100

What did these Blackwater types do before Blackwater?

The secret history of America’s “extraordinary rendition” program.

From the beginning of the rendition program, Coleman said, there was no doubt that Egypt engaged in torture. He recalled the case of a suspect in the first World Trade Center bombing who fled to Egypt. The U.S. requested his return, and the Egyptians handed him over, wrapped head to toe in duct tape, like a mummy.

Walk like an Egyptian?

Steve-AR @ 115

Elliott @ 105

many were in the United States Armed Forces, no?

20-30%?? are foreign. Serbs, South African, Peru, Chile etc.

why is my skin crawling?

jon @ 16

The silencers? It’s so Blackwater guys can fell like real men. Macho posturing so they can be more badass than anyone else.

There’s nothing about escorts and personal protection that requires a silencer. If anything, they reduce the effectiveness of the firearm.

They’re probably the last guys you’d choose to go off on a special ops mission for a little close-in wet work. At the very least they’d be bragging the next night down in the bar.

FYI: The Muck comments have an interesting exchange on this and other issues between people who know firearms.

And they seem to have silenced if the word can be used here their resident troll Jake D.

LS @ 27

So…now that Blackwater is under DOD, just who might be a marked target requiring a silencer??? That is the question. It almost sounds like they are planning a “hit”. Hmmmm….they protect diplomats from the Department of State, who they don’t work for anymore…Hmmmm…who do they have access to? What would happen if someone important got bumped? Just random thoughts about this…I think the silencer question is really important. Something stinks; especially, since they didn’t get the permit from….who else…the Department of State.

Actually, they are prepping on the off chance that Greenwald takes Boylan up on his offer to go to Iraq.

I guess Pelosi has just decided to ignore what W does, but spank him on occasion. She should realize that whatever Babs did or didn’t do, didn’t make any difference, because he’s a sociopath – incapable of empathy – just like Babs.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 113

Steve-AR @ 103

Not unless the law has changed. A suppressor is classified as a Class III weapon. Paper work, finger prints, back ground check, a letter from local law saying you are OK and $200 for the Class III tax stamp and you are good to go.

If this is the case, Lahoma thinks we should get some. For protection she says. ;0)

Years ago, a friend bought an M-60 machine gun..think Rambo..The reason for purchase that he put on the Fed forms was “home protection”. Went through without a hitch.

TexBetsy @ 73

Great post LHP.

Why does blackwater need silencers anyway?

That’s what I want to tknow

Screw the silencers. We want a tank.

Sparkatus @ 123

LS @ 27

So…now that Blackwater is under DOD, just who might be a marked target requiring a silencer??? That is the question. It almost sounds like they are planning a “hit”. Hmmmm….they protect diplomats from the Department of State, who they don’t work for anymore…Hmmmm…who do they have access to? What would happen if someone important got bumped? Just random thoughts about this…I think the silencer question is really important. Something stinks; especially, since they didn’t get the permit from….who else…the Department of State.

Actually, they are prepping on the off chance that Greenwald takes Boylan up on his offer to go to Iraq.

Blackwater is under DOD in name only..Oversight has been out-sourced to Aegis.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 129

Screw the silencers. We want a tank.

We only have two parking spaces. Not sure where we’d put one.

Pach’s upstairs with Nancy.

So where exactly does the idea that Blackwater has immunity come from?

Califlander @ 88

Mad Dogs @ 14

LHP,

If I pretend I’m a “defense attorney” for a moment (a real stretch since IANAL at all), would I have a compelling argument in court that my client “believed” the Government when it said my client had “immunity” from prosecution?

What I’m asking is would a Judge “tend” to rule in my client’s favor to toss out any and all evidence related to my client’s “conversation” with investigators?

The case I’d be looking at is Cooke v. Orser. Christopher Cooke was a missile launch officer who was prosecuted for passing information to the Soviets in 1980-81. As it happened, he was promised immunity if he cooperated in the investigation — but not by someone with authority to give immunity. The appellate courts nonetheless enforced the deal.

I think this, essentially the same as Jayt @97, is about right. Whether you call it immunity or suppressed evidence, same result. This is especially likely to be the case if there was no legal counsel available to the Blackwaters, or a common counsel working for Blackwater. As LHP states, this will NOT prevent a prosecution, but it will make for a lot of mischief for a good criminal defense lawyer to inject into an already extremely difficult, if not impossible, prosecution in light of the question of jurisdiction of any criminal provisions.

Thanks for posting this, as this has bothered me since the story broke. IANAL, so I have no idea how immunity works, but as I indicated to Josh Marshall when I encouraged him to pursue this angle (which he didn’t), I have intuitively picked up on a forming narrative that is protective of Blackwater, and I want to know what’s behind that.

Well, I guess once I comment, I feel like it merits spelling it out a bit:
The doctrine is set forward in Garrity, supra, as well as Sanitation Men v. Sanitation Commissioners, 392 US 280 (1968), as well as Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70 (1973), and a host of other follow-on cases. In a nutshell, information obtained non-voluntarily from a public employee cannot be used (as well as the fruits therefrom) and is thus immunized (a recent California case challenging this definition of immunized just came out, and was decertified by the CA supreme court–See Spielbauer). So as of now, yes in fact immunity can be granted by a non-judge or non-prosecutor. I know it’s hard to belive. Google it for a while.
As for the comment regarding “but aren’t they contractors…” yes and no. Yes they are, but no they aren’t. Do they have significant personal discretion? Do they set their own hours? Are they supervised or autonomous?
If they fail the independent contractor test, they may well be considered employees (regardless of the pay arrangement).
Thus, the initial press reports, although muddied and confused, may well have been right–if Blackwater employees were “forced” to talk (i.e., “Please tell us what you know or you don’t have a job”), then indeed…it may be immunized.
xxx

LHP, if the MSM got the facts and exposed the admin for their scamming they would become persona non grata and lose their access to the steno pool.

We really have pravda here as far as the MSM. And don’t forget the CIA has plants in the MSM.

FYI, new post

lurker991 @ 92

Hi Y’all,
I’m violating my “never come out of lurker” status just this once, to correct you, looseheadprop…(altho I love you)…
Check the case of Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 US 493 (1967) and follow-on cases. Yes, “immunity” can in fact be granted by an employer (*not* a prosecutor only). If a public employee is forced to answer questions on the job, those statements cannot be used in a criminal proceeding. And the fruits. Check it–I thought you and the readership would like to know.
xxx

If you had read the links, you would see that you are discussing A Kalkines warning, which I also have a quote about. I covered that

lurker991 @ 92

Hi Y’all,
I’m violating my “never come out of lurker” status just this once, to correct you, looseheadprop…(altho I love you)…
Check the case of Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 US 493 (1967) and follow-on cases. Yes, “immunity” can in fact be granted by an employer (*not* a prosecutor only). If a public employee is forced to answer questions on the job, those statements cannot be used in a criminal proceeding. And the fruits. Check it–I thought you and the readership would like to know.
xxx

I also included a link that discusses Garrity

jayt @ 97

looseheadprop @ 61

I think that may be what is happening, b/c Justice shifted the case to a differentn unit and is creating a “chinese wall” to prevent those agents and lawyers who have had access to the “tainted” statements from interacting with the agents and lawyers now working the case

I’d be pleading, as a defense guy, that any statements are inadmissible as having been coerced by a false promise of immunity.

‘Course, that still leaves open a couple of things:

1) Evidence obtained independently of “admissions” is still admissible, and

2) What if one guy who was promised immunity’s statement doesn’t implicate himself – but others? (I’d make the same argument if representing the implicated merc, but without self-implication, any argument to toss the other guy’s statement loses a lot of power.)(In fact, that would be *tough* evidence against the implicated merc(s).

Again, what I want to know is whetehre or not these statemetns were made in the presence of defense counsel? That changes things alot

lurker991 @ 136

Well, I guess once I comment, I feel like it merits spelling it out a bit:
The doctrine is set forward in Garrity, supra, as well as Sanitation Men v. Sanitation Commissioners, 392 US 280 (1968), as well as Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70 (1973), and a host of other follow-on cases. In a nutshell, information obtained non-voluntarily from a public employee cannot be used (as well as the fruits therefrom) and is thus immunized (a recent California case challenging this definition of immunized just came out, and was decertified by the CA supreme court–See Spielbauer). So as of now, yes in fact immunity can be granted by a non-judge or non-prosecutor. I know it’s hard to belive. Google it for a while.
As for the comment regarding “but aren’t they contractors…” yes and no. Yes they are, but no they aren’t. Do they have significant personal discretion? Do they set their own hours? Are they supervised or autonomous?
If they fail the independent contractor test, they may well be considered employees (regardless of the pay arrangement).
Thus, the initial press reports, although muddied and confused, may well have been right–if Blackwater employees were “forced” to talk (i.e., “Please tell us what you know or you don’t have a job”), then indeed…it may be immunized.
xxx

Mahalo! Please de-lurk more frequently! ;-)

==========================
I am a little disappointed that MoveOn and CodePink gets all the attention. We try here at Firedoglake to criticize, ridicule, and protest Kommander Guy’s psychotic delusions, as much as anyone.

“When it comes to funding our troops, some in Washington should spend more time responding to the warnings of terrorists like Osama bin Laden and the requests of our commanders on the ground,” Mr. Bush said, “and less time responding to the demands of MoveOn.org bloggers and Code Pink protesters.”

Of course, the chicken hawk Republicans are not funding the troops. China is lending the United States money. The patriotic war profiteers, will require that our children pay for this. Which warnings from Bin Laden should we pay attention to? But Bush and Bin Laden family have been in business for 25 years, and they even vacation together. What warnings from Commanders on the ground? Support Chalabi? Once again, the Constitution says it is Congress that decides wars, not the Commanders on the ground.

The “War on Terror” is a fraud to steal the oil from Iran and Iraq, and to terrorize the American people.

Maybe they need silencers because there are other soldiers out there like Pat Tillman who have info they’d like to share with the Congress or with the press. Solid information that must not be learned. That’s the only thing that makes sense to me.

LS @ 29

Wasn’t it the FBI that investigated them?

Yes, but after Blackwater did it’s own internal investigation.

bmaz @ 134

Califlander @ 88

The case I’d be looking at is Cooke v. Orser. Christopher Cooke was a missile launch officer who was prosecuted for passing information to the Soviets in 1980-81. As it happened, he was promised immunity if he cooperated in the investigation — but not by someone with authority to give immunity. The appellate courts nonetheless enforced the deal.

I think this, essentially the same as Jayt @97, is about right. Whether you call it immunity or suppressed evidence, same result. This is especially likely to be the case if there was no legal counsel available to the Blackwaters, or a common counsel working for Blackwater. As LHP states, this will NOT prevent a prosecution, but it will make for a lot of mischief for a good criminal defense lawyer to inject into an already extremely difficult, if not impossible, prosecution in light of the question of jurisdiction of any criminal provisions.

Do not conflate suppressing evidence with immunity from prosecution. They are very different things. Even with suppressed evidence, you can still be prosecuted and convicted if there is enough other evidence.

Also with a fruit of the posionous tree situation, you can still get the evidence in if you can find a non tainted way to develop it independantly–which is what FBI seems to be trying to do right now

Once again, thank you, LHP, for your sharing your insights and knowledge.

Bob in HI

lurker991 @ 136

Well, I guess once I comment, I feel like it merits spelling it out a bit:
The doctrine is set forward in Garrity, supra, as well as Sanitation Men v. Sanitation Commissioners, 392 US 280 (1968), as well as Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70 (1973), and a host of other follow-on cases. In a nutshell, information obtained non-voluntarily from a public employee cannot be used (as well as the fruits therefrom) and is thus immunized (a recent California case challenging this definition of immunized just came out, and was decertified by the CA supreme court–See Spielbauer). So as of now, yes in fact immunity can be granted by a non-judge or non-prosecutor. I know it’s hard to belive. Google it for a while.
As for the comment regarding “but aren’t they contractors…” yes and no. Yes they are, but no they aren’t. Do they have significant personal discretion? Do they set their own hours? Are they supervised or autonomous?
If they fail the independent contractor test, they may well be considered employees (regardless of the pay arrangement).
Thus, the initial press reports, although muddied and confused, may well have been right–if Blackwater employees were “forced” to talk (i.e., “Please tell us what you know or you don’t have a job”), then indeed…it may be immunized.
xxx

Suppression of evidence DOES NOT= immunity from prosecution.

They are very diffent concepts

Loo Hoo. @ 144

Maybe they need silencers because there are other soldiers out there like Pat Tillman who have info they’d like to share with the Congress or with the press. Solid information that must not be learned. That’s the only thing that makes sense to me.

May not all be for their own use. Could be exporting to other people doing other kinds of dirty work.

Fern @ 149

Loo Hoo. @ 144

Maybe they need silencers because there are other soldiers out there like Pat Tillman who have info they’d like to share with the Congress or with the press. Solid information that must not be learned. That’s the only thing that makes sense to me.

May not all be for their own use. Could be exporting to other people doing other kinds of dirty work.

Not to mention how valuable they are on the black market.

But what ever they are doing with them, I have a feeling it ain’t good

LHP – I wouldn’t think of conflating the two; however, a Garrity letter is effectively a form of limited use immunity. Semantics aside, if I were defending one of these guys, I would be buying beers for all to celebrate my good fortune in having all kinds of mischief to make in defending my client.

If you read that ABC link I left above, you sure get the impression that, at best, the Blackwaters may have had some guy from Blackwater, but no defense counsels. Appears that these statements were taken very soon after the incident, which means it was done in Iraq; so I can’t see how there could have been much in the way of proper counsel.

bmaz @ 151

LHP – I wouldn’t think of conflating the two; however, a Garrity letter is effectively a form of limited use immunity. Semantics aside, if I were defending one of these guys, I would be buying beers for all to celebrate my good fortune in having all kinds of mischief to make in defending my client.

If you read that ABC link I left above, you sure get the impression that, at best, the Blackwaters may have had some guy from Blackwater, but no defense counsels. Appears that these statements were taken very soon after the incident, which means it was done in Iraq; so I can’t see how there could have been much in the way of proper counsel.

I do think they will have a fruit of the posionous tree issue. And I think FBI is addressing it in an intelligent way. DOn’t forget that a Garrity letter has a coercive quid pro quoin it — that you talk or face job reprisals. Has there been any allegation that such was said to these defendants?

Further, you hit the nail on the head with Garrity LETTER. As with Queen for Day, deferred prosecution agreements, and cooperation agrrements–these are ALL written contracts and the agencies ALL have internatl rules for getting approvals up the food chain–including from DOJ.

This letters are not issued willy nilly

Well, I am still glad to post here, because I love what you all do, and I am in full support. However, as far as the law is concerned, it think it’s good to know it in it’s full complexity, and the law is difficult…
I will point out a few things. “Use immunity” and “fruits immunity” are common expression in the law. There are multiple and non-controverted opinions, including the US Supreme court, courts of appeal, Attorney General Decisions, state guidelines and treatises (see, e.g., CEB, Criminal Procedure and Practice, Sec. 23.44 (2006) “The rights and duties extended to public safety officers [under California law] actually apply to all public employees and contractors (and arguably to all governmentally licensed professionals) under the authority of Lefkowitz and Garrity. Counsel representing such clients should recognize that the use immunity afforded them by these cases presents broad opportunities for successful trial strategies, becuase the state has the burden of establishing that a subsequent prosecution is based on independent evidence.”)

So what we have here is a confusion. No, an employer (State Dept, in this case) cannot grant “TRANSACTIONAL IMMUNITY”. But they can (inadvertently, like Pixie Dust :) grant use and fruits immunity. It happens every day.

LooseHP, your reference to the “Garrity Materials” doesn’t answer the matter, because a Garrity warning is the following “You don’t have to talk to us, and if you do, anything you say can be used against you. Your participation is voluntary. You may leave if you don’t want to participate. This is not a condition of your employment and you will suffer no job consequences as a result.”

If *that* warning was given, there is no use or transactional immunity. IF it wasn’t (which, what do *you* think??)…then, per existing, uncontroverted law, the Blackwater boys can claim immunity. NOT transactional immunity (i.e. they can never be charged).
Use plus fruits immunity for whatever they said in the investigation. The same kind of immunity that Oliver NOrth had before Congress.
I don’t mean to contradict, but it’s good for our side to know the law.
xxx

looseheadprop @ 148

lurker991 @ 136

Well, I guess once I comment, I feel like it merits spelling it out a bit:
The doctrine is set forward in Garrity, supra, as well as Sanitation Men v. Sanitation Commissioners, 392 US 280 (1968), as well as Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70 (1973), and a host of other follow-on cases. In a nutshell, information obtained non-voluntarily from a public employee cannot be used (as well as the fruits therefrom) and is thus immunized (a recent California case challenging this definition of immunized just came out, and was decertified by the CA supreme court–See Spielbauer). So as of now, yes in fact immunity can be granted by a non-judge or non-prosecutor. I know it’s hard to belive. Google it for a while.
As for the comment regarding “but aren’t they contractors…” yes and no. Yes they are, but no they aren’t. Do they have significant personal discretion? Do they set their own hours? Are they supervised or autonomous?
If they fail the independent contractor test, they may well be considered employees (regardless of the pay arrangement).
Thus, the initial press reports, although muddied and confused, may well have been right–if Blackwater employees were “forced” to talk (i.e., “Please tell us what you know or you don’t have a job”), then indeed…it may be immunized.
xxx

Suppression of evidence DOES NOT= immunity from prosecution.

They are very diffent concepts

Would the “fact” that they are private contractors rather than employees change the equation?

–A couple final clear-up points:
Garrity situations can only result in use + fruits immunity. Transactional immunity (i.e. never to be prosecuted for the crime) can only be given by a judge/prosecutor.
–There are no “writing” or waiver or flyer or signature or procedural or steps or guidelines or any method requirements *WHATSOEVER* for Garrity immunity to attach. You need merely question the employee in a coercive situation (i.e. lose your job, reduce your pay, suspend you,. etc.).
That’s it. If you have a statute or case stating otherwise, please cite it so we can all learn.
xxx

lurker991:
I assume you are aware that looseheadprop is a former AUSA, I believe in the SDNY. I tend to trust that she knows whereof she speaks.

Heh heh. Looks like they are issued pretty freaking willy nilly to Blackwater dudes over there in Iraq if you ask me. State has apparently been issuing these agreements to every Blackwater employee involved in a shooting incident for quite some time now, including the guy who was drunk and shot the Iraqi official’s bodyguard in cold blood. This is why I said way above somewhere that I think this is a designed part of their deal with Blackwater, and it is specifically designed to further cloud any remote chance of criminal prosecution that might exist.

Chris Matthews is totally obsessed with Hillary Clinton.

To BMAZ: I’m still anonymous (I hope:). I will stand on the cases, the decisions, the advice and the precedent. When the supreme court calls it “use plus fruits immunity” that’s what it is.
LHP is right, that true immunity cannot be granted and accepted other than throught the judge/prosecutor.
LHP–a question for you. You’re not suggesting (and in fact, you actually stated above) that coerced or non-voluntary statements from public employees could be used. You called it “suppressed.” Another word for suppressed is “use immunity”. The supreme court and numerous treatises call it this. I quoted one specifically above.
I’m confident that after full review, you will not disagree.
Also, AUSA’s do not necessarily give employer/employee advice. Prosecution is a very different thing.
xxx

lurker991 @ 153

Well, I am still glad to post here, because I love what you all do, and I am in full support. However, as far as the law is concerned, it think it’s good to know it in it’s full complexity, and the law is difficult…
I will point out a few things. “Use immunity” and “fruits immunity” are common expression in the law. There are multiple and non-controverted opinions, including the US Supreme court, courts of appeal, Attorney General Decisions, state guidelines and treatises (see, e.g., CEB, Criminal Procedure and Practice, Sec. 23.44 (2006) “The rights and duties extended to public safety officers [under California law] actually apply to all public employees and contractors (and arguably to all governmentally licensed professionals) under the authority of Lefkowitz and Garrity. Counsel representing such clients should recognize that the use immunity afforded them by these cases presents broad opportunities for successful trial strategies, becuase the state has the burden of establishing that a subsequent prosecution is based on independent evidence.”)

So what we have here is a confusion. No, an employer (State Dept, in this case) cannot grant “TRANSACTIONAL IMMUNITY”. But they can (inadvertently, like Pixie Dust :) grant use and fruits immunity. It happens every day.

LooseHP, your reference to the “Garrity Materials” doesn’t answer the matter, because a Garrity warning is the following “You don’t have to talk to us, and if you do, anything you say can be used against you. Your participation is voluntary. You may leave if you don’t want to participate. This is not a condition of your employment and you will suffer no job consequences as a result.”

If *that* warning was given, there is no use or transactional immunity. IF it wasn’t (which, what do *you* think??)…then, per existing, uncontroverted law, the Blackwater boys can claim immunity. NOT transactional immunity (i.e. they can never be charged).
Use plus fruits immunity for whatever they said in the investigation. The same kind of immunity that Oliver NOrth had before Congress.
I don’t mean to contradict, but it’s good for our side to know the law.
xxx

If the warning was not given, the statemetn can be suppressed. That is not immunity from prsecution bey a long mile. It is suppression of evidence.

If a Garrity letter is given “you will talk or you will lose your job therefore nothing you say can be used against you” you have use immunity.

But every agency has rules about prior approval of Garrity letters. Line agents can’t authorize them. Suppression of improrerly obtained evidence while having a similar fianl effect as use immunity, is not the same thing. They have differenetn analysis and different tests.

Loo Hoo. @ 154

looseheadprop @ 148

Suppression of evidence DOES NOT= immunity from prosecution.

They are very diffent concepts

Would the “fact” that they are private contractors rather than employees change the equation?

It might, but I am actually with Waxman on this. Though Blackwater CALLS them indy contractors, I don’t think the realiity of how they operate meets the test for finding that they are indies

–And to round it out, for all you doubters out there, here’s one (of a few) places where our actual Supreme Court called it “immunity”:
“The more limited use immunity required by the Fifth Amendment would permit the State to prosecute appellee for any crime of which he may be guilty in connection with his party office,provided that his own compelled testimony is not used to convict him.” Lefkowitz v. Cunningham, 431 US 801, 809 (1997).
Garrity statements have automatic USE IMMUNITY.
No judge, no prosecutor, no deal, no plan. They just have it.

bmaz @ 157

Heh heh. Looks like they are issued pretty freaking willy nilly to Blackwater dudes over there in Iraq if you ask me. State has apparently been issuing these agreements to every Blackwater employee involved in a shooting incident for quite some time now, including the guy who was drunk and shot the Iraqi official’s bodyguard in cold blood. This is why I said way above somewhere that I think this is a designed part of their deal with Blackwater, and it is specifically designed to further cloud any remote chance of criminal prosecution that might exist.

Bmaz–do you know what form? Who is approving them? B/C in most agencies, that approval has to come from pretty high up.

Is it comming out out of the General Counsel’s Office? In that case it is likely that Condi was briefed and I can think of severl circumstances (depending on what was said and who else was present) where such a briefing might not be covered by atty/client privledge

–Correction to above. The date of Lefkowitz is 1977, not 1997.
And yes, LHP, I can see you’re coming around.

Quote: But every agency has rules about prior approval of Garrity letters. Line agents can’t authorize them. Suppression of improrerly obtained evidence while having a similar fianl effect as use immunity, is not the same thing. They have differenetn analysis and different tests.

And, (and I’m asking this in all seriousness and for reals), if no Garrity “letter” is given? If the agency has no “policy” or doesn’t follow it? If QUESTIONING OCCURS?
You know the answer–use (plus fruits) immunity. That’s it.
Sorry to correct all this but it has to be known.
xxx

Dakine01 – I think they are on the same page; it is kind of a semantical discussion.

Lurker 991 – I cannot see that I contradicted either you or LHP, so I am perplexed that you feel the need to “still stand” on something that was not challenged; I think I have been entirely consistent with existing caselaw. From ABC News this is reported:

The wording of the immunity is included at the beginning of the Blackwater guards’ sworn statements, which have been obtained by ABC News.

In each of the statements, the guards begin by saying “I understand this statement is being given in furtherance of an official administrative inquiry,” and that, “I further understand that neither my statements nor any information or evidence gained by reason of my statements can be used against me in a criminal proceeding, except that if I knowingly and willfully provide false statements or information, I may be criminally prosecuted for that action under 18 United States Code, Section 1001.”

lurker991 @ 159

To BMAZ: I’m still anonymous (I hope:). I will stand on the cases, the decisions, the advice and the precedent. When the supreme court calls it “use plus fruits immunity” that’s what it is.
LHP is right, that true immunity cannot be granted and accepted other than throught the judge/prosecutor.
LHP–a question for you. You’re not suggesting (and in fact, you actually stated above) that coerced or non-voluntary statements from public employees could be used. You called it “suppressed.” Another word for suppressed is “use immunity”. The supreme court and numerous treatises call it this. I quoted one specifically above.
I’m confident that after full review, you will not disagree.
Also, AUSA’s do not necessarily give employer/employee advice. Prosecution is a very different thing.
xxx

I said it before and I will say it again, the analysis for suppression is different than the analysis for use or “pocket immunity.

The analysis for suppression has to do with whether information was coerced or trivcked or otherrwise unfairly obtained. Wheter from the defendant or a third party–it does not preclude proseciton of the defendant, only precludes use of the evidence in the government’s direct case.

In some circumstances where the defedant “opens the dorr” on cross exam or during the defense case, the previously suppressed evidence can be used.

Pocket Immunity is an agreement, a contracxt NOT TO PROSECUTE the defendant in exchange for testimony or other cooperation, it is in writing and is eleaboratley negotiated.

Legal Immunity is pursuant to a court order.

BMAZ: No contradiction, I suppose. And I hadn’t seen the sworn statements as provided by ABC. Those statements, per your quote, are consistent with immunity HOWEVER (and this is where i may agree with LHP) the state department has no authority to grant immunity on this form or any other form.
HOWEVER AGAIN, if you read the form “neither my statements nor any information (etc.) can be used against me in a criminal proceeding” that is a correct statement of so-called “Garrity immunity” or use immunity (again, not to beat the dead horse again, but called so BY OUR SUPREME COURT).
So it’s immunity. It’s use plus fruits. and yes, it’s pure semantics. If LHP wants to agree with all the analysis and logic (i.e. the statements and fruits can’t be used) but doesn’t want to call it “immunity” I suppose that’s fine (even though the SC and all commentators call it that).
The Spielbauer judge in CA (recent case) railed on and on about how it “just couldn’t be immunity” because a judge/prosecutor hadn’t been involved. He was wrong. CA depublished his opinion.
xxx

OT-

SoCal firepup meet-up THIS SATURDAY, November 3rd.
Wahoo’s Fish Tacos
1862 Placentia Ave.
Costa Mesa
Noon

Get well card for Jane.

I just love it when legal eagles talk dirty law stuff. *g*

looseheadprop @ 163

bmaz @ 157

Heh heh. Looks like they are issued pretty freaking willy nilly to Blackwater dudes over there in Iraq if you ask me. State has apparently been issuing these agreements to every Blackwater employee involved in a shooting incident for quite some time now, including the guy who was drunk and shot the Iraqi official’s bodyguard in cold blood. This is why I said way above somewhere that I think this is a designed part of their deal with Blackwater, and it is specifically designed to further cloud any remote chance of criminal prosecution that might exist.

Bmaz–do you know what form? Who is approving them? B/C in most agencies, that approval has to come from pretty high up.

Is it comming out out of the General Counsel’s Office? In that case it is likely that Condi was briefed and I can think of severl circumstances (depending on what was said and who else was present) where such a briefing might not be covered by atty/client privledge

I gave the ABC link again @165 as to the wording. Quite frankly, that is apparently in the body of the statements; you would think there would also be a separate document. I will see if I can go to TNH and find the other partial nuggets I am basing my supposition on. Be back shortly….

LHP–Sorry if you think I’m a jerk. I know it’s a tough area of law, and terminology is thrown about wildly. I will say this, though. “Use” immunity is not the “pocket immunity” you are referring to. Pocket immunity (if it means “you can never be prosecuted for X”) is called “TRANSACTIONAL IMMUNITY”.
“Use immunity” is just what it says, i.e. you cannot “USE” the statements, that is, they are “SUPPRESSED”. If the D opens the door, in many cases you can then “USE” the statements at trial.
That’s what this all means.
(”Fruits” immunity just follows “USE”, of course).
xxx

bmaz @ 165

Dakine01 – I think they are on the same page; it is kind of a semantical discussion.

Lurker 991 – I cannot see that I contradicted either you or LHP, so I am perplexed that you feel the need to “still stand” on something that was not challenged; I think I have been entirely consistent with existing caselaw. From ABC News this is reported:

The wording of the immunity is included at the beginning of the Blackwater guards’ sworn statements, which have been obtained by ABC News.

In each of the statements, the guards begin by saying “I understand this statement is being given in furtherance of an official administrative inquiry,” and that, “I further understand that neither my statements nor any information or evidence gained by reason of my statements can be used against me in a criminal proceeding, except that if I knowingly and willfully provide false statements or information, I may be criminally prosecuted for that action under 18 United States Code, Section 1001.”

Bmaz, My hero!

OK the burnign question now is, who approved that? Cause no agent has his own authority to do it, not unless he wants is disciplinary hearing of his own, so SOMEBODY pretty far up the food chain had to sign off on it. I want to know who

looseheadprop @ 146

bmaz @ 134

I think this, essentially the same as Jayt @97, is about right. Whether you call it immunity or suppressed evidence, same result. This is especially likely to be the case if there was no legal counsel available to the Blackwaters, or a common counsel working for Blackwater. As LHP states, this will NOT prevent a prosecution, but it will make for a lot of mischief for a good criminal defense lawyer to inject into an already extremely difficult, if not impossible, prosecution in light of the question of jurisdiction of any criminal provisions.

Do not conflate suppressing evidence with immunity from prosecution. They are very different things. Even with suppressed evidence, you can still be prosecuted and convicted if there is enough other evidence.

Also with a fruit of the posionous tree situation, you can still get the evidence in if you can find a non tainted way to develop it independantly–which is what FBI seems to be trying to do right now

Thanks for your comments, but I’m not conflating anything. Cooke was promised immunity from prosecution if he cooperated; he did so; the government charged him anyway; and he sought to have the charges dismissed. The prosecution argued that the deal was with an official not empowered to grant immunity, and the trial judge denied Cooke’s motion. The appellate court reversed, finding that Cooke’s due process rights were violated.

looseheadprop @ 172

OK the burnign question now is, who approved that? Cause no agent has his own authority to do it, not unless he wants is disciplinary hearing of his own, so SOMEBODY pretty far up the food chain had to sign off on it. I want to know who

And the other “burning question” is, if what bmaz comments is true (and I have no reason to doubt it), why on earth is this “standard operating procedure” at the DoS?

What possible reason would there be for the DoS try to “immunize” as policy, testimony from contractors about all shooting incidents?

Like bmaz, I too am suspicious that it can only be to undermine and sandbag any and all attempts towards justice.

Something smells really bad here and it is the apparent fact that this is DoS policy.

LHP – This is part of the comment I made 2 or 3 days ago at TNH on the practice by State, and has a link to the story about the fact it is a routine thing for State to do.

Now comes the latest news courtesy of the LA Times, via the AP. It turns out that the state Department has blithely been handing out immunity to all Blackwater mercenaries involved in shooting incidents all along.

Limited immunity has been routinely offered to private security contractors involved in shootings in Iraq, State Department officials said Tuesday, denying such actions jeopardized criminal prosecution of Blackwater USA guards accused of killing 17 Iraqi civilians.
….

The shooting investigation was initiated by the Bureau of Diplomatic Security hours after the attack. The inquiry was turned over to the FBI in early October after Justice Department prosecutors realized that the Blackwater bodyguards’ statements could not be used in court.

A second senior State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing inquiry, said the agency has for years required its security contractors to give written statements within hours of any so-called “use of deadly force” in Iraq.

Waivers granting a security worker limited immunity — by barring those statements in a criminal case against the worker — are a “routine part” of the investigations by the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, the official said.

The waiver given to Blackwater guards reads, in part: “I further understand that neither my statements nor any information or evidence gained by reason of my statements can be used against me in a criminal proceeding, except that if I knowingly and willfully provide false statements or information, I may be criminally prosecuted for that action.”

It’s not clear whether the waivers were ever authorized by the Justice Department, which decides whether cases are prosecuted. Blackwater spokeswoman Anne Tyrrell declined comment about whether the immunity waivers were part of the security firm’s contract with the State Department. … (emphasis added)

So, the wholesale granting of immunity to any, and apparently every, Blackwater contracted mercenary involved in a shooting incident in Iraq, no matter how egregiously criminal, is not a bug, but rather a feature of State Department protocol. This is the way the State Department has run their little lawless operation all along. How nice.

Califlander: You are exactly right, and you did not “conflate”. I tried not to take offense when I was accused of “conflating”, but it’s because many people are not familiar with the intricacies of this area of the law.
You’ll see my post above (#162) where I quote the Supreme Court calling it (where “it” means the suppression of statements gained non-voluntarily) IMMUNITY. Other cases, treatises, etc. call it that. LHP was not *completely* correct (although, I note that LHP’s initial post was careful to say things like “statutory immunity” for which she was correct…BUT (and this is a big BUT)…
When the press reported “immunity” THEY DIDN”T NECESSARILY REFER TO statutory immunity…Thus, unfortunately, they (RWM, MSM, etc) may have been right…STATE may have inadvertently (or intentionally) given immunity for certain statements taken in employee (or contractor) interviews…
xxx

LHP – My guess is its this guy, Richard J. Griffin who, wouldn’t you know, just resigned to spend more time with his family. Given his position, I can’t believe it was not done in consultation with Rice. I also think it is pretty clear that the AP reporter on the LA Times story linked to @175 above has some information that this is a requirement in the Blackwater contract, but was not able to appropriately confirm it.

BMZ: By contract, they can state that they will give immunity, but it is meaningless before a court (BY ITSELF)…
However, it will serve to show that no expectation was present on the part of the State Department that the statements of the Blackwater mercs would be used in a criminal case, and it will help to confirm the (probable fact) that the Blackwater ppl. were not given so-called “Garrity Warnings”, THUS…
It will come down to whether the interviews were non-voluntary or if there was any expectation of job loss or negative consequences to the job.
If the prosecution can show that the statements were in fact voluntary, it MAY be possible to use them. But probably not. The existence of this state dept. form (no matter how misguided or unauthorized) probably precludes the use of the statements in court (whether under a pure Garrity theory, or a straight “due process” theory, i.e., that the use of said statements wouldn’t be “fair” to the defendants–and how could it be fair, considering they were told (on a form) that the statements wouldn’t be used?
xxx

lurker991 @ 178

BMZ: By contract, they can state that they will give immunity, but it is meaningless before a court (BY ITSELF)…
However, it will serve to show that no expectation was present on the part of the State Department that the statements of the Blackwater mercs would be used in a criminal case, and it will help to confirm the (probable fact) that the Blackwater ppl. were not given so-called “Garrity Warnings”, THUS…
It will come down to whether the interviews were non-voluntary or if there was any expectation of job loss or negative consequences to the job.
If the prosecution can show that the statements were in fact voluntary, it MAY be possible to use them. But probably not. The existence of this state dept. form (no matter how misguided or unauthorized) probably precludes the use of the statements in court (whether under a pure Garrity theory, or a straight “due process” theory, i.e., that the use of said statements wouldn’t be “fair” to the defendants–and how could it be fair, considering they were told (on a form) that the statements wouldn’t be used?
xxx

Yeah, I understand the principles fairly well and have litigated most of them at one point or another.

Knowing that you have to documents from the court to get Statutory Immunity makes me at ease knowing that random people cant log on to any computer and print off documents saying that you have Immunity.

bmaz @ 175

LHP – This is part of the comment I made 2 or 3 days ago at TNH on the practice by State, and has a link to the story about the fact it is a routine thing for State to do.

Now comes the latest news courtesy of the LA Times, via the AP. It turns out that the state Department has blithely been handing out immunity to all Blackwater mercenaries involved in shooting incidents all along.

Limited immunity has been routinely offered to private security contractors involved in shootings in Iraq, State Department officials said Tuesday, denying such actions jeopardized criminal prosecution of Blackwater USA guards accused of killing 17 Iraqi civilians.
….

The shooting investigation was initiated by the Bureau of Diplomatic Security hours after the attack. The inquiry was turned over to the FBI in early October after Justice Department prosecutors realized that the Blackwater bodyguards’ statements could not be used in court.

A second senior State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing inquiry, said the agency has for years required its security contractors to give written statements within hours of any so-called “use of deadly force” in Iraq.

Waivers granting a security worker limited immunity — by barring those statements in a criminal case against the worker — are a “routine part” of the investigations by the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, the official said.

The waiver given to Blackwater guards reads, in part: “I further understand that neither my statements nor any information or evidence gained by reason of my statements can be used against me in a criminal proceeding, except that if I knowingly and willfully provide false statements or information, I may be criminally prosecuted for that action.”

It’s not clear whether the waivers were ever authorized by the Justice Department, which decides whether cases are prosecuted. Blackwater spokeswoman Anne Tyrrell declined comment about whether the immunity waivers were part of the security firm’s contract with the State Department. … (emphasis added)

So, the wholesale granting of immunity to any, and apparently every, Blackwater contracted mercenary involved in a shooting incident in Iraq, no matter how egregiously criminal, is not a bug, but rather a feature of State Department protocol. This is the way the State Department has run their little lawless operation all along. How nice.

All this does is create a poinonous fruits problem. Clealry these statements cannot be used, but by no stretch of the imgination does it mean these guys are immune from prosecution, which was the original point I was trying to make with this post.

Frankly, I don’t think a staemetn taken in a situation where the individual is in a war zone, is dependant on his interrogators to get home, does not ahve access to counsel of his own choice (assuming he is not indigetn–and considering what these guys supposedly get paid, I don’t expect they qualify for Legal Aide) is inherently coercive even if you are not threatened with job retaliation.

I think the FBI is wise to chinese wall off these satements. Hoever, there is some huge smoking gun story here about who at State authorized this dumb ass statement process.

if the govt is aware of this happening why dont they do anyhting about it?

Well I never said they could be immune from prosecution; maybe someone else did. My guess is each person’s statement will be excluded from evidence against that person, but may, possibly, be allowed against others. The better question is what “fruits” issues a defense lawyer can make out; and that is why you are quite right about it being a good idea that they “Chinese walled” this. I think it was mandatory under the circumstances. I will say this much, combine this BS with the inherent jurisdictional problems as to applicability of laws, and the logistical evidentiary problems as to chain of custody of any items retrieved and getting Iraqi witnesses here for both foundational and substantive testimony, and this would be one whale of a mess to have to prosecute.

As to the “dumb ass statement process”, no kidding. Thing is, I am guessing this had ALREADY been an issue in light of the ongoing issues and attempts to do something to address the Blackwater guy that drunkenly shot the Iraqi politician’s aide back in December and State still blithely pressed ahead. I am surprised there has not been a cry for Condi Rice’s head. I guess we are just to desensitized by all the crap continually flowing from this Administration….

Without commenting on whether or not the word “immunity” was ever used in any conversation let me tell you that as a matter of law, it would be impossible for that to be true.

Right off the bat in my comment I said flat out that the word “immunity” could havebeen used. However, you seem obsessed with the use of the word “immuity”.

The fact is that words are often used differently in law than in ordianry usage and this can create confusion amou=ng the general populous.

In point of fact, talking about “immuized statements” whetehr you do it or the Supreme Court does it, creeates confusion. It was that confusion I was trying to dispell.

The reporting in the media creates a false impression that the Balckwater employees are immune form prosecution. If the only “immunity” involved is based on what BMaz has so helpfully linked–There is no way in hell that these peole are immune from prosecution.

Thre are three wasys to become immune from Prosecution”
1) a court order
2) a contract with the ptosecution, that BTW is only binding on that level of prosecuton which is in contractual privity with the defenadant. So if the federal gov’t enters into a contractual immunity agreement with a given defendant, taht does not preclude proscutio for the very same offense by a state attorney eneral or a lovcal DA b/c they were not aprties tothe contract

3) a Kalkinessituation where the DOJ has formally passed on presecuting hte defendat (there will be a document), this delcination of prosecution has been communicated tothe defendant and the defendat acts in relaince on tat decliantion. The detrimental reliance by the defenadnt creates the equitable rational for finding a quasi contract that would be binding upon the declining prosecutorial entity even though no true priviuty exists. This detrimental reliance ananlyisi can atach even if the defendant did not make an incriminating statement based upo the communicated declination.
Fore xample, a defendant outside the prosecutor’s jurisdicitonal reach who returns to the jurisdicition based upon the communication to that defendat of the a formal declination for prosecutio/

Lurker 99 seems to be fixated on the connection between “statemetns” by the accused and immunity. In point of fact immunity need not have anything at all to do with a staement form the immunized party (though it is common to take a statemetn from even a collateral immunized party jsut for form’s sake). For example, IIRC the guy who’s company was involved inthe Martha Stewat stock trade case, what was his name ? Sam something? Waskall?

IIRC he arranged for immunity for one or more of his loved ones (Wife? Daughter?) as partof his guilty plea deal one of the knowledge of hte immuized loved one was important to the government. So, even if they took a statement from her, there was no quid pro quo between any tesimony of hers and her immunity.

I have never denied that there is a likely poisonus fruit issues and said so early inthe thread.

The point of my post, the reason for my post, was to dispell any notion that becasue the word “immunity” was being flung about, it was almost impossible that the Blackwater employees where in fact immnized from prosecution.

Several commentors have seized upon the use of the word”immunity” in connection with statemet made by defendants, but statemetns don’t get indicted. statemetns don’t go to prison, statements don’t get presidential pardons effectively conferring retroactive immunity.

People and corporations (like telcomes who helped out with warratnless spying) need immunity, cause people and incoporeal beigs like cororations CAN be indicted and the peoole can go t prison and the corps can suffer the coproate death penalty known as dissolution.

The whole point of my post was to draw this distinctio. Either my post was not clear (for which I would humbly appologize) or some folks are deliberatley tryig to recreate the very confusion I was trying to dispell.

Bottom line and based on what we know to date, whether or not the statemetns made by Blackwater employees can be suppressed, right now no information has been reported that in any way supports the notiton that these employees are themselves immune fron prosecution.

And I would like to ask those whoare so intent on “schooling” me inthe law: how many “queen ofr a Day” agreements have you negotiatied or had approved? How mnay immunity clauses have you drafted and had approved in plea agreemetns? how many cooperation agreements have you negotiated written or had approved? I have quite a few under my belt. Put up or….?

lurker991 @ 176

Califlander: You are exactly right, and you did not “conflate”. I tried not to take offense when I was accused of “conflating”, but it’s because many people are not familiar with the intricacies of this area of the law.
You’ll see my post above (#162) where I quote the Supreme Court calling it (where “it” means the suppression of statements gained non-voluntarily) IMMUNITY. Other cases, treatises, etc. call it that. LHP was not *completely* correct (although, I note that LHP’s initial post was careful to say things like “statutory immunity” for which she was correct…BUT (and this is a big BUT)…
When the press reported “immunity” THEY DIDN”T NECESSARILY REFER TO statutory immunity…Thus, unfortunately, they (RWM, MSM, etc) may have been right…STATE may have inadvertently (or intentionally) given immunity for certain statements taken in employee (or contractor) interviews…
xxx

Thanks. The Cooke case stands out, however, because the appellate court didn’t merely suppress Cooke’s statements; they tossed the case. He got transactional immunity rather than just use immunity.

Thus it wasn’t a question of “the government, under false pretenses, got you to make some statements which the government now cannot use;” it was “the government promised not to prosecute you if you cooperated in certain ways, and you did, so they can’t.”

bmaz @ 177

LHP – My guess is its this guy, Richard J. Griffin who, wouldn’t you know, just resigned to spend more time with his family. Given his position, I can’t believe it was not done in consultation with Rice. I also think it is pretty clear that the AP reporter on the LA Times story linked to @175 above has some information that this is a requirement in the Blackwater contract, but was not able to appropriately confirm it.

Bmaz, you are a lean, mean investigationg machine tonight! Thugh I think you are proabaly right that Grifffin probaly set the policy and inserted the language, I doubt sincerly that he had the de jure power to do so. At least in this case the guy actually had the decency to resigne when he got tagged. We need more willing to resign

Oklahoma kiddo @ 25

Any one who opposes the Bush Middle East actions is either a communist, a fascist, or a nazi.

AP – President Bush compared Congress’ Democratic leaders Thursday to people who ignored the rise of Lenin and Hitler early in the last century, saying “the world paid a terrible price” then and risks similar consequences for inaction today.

Is he condemning those who let his grandfather support Hitler’s rise?

Is he condemning ALL the Dems and Repubs who watched Lenin come to power?

Is he daft?

Oklahoma kiddo @ 32

Silencers do cut down on noise pollution though.

And, companies which make them do employ people!

BTW, just what companies in America would manufacture such an evil thing?

Califlander @ 185

lurker991 @ 176

Califlander: You are exactly right, and you did not “conflate”. I tried not to take offense when I was accused of “conflating”, but it’s because many people are not familiar with the intricacies of this area of the law.
You’ll see my post above (#162) where I quote the Supreme Court calling it (where “it” means the suppression of statements gained non-voluntarily) IMMUNITY. Other cases, treatises, etc. call it that. LHP was not *completely* correct (although, I note that LHP’s initial post was careful to say things like “statutory immunity” for which she was correct…BUT (and this is a big BUT)…
When the press reported “immunity” THEY DIDN”T NECESSARILY REFER TO statutory immunity…Thus, unfortunately, they (RWM, MSM, etc) may have been right…STATE may have inadvertently (or intentionally) given immunity for certain statements taken in employee (or contractor) interviews…
xxx

Thanks. The Cooke case stands out, however, because the appellate court didn’t merely suppress Cooke’s statements; they tossed the case. He got transactional immunity rather than just use immunity.

Thus it wasn’t a question of “the government, under false pretenses, got you to make some statements which the government now cannot use;” it was “the government promised not to prosecute you if you cooperated in certain ways, and you did, so they can’t.”

Please see my Quasi cntract ananlysis above

MarkH @ 187

Oklahoma kiddo @ 25

Any one who opposes the Bush Middle East actions is either a communist, a fascist, or a nazi.

AP – President Bush compared Congress’ Democratic leaders Thursday to people who ignored the rise of Lenin and Hitler early in the last century, saying “the world paid a terrible price” then and risks similar consequences for inaction today.

Is he condemning those who let his grandfather support Hitler’s rise?

Is he condemning ALL the Dems and Repubs who watched Lenin come to power?

Is he daft?

K you made me laugh. Is he daft? Do you even have to ask? *giggle*

MarkH @ 188

Oklahoma kiddo @ 32

Silencers do cut down on noise pollution though.

And, companies which make them do employ people!

BTW, just what companies in America would manufacture such an evil thing?

If yo follow the link it names the company that Blackwater purchased from

Steve-AR @ 69

Boston1775 @ 61

She was from a large Irish family in Massachusetts and she told them to look into it if anything happened to her.

She had a desk job in finance. And she’d found something.

IIRC she was shot in her quarters..a suppressed weapon would be useful in that sitruation.

Wanna bet someone ordered it?

After all, who would have been on the base to do such a thing and at the same time have been involved in some kind of finance scandal.

It’s like the torture at Abu Ghraib. It’s obvious the street-level people didn’t plan it.

Well, not schooling you in the law, I would not presume and I don’t think I’m doing that. What I’ve found in this area (which is variously employment law, criminal law and constitutional law) is (as you correctly point out, in the media blitz) that people use different terminology and are not consistent.

When I read the stories (initial stories) about Blackwater getting immunity from State, I knew exactly what (or at least I had a theory of) why the reporters were confused and reporting something that evidently can’t happen–namely, that State had given Blackwater immunity. That can’t happen (as LHP has pointed out, and which was evidently the point of her whole post).
HOWEVER, there was a reason/method to the reporters’ madness in this area.
As I’ve pointed out above (ad nauseam, with cites, sorry for being so pedantic), it’s common to talk about immunity (that is, Use/Fruits/Garrity immunity) given out (or created) by interviews on the job. Thus, the Blackwater boys (let’s assume–assume that the interviews would not qualify as voluntary) have been given immunity AS TO THEIR STATEMENTS TO THE STATE INVESTIGATORS.
This is common terminology; I’m not making it up; check the cites, etc. blah blah blah, sorry for harping my dead horse….
So, it’s a three part misunderstanding, when considering the press reports: First, State did not actually give (transactional/Pocket/judicial) immunity to the Blackwater folks. Second, the reporters heard (and read) about the “immunity” and reported it–unquestioningly–but can you really blame them, since look how hard it’s been for us to grasp the terminology..
And finally, third, we have this series of articles (only in the Blogosphere, mind you) talking about how it was all bunk, that the BW people could *never* have been given immunity…
But as we’ve seen, they were, and they weren’t.
LHP, perhaps some day it’ll be possible to *decloak* and compare experience, etc. but it really doesn’t matter and I respect all you’ve done for this site and for the public. Peace.
xxx

TexBetsy @ 83

LAW? What is this word? Sounds familiar — heard it in my childhood I think.

We’ve always bought cheese from East Umbria!

Words mean what they are said to mean and sometimes not even that.

looseheaprop @ 189

Califlander @ 185

Thanks. The Cooke case stands out, however, because the appellate court didn’t merely suppress Cooke’s statements; they tossed the case. He got transactional immunity rather than just use immunity.

Thus it wasn’t a question of “the government, under false pretenses, got you to make some statements which the government now cannot use;” it was “the government promised not to prosecute you if you cooperated in certain ways, and you did, so they can’t.”

Please see my Quasi cntract ananlysis above

I see it. However, under that theory of immunity, the sovereign whose agents purportedly made the deal with the Blackwater mercenaries would be the United States and the United States thus would be prohibited from prosecution.

If they can make out such a claim, I think that ends it because I don’t really see a state prosecutor getting in on this action.

lurker991 @ 193

Well, not schooling you in the law, I would not presume and I don’t think I’m doing that. What I’ve found in this area (which is variously employment law, criminal law and constitutional law) is (as you correctly point out, in the media blitz) that people use different terminology and are not consistent.

When I read the stories (initial stories) about Blackwater getting immunity from State, I knew exactly what (or at least I had a theory of) why the reporters were confused and reporting something that evidently can’t happen–namely, that State had given Blackwater immunity. That can’t happen (as LHP has pointed out, and which was evidently the point of her whole post).
HOWEVER, there was a reason/method to the reporters’ madness in this area.
As I’ve pointed out above (ad nauseam, with cites, sorry for being so pedantic), it’s common to talk about immunity (that is, Use/Fruits/Garrity immunity) given out (or created) by interviews on the job. Thus, the Blackwater boys (let’s assume–assume that the interviews would not qualify as voluntary) have been given immunity AS TO THEIR STATEMENTS TO THE STATE INVESTIGATORS.
This is common terminology; I’m not making it up; check the cites, etc. blah blah blah, sorry for harping my dead horse….
So, it’s a three part misunderstanding, when considering the press reports: First, State did not actually give (transactional/Pocket/judicial) immunity to the Blackwater folks. Second, the reporters heard (and read) about the “immunity” and reported it–unquestioningly–but can you really blame them, since look how hard it’s been for us to grasp the terminology..
And finally, third, we have this series of articles (only in the Blogosphere, mind you) talking about how it was all bunk, that the BW people could *never* have been given immunity…
But as we’ve seen, they were, and they weren’t.
LHP, perhaps some day it’ll be possible to *decloak* and compare experience, etc. but it really doesn’t matter and I respect all you’ve done for this site and for the public. Peace.
xxx

PEACE

SanderO @ 137

LHP, if the MSM got the facts and exposed the admin for their scamming they would become persona non grata and lose their access to the steno pool.

We really have pravda here as far as the MSM. And don’t forget the CIA has plants in the MSM.

If they’re lucky. If they’re unlucky one of the guys with silencers will take care of them. Unfortunately this is a reality, not just a black joke.

The comments on granting different types of immmunity are interesting as are the references to appellate cases on immunity, and their possible application. What I would like to know from LHP is this:

Where is the US Attorney who is supposedly in charge of this investigation in all this?

Were they competent and not obfuscating there wouldn’t be any mention of immunity coming from State in this murder investigation.

Allegedly, and I mean allegedly because I’d qualify anything ever coming from the US Government, any agency or the West Wing with alledgedly the “F.B.I.” is investigating this. And if ever there was an example of dragging and more dragging and obfuscating this is it.

What US Attorney that you ever worked for who was serious about an investigation and knew what they were doing wouldn’t have tight control of this investigation and any alleged immunity that was ever mentioned? Why is there no comment whatsoever from the US attorney who is “assigned” to investigate this situation? Could it be that they are scared to death of the West Wing like many other US Attorneys functioning in this fiasco called DOJ?

What US Attorney that you know would ever have all this speculation and enigma enshrouded in a mystery surrounding any type of immunity in a murder investigation?

We all realize now that US Attorneys like Minnesota’s Finest Bible Quoting Rachel Kunjummen Paulose are a parody on the job of US Attorney who caused the serial reignation of veterans on her staff.

Assuming that the US Attorney wherever–Virginia? who is running this investigation is playing with half a deck why is there all this uncertainty surrounding this investigation.

It’s dragged out for almost a year, and raises the question as to how much DOJ the puppet of the West Wing is involved in the real obfuscation here.

How can you consider this investigation is serious or competent given the amount of time it’s taken?

I wouldn’t trust Bush DOJ as far as I could spit them in this or any other investigation or case.

Mukasey’s confirmation is a done deal. At Mukasey DOJ, a Blackwater investigation would languish into infinity. One more white haired white man ready to jump when Bush, Fielding, Cheney, Addington and the untold hundreds of liasons to DOJ say jump.

You can’t get a quote out of Chuckie Schumner these days on his darling Mukasey.

Soon Mukasey will be confirmed because the Bush dog dems on Senate Judiciary will vote for him. There aren’t enough no votes to stop Mukasey who should get CLE in water boarding by being strapped in a chair and see how many hours it takes Grandpa Mukasey to get the concept of waterboarding he says he doesn’t understand. Every hour Mukasey says he doesn’t understand what waterboarding is, the waterboarding can be repoeated however many hours it takes for him to comprenend it.

For whatever reason the US Attorney in Raleigh, North Carolina will obfuscate on the silencer investigation.

Why silencers? Easy. This whole administration is about silence and redaction. When Blackwater murders they like to get away quietly like the Capones and the Soprano agency i.e. State –i.e. Mamma Rice wants the murders done quietly. Silencers don’t make as much of a bang and Blackwater can get away faster before the bodies are discovered. That’s why they need silencers. For the same reason anyone uses a silencer.

On Tuesday, after their pro forma objections to wiretapping immunity roll over Arlen and roll over Pat and Senate Judiciary will sign off on Telco immunity as usual.

Pete – There has indeed been a lot going on for a long time, but this case, that has prompted all this furor, has an incident date of September 16, 2007, so it is just over 45 days old. It is my understanding that the DOJ/FBI were not brought in until tow to three weeks in, and then had to restart after handing off to a completely different section to create the “Chinese Wall” necessitated by discovery of the Garrity/immunity/ whatever your term of choice agreements. Whoever is leading this case has a first rate mess on their hands; I sure as hell would not want it. My problems so far are with the State Department not the DOJ prosecutors that are newly assigned. I will give them a little slack, but it is a short leash. If history is any guide, we will have plenty to complain about as to the prosecutors soon enough, but we should probably wait for that factual basis.

I should have added LHP that your explanations are very good, and I’m sure helpful to many people.

Because Condi Rice is the quintessence of an imperious queen, (have you ever seen her say anything of substance at her rare appearances before any so called oversight committee–because I haven’t) there is all this contamminating crap that some of the commenters point out might be grist for a sound defense theory and certainly State didn’t expect any criminal investigations of Blackwater which is why they crafted loopholes for Blackwater, Triple Canopy, and Dyn Corp and Aegis big enough to drive an 18 wheeler through.

And don’t forget there have been a lot of DOJ personnel and AOC (Administrative Office of the Court personnel people like district court execs or district court clerks–I know several that have done stints in Iraq supposedly to help build a sound justice system there, and I believe they’ve failed miserably.

Rice has been a Bush insider long enough to understand that the mantra is “Screw any of them–we’re doing whatever we want and that’s not changing. We have thugs to guard us in a place where after 6 years we don’t go out on the street packing more heat than the Sopranos and if they have to spray and pray and kill people to clear our path so what? It doesn’t impact Condi’s shopping on the upper East side of Manhatten a bit. Or she could open some wine and play a sonata.

If there is an example of a more mismanaged agency than State and a more mismanaged platform than US foreign policy I don’t know what it is at this juncture.

If you’re a well informed Iraqi why wouldn’t you hate the US who basically has said “so what” Iraquis get killed by thugs from the US? They aren’t real people; they’re just throw aways and this engenders the same kind of unending hatred that you have going on on the West Bank with the continual cycle of Suicide bombers, and slum settlements and supressed education that is depicted so well in

Richard North Patterson’s latest book Exile

Note that when Queen Rice proposed sending State Department personnel to Iraq that the reaction from them is “I’m not going over there to get blown up.” Of course it’s okay with her and them if predominantly African
Americans from poor families, whites from poor families, and Hispanics and other minorities get blown up as well as Iraquis–that to the Patrician Bushies is no big deal and apparently to enough indifferent Americans that it’s going to continue for years and years and years and more years.

Just keep on hemorrhaging billions into secret Supplemental Budgets when the Texas midget asks for them.

Bmaz–

I thought from my reading that we were told at least generically that the FBI was investigating Blackwater since March, 2007–at least the Christmas 2006 murder of the Iraqi Vice President’s body guard at the Christmas party in the green zone. But maybe I’m being sloppy. I thought I had read that in the NY Times so maybe correctly you are pointing out that DOJ didn’t get in on the investigation of the shooting incident where 17 or so people were killed until 3 weeks ago. If that’s the case, I stand corrected but talk about “a mess.”

The fact that Congress had no clue or concern that Blackwater and the other mercenaries could cowboy and shoot without compunction or any regard to the harm it’s doing the military and American foreign policy is inexcusable.

The recent book on Blackwater is a real eye-opener.

I’d love to see them nail Eric Prince, but he reeks of Bush teflon.

Oh, I agree with that 100%. And there should have been criminal investigations on Blackwater for years. And about that December 2006 shooting, This is a first rate mess indeed.

’scuse me, folks, but if you need a “silenced” gun you’re not using it to protect anyone. You’re using it to kill folks very quietly, and in very close. That doesn’t speak to me of “protection,” it speaks of something entirely else. Also, from the time I spent in Vietnam, I know (and anyone who has had a good fire arms course knows) that a “silencer” is a “so-called” silencer. It vents the hot gas that comes out the front of the gun, dispersing it, so it does not disturb the air forward of the muzzel. HOWEVER, that’s not what makes the noise. Basic physics explains to us that most of the noise from a fire arm is generated when the bullet emerges from the muzzel of the weapon and breaks the sound barrier…just like an airplane. To counteract this effect, the only thing you can do is to “short-load the powder so the bullet doesn’t exceed the speed of sound as it emerges from the muzzle. Now, if you cut down the amount of propellant, you cut down the range of the weapon. A silenced weapon is an extremely inefficient weapon, mainly because as the bullet leaves the muzzle, it’s trajectory begins to decay much faster (under the influence of gravity) than one with enough powder to push the weight of the slug. Thus, the slug falls out of the air before it reaches its target, thus the need to work in at a few feet instead of a few yards….Thank you Drill Instructor Mason, lo those many years ago. I knew that would come in handy some day. The only way to “silence a weapon” is to load it with a much more powerful charge, enough to DELAY the sound, work far away from the target, and perhaps confuse the ear due to the propagation of the wave as it hits buildings and such. But none of this is going to do the average body guard any good! Besides, I thought transferring a silencer was illegal, unless you were in a certain unit of the U.S. Military, or worked for certain 3 letter agencies.

During the Blackwater hearing when prosecution of the “war crimes act” was mentioned Erik Prince (after checking in with one of his attorney’s sitting behind him) announced that the Blackwater guards were acting as “individual contractors”.

How would “immunity” play out under this defintion of contractor?

J @ 204

During the Blackwater hearing when prosecution of the “war crimes act” was mentioned Erik Prince (after checking in with one of his attorney’s sitting behind him) announced that the Blackwater guards were acting as “individual contractors”.

How would “immunity” play out under this defintion of contractor?

Again, it depends on who authorized this “my statement will not be used aainst me” language. If it came from Only Blackwater itself???? If it was not authorized by State, how can the government be bound by the actions of a private company?
It depends whether the statement was taken in the presence of experienced defense counsel. It could depend on whether the statemetns were taken in Iraq or back here in the States.

The analysis of whether the statements were voluntary or taken under coercive circumstance will depend on specific facts, and we don’t have too many of those right now.

looseheadprop @ 80

Hey, I said as a matter of LAW, I didn’t say as a matter of fact. These guys make those up as they go along

Those facts, those laws, or both?

I’m so sorry to tell you but our Preznit has given them immunity. Not just the shooters, but the entire company and every other contractor in Iraq. It is not formal, it is not even written down. It, like the telecomm immunity deal, is a gentleman’s agreement that if they do what he wants (kill Iraqis) no law will ever touch them. I predict that Bush will let no one even get CLOSE to prosecuting these companies or their employees. He will issue an Executive Order immunizing them and dare congress to interfere. It’s his nature.