Disgusting. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5255135.html State Dept. gave Blackwater guards immunity 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. As a result, it will likely be months before the United States can — if ever — bring criminal charges in the case that has infuriated the Iraqi government. "Once you give immunity, you can't take it away," said a senior law enforcement official familiar with the investigation. A State Department spokesman did not have an immediate comment today. Both Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd and FBI spokesman Rich Kolko declined comment. FBI agents were returning to Washington late today from Baghdad, where they have been trying to collect evidence in the Sept. 16 embassy convoy shooting without using statements from Blackwater employees who were given immunity. Three senior law enforcement officials said all the Blackwater bodyguards involved — both in the vehicle convoy and in at least two helicopters above — were given the legal protections as investigators from the Bureau of Diplomatic Security sought to find out what happened. The bureau is an arm of the State Department. The investigative misstep comes in the wake of already-strained relations between the United States and Iraq, which is demanding the right to launch its own prosecution of the Blackwater bodyguards. Blackwater spokeswoman Anne Tyrrell declined comment about the U.S. investigation. Based in Moyock, N.C., Blackwater USA is the largest private security firm protecting U.S. diplomats in Iraq. The company has said its Sept. 16 convoy was under attack before it opened fire in west Baghdad's Nisoor Square, killing 17 Iraqis. A follow-up investigation by the Iraqi government, however, concluded that Blackwater's men were unprovoked. No witnesses have been found to contradict that finding. An initial incident report by U.S. Central Command, which oversees military operations in Iraq, also indicated "no enemy activity involved" in the Sept. 16 incident. The report says Blackwater guards were traveling against the flow of traffic through a traffic circle when they "engaged five civilian vehicles with small arms fire" at a distance of 50 meters. The FBI took over the case early this month, officials said, after prosecutors in the Justice Department's criminal division realized it could not bring charges against Blackwater guards based on their statements to the Diplomatic Security investigators. Officials said the Blackwater bodyguards spoke only after receiving so-called "Garrity" protections, requiring that their statements only be used internally — and not for criminal prosecutions. At that point, the Justice Department shifted the investigation to prosecutors in its national security division, sealing the guards' statements and attempting to build a case based on other evidence from a crime scene that was then already two weeks old. The FBI has re-interviewed some of the Blackwater employees, and one official said today that at least several of them have refused to answer questions, citing their constitutional right to avoid self-incrimination. Any statements that the guards give to the FBI could be used to bring criminal charges. A second official, however, said that not all the guards have cited their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination — leaving open the possibility for future charges. The official declined to elaborate. Prosecutors will have to prove that any evidence they use in bringing charges against Blackwater employees was uncovered without using the guards' statements to State Department investigators. They "have to show we got the information independently," one official said. Garrity protections generally are given to police or other public law enforcement officers, and were extended to the Blackwater guards because they were working on behalf of the U.S. government, one official said. Experts said it's rare for them to be given to all or even most witnesses — particularly before a suspect is identified. "You have to be careful," said Michael Horowitz, a former federal prosecutor in Manhattan and senior Justice Department official. "You have to understand early on who your serious subjects are in the investigation, and avoid giving these people the protections." It's not clear why the Diplomatic Security investigators agreed to give immunity to the bodyguards, or who authorized doing so. Bureau of Diplomatic Security chief Richard Griffin last week announced his resignation, effective Thursday. Senior State Department officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, have said his departure was directly related to his oversight of Blackwater contractors. Tyrrell, the Blackwater spokeswoman, said the company was alerted Oct. 2 that FBI would be taking over the investigation from the State Department. She declined further comment. On Oct. 3, State Department Sean McCormack said the FBI had been called in to assist Diplomatic Security investigators. A day later, he said the FBI had taken over the probe. "We, internally and in talking with the FBI, had been thinking about the idea of the FBI leading the investigation for a number of different reasons," McCormack told reporters during an Oct. 4 briefing. Last week, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice ordered a series of measures to boost government oversight of the private guards who protect American diplomats in Iraq. They include increased monitoring and explicit rules on when and how they can use deadly force. Blackwater's contract with the State Department expires in May and there are questions whether it will remain as the primary contractor for diplomatic bodyguards. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has said his Cabinet is drafting legislation that would force the State Department to replace Blackwater with another security company. Congress also is expected to investigate the shootings, but a House watchdog committee said it has so far held off based on a Justice Department request that lawmakers wait until the FBI concludes its inquiry.
The whole USA is exempt from UN war crimes tribunals* so why should this suprise you? *This may have expired by now. Anyone know?
There is no such thing as the "UN war crimes tribunal." Occasionally, the UN sets up ad-hoc tribunals for specific situations. For example, the tribunal for Yugoslavia or Rwanda. The only international war crimes equivalent is the International Criminal Court which the US signed but never ratified. (which honestly I don't really agree with ratifying anyway) There's also the ICJ, but that's a court designed to settle disputes between countries.
They live better, are paid better and have better equipment than Soldiers and Marines, why would they not also be above the law. Duh!
Which is really not of concern because the US in theory should be fully capable of conducting a fair trial. It is these underhanded deals that puts a balc eye on the whole thing. Once out in the daylight the US has a fair judicial system. But back to the point those systems you are talking about is more for countries in ruins who cannot conduct trials. We should not allow our guys be subject to them.
Suppose the next Prez decide to ratify and join ICC. Do you think ICC will have the balls to try Bush & Co?
How come European countries have no problems to join? Don't you think the way we behave make us look like the biggest hypocrite in the world. No wonder they hate us.
Typical American imperialism right there. This is even worse than the typical extraterritoriality. You'll allowing these mercs to simply go around shooting people for kicks without any punishment at all and then you back it up with "we should be able to conduct a fair trial" as a convenient excuse so you can let them off the hook and then tell them to go back and do it again. Fair judicial system my ass. Now seriously, we're having an AMERICAN court judge what AMERICAN mercs did to IRAQI citizens? Why not try the Nuremberg Trials with Nazi judges or the Tokyo Trials with Japanese judges? Ridiculous.
Yes, that would be it (The ICC). Apologies for the quick and erroneous reply. Note that the circumstances surrounding the lack of ratification are primarily the Bush Administration's discomfort with anything less than immunity. Furthermore, since withdrawing Bush and his cronies have undermined the treaty in almost every concievable fashion. Regardless, the point is that this is hardly the first time the Bush Junta has aimed to avoid oversight or accountability. What's more damning is that this type of posturing places an ever increasing amount of suspicion on US troops, making me wonder what Bush's motives are, and if there is nothing to hide... Seriously, why would the US be afraid of an international war court, unless it felt that it's actions might be "put to the test"?
I agree that Bush has done his best to skirt international law. A better example would be the CPA's last second law granting contractors immunity from Iraqi law or Bush's failure to renew the office of accountability for Iraqi spending. But as for the ICC (sorry to derail) that's just a bad design because instead of granting it independence from the horrible and flawed UN structure, it remained attached to it. Decisions are referred to the ICC from the UNSC so the US could veto any potential push. And even if it supported the case, it could veto the enforcement process. Also, the inherent politics in the UN process makes the ICC much more of a political charade than a real court. Accountability is fine, but the ICC is a crappy example of accountability.
Morals aside, why would a sitting President ratify a statute to a Court that could put him at risk of prosecution? And what if his prosecutable actions were sanctioned or approved by Congress, or the Federal Court system; would they be subject to ICC prosecution as well?
Seriously, if a Dem were in office, would you expect something different? Now who is being naive? Blame politicians and the Gov. for being who they are. Quit trying to side with the crew that vomits nonsense on you that you agree with. In the end, it truly means nothing. Politicians are about having power. One of the few reasons EVERYBODY should look at Huckabee. He is a supporter of the Flat Tax, which takes away a ton of power to these political morons.
Yeah, apologies for the derail (I believe it is my fault) - but I disagree with this. Fundamentally, I'd rather have the political brew-ha-ha of the UN handle international crime than leave it to US courts (and by extension, US presidential administrations) to handle internally. That's like asking a kid to read and obey a list of rules in a candy factory.
That's just because Iraqi lives aren't that valuable to the U.S. government. Imagine the State Dept giving immunity to private security firms operating in NOLA...exactly.
Why not? If he doesn't plan to start any war, he might do it. Hadn't many European leaders done it already?
why should i, as someone who doesn't believe war solves everything, look at huckabee whos willing to nuke iran in order to ensure iran doesn't have nukes. brilliant. almost as brilliant as invading iraq in violation of international law to enforce international law. and his line of 'just because we haven't found the weapons doesn't mean it doesn't exist' in reference to wmds in iraq. quit pimping douchebags as being reasonable candidates.
