Immunity deal hampers Blackwater inquiry

[G_j]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071030/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/blackwater_prosecutions

Immunity deal hampers Blackwater inquiry
By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer



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

The immunity deal has delayed a criminal inquiry into the Sept. 16 killings and could undermine any effort to prosecute security contractors for their role in the incident that has infuriated the Iraqi government.

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

State Department officials declined to confirm or deny that immunity had been granted. One official — who refused to be quoted by name_ said: "If, in fact, such a decision was made, it was done without any input or authorization from any senior State Department official in Washington."

..more..

[Vincardog]

1. Was that the investigation that Blackwater turned in to State?

[AlCzervik]

2. this is insane, this is the kind of shit that hurts the troops.

you're an Iraqi, life sucks but you're trying your hardest to eek out an existent for you and yours, you neighbors/friends/family members are killed by mercenaries, they get immunity--how angry are you, how are you not going to snap?

[lovuian]

3. Whoever gave immunity has to answer for it

Give us a name

[pscot]

4. Send those state officials to the Hague

Covering up war crimes. Let the international court deal with these criminals. Since when can the State Department grant immunity from prosecution?

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

9. .

[EFerrari]

5. I remember the rule of law. n/t

[TahitiNut]

6. The Bright Side: They don't get fifth amendment 'protection' from testimony, then.

Slap those bastards in front of a Congressional Joint Committee and keep the questions coming.

[G_j]

7. FYI kick

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

8. Quid pro quo. What was given in return for immunity?

Did the contractors simply promise to keep their mouths shut about who they were supposedly protecting during the murderous incident?

:shrug:

[Lance_Boyle]

10. How does the State Dept. grant immunity for criminal offenses?

The State Dept. does not prosecute criminal offenses. How in the hell does State grant immunity? Other than, of course, diplomatic immunity...

[G_j]

11. Nothing You Say Can and Will Be Used Against You in a Court of Law

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy-scahill/state-to-blackwater-noth_b_70479.html

State to Blackwater: Nothing You Say Can and Will Be Used Against You in a Court of Law
Posted October 30, 2007 | 05:53 PM (EST)


Apparently there is one set of rights for Blackwater mercenaries and another for the rest of us. Normally when a group of people alleged to have gunned down 17 civilians in a lawless shooting spree are questioned, investigators will tell them something along the lines of: "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law." But that is not what the Blackwater operatives involved in the September 16 Nisour Square shooting in Iraq were told. Most of the Blackwater shooters were questioned by State Department Diplomatic Security investigators with the understanding that their statements and information gleaned from them could not be used to bring criminal charges against them, nor could they be introduced as evidence. In other words, "Anything you say can't and won't be used against you in a court of law."

ABC News obtained copies of sworn statements given by Blackwater guards in the immediate aftermath of the shootings, all of which begin, "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." Constitutional law expert Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, says the offering of so-called "use immunity" agreements by the State Department is "very irregular," adding he could not recall a precedent for it. In normal circumstances, Ratner said, such immunity is only granted after a Grand Jury or Congressional committee has been convened and the party has invoked their 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination. It would then be authorized by either a judge or the committee.

Military law expert Scott Horton of Human Rights First says, "What the State Department has done in this case is inconsistent with proper law enforcement standards. It is likely to undermine an ultimate prosecution, if not make it impossible. In this sense, the objective of the State Department in doing this is exposed to question. It seems less to be to collect the facts than to immunize Blackwater and its employees. By purporting to grant immunity, the State Department draws itself more deeply into the wrongdoing and adopts a posture vis-a-vis Blackwater that appears downright conspiratorial. This will make the fruits of its investigation a tough sell."

Ratner says that while what was offered the Blackwater operatives is not immunity from prosecution, prosecutors would need to prove they did not use the sworn statements as part of their investigation. "Even though the person can be prosecuted if independent evidence is relied upon, often this is hard to demonstrate," he says. As an example of the problems such immunity can pose, Ratner points to the case of Oliver North. "He had been granted 'use immunity' and was then prosecuted, supposedly on the basis of independent evidence," Ratner says. "However, his conviction was reversed in the court of appeals because it could not be demonstrated that all of the evidence against him had an independent source outside of his own testimony."

..more..