That's one hell of a fuckup.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123101936.html
QuoteCharges dismissed against Blackwater guards in Iraq deaths
By Del Quentin Wilber
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 1, 2010
A federal judge dismissed charges against five Blackwater Worldwide security guards accused of killing 14 Iraqi civilians in a controversial shooting in a busy Baghdad square two years ago in a ruling that sharply criticized the tactics of Justice Department prosecutors handling the case.
The judge, Ricardo M. Urbina of the District's federal court, found that prosecutors and agents had improperly used statements that the guards provided to the State Department in the hours and days after the shooting. The statements had been given with the understanding that they would not be used against the guards in court, the judge found, and federal prosecutors should not have used them to help guide their investigation. Urbina said other Justice Department lawyers had warned the prosecutors to tread carefully around the incriminating statements.
"In their zeal to bring charges," Urbina wrote in a 90-page opinion, "prosecutors and investigators aggressively sought out statements in the immediate aftermath of the shooting and in the subsequent investigation. In so doing, the government's trial team repeatedly disregarded the warnings of experienced, senior prosecutors, assigned to the case specifically to advise the trial team" on such matters.
The five Blackwater guards -- a sixth has pleaded guilty -- were indicted in December 2008 on manslaughter and weapons charges accusing them of killing and injuring unarmed civilians.
Federal prosecutors have said the guards killed 14 Iraqis and wounded 20 in an unprovoked blaze of bullets and grenade explosions. The guards' attorneys have said their clients fired in self-defense after being shot at by insurgents.
The incident, which badly strained U.S.-Iraqi relations, was the most serious one involving private security contractors in recent years, and it raised questions about using such guards in war zones. It so badly stigmatized Blackwater that the company renamed itself Xe Services.
Human rights groups have decried the incident and others involving contractors and U.S. troops that resulted in the deaths of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform reported that the company had been involved in at least 195 incidents in Iraq in which weapons were fired.
The Iraqi government wanted the guards tried in Baghdad and promised to watch the case closely. "The world quaked because of this crime," Fared Waleed Hasson, who was injured in the shooting, said in Iraq. "How have we lost our rights so quickly?"
The decision is the latest embarrassment for the Justice Department in a high-profile prosecution. In April, the department asked a federal judge to dismiss the corruption conviction of former senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) after lapses by prosecutors.
'Lacking in credibility'
At the time of the Blackwater incident, the guards were providing security for diplomats under a State Department contract and were members of a four-vehicle convoy that secured an evacuation route for U.S. officials fleeing a bomb explosion Sept. 16, 2007. In the hours and days after the shooting, the guards provided detailed statements to State Department investigators. The guards' attorneys contended that the statements were immunized -- meaning they could not be used in any criminal prosecution -- because their clients would have been fired if they had refused to comply.
The judge held several weeks of hearings, which included testimony from prosecutors, agents and other Blackwater guards, to see whether the government properly avoided using the statements.
Federal prosecutors, led by Assistant U.S. Attorney Kenneth Kohl, argued that they had steered clear of the statements and that any mistakes were harmless. Urbina said he did not buy the government's arguments.
Prosecutors' explanations were "often contradictory, unbelievable and lacking in credibility," he wrote, calling the conduct a "reckless violation" of the guards' rights. The judge found that investigators used the statements to steer their probe and to help them decide whom to charge.
Urbina's decision, coming on New Year's Eve, surprised Justice Department officials, the guards' attorneys and relatives of the victims in Baghdad. Many were preparing for a trial, which had been set to start Feb. 1. Jurors were being summoned to appear Jan. 11 as part of a screening process.
The Justice Department can appeal the ruling. But legal experts said it will have a difficult time because Urbina wrote such a detailed opinion and held such long hearings. Prosecutors can also seek a fresh indictment but would be precluded from using any evidence that Urbina ruled was tainted. That would be another tough task because Urbina eviscerated much of the government's case. He also found that many of its key witnesses were badly tainted by the guards' statements, which they had read or heard about in the news media.
Faith, disappointment
Dean Boyd, a spokesman for the Justice Department, said officials were reviewing the opinion. "We're obviously disappointed by the decision," he said.
Attorneys for the guards -- Paul Slough, Nicholas Slatten, Evan Liberty, Dustin Heard and Donald Ball -- said they were pleased and hoped the government wouldn't appeal. "It really puts your faith back in the system," said Bill Coffield, Liberty's attorney.
ad_icon
Mark Hulkower, who represents Slough, said, "We are very gratified by the judge's thoughtful and reasoned opinion."
It is not clear what will happen to Jeremy Ridgeway, the guard who pleaded guilty. His attorney, William Sullivan, could not be reached for comment. As part of the plea deal, the government had agreed to drop the charges if Urbina had ruled against it on a jurisdictional issue. But the plea deal has no provision for a ruling based on the guards' statements.
In Baghdad, relatives and victims of the shooting expressed frustration when told of Urbina's decision. "There is no justice. These [people] have to have a trial in Iraq," said Hussein Ali, the brother of Sa'di Ali, who was killed in Nissor Square.
Staff researcher Julie Tate in Washington and special correspondents Michael Hastings and Qais Mizher in Baghdad contributed to this report.
I'm not sure why the statements to the State Department should have been subject to immunity. I don't think that the State Department itself has the authority to grant immunity. And being fired if you con't cooperate with an investigation is an issue between you and your employer, not between you and the prosecutors.
And they should have been tried in Iraq anyway.
QuoteJeremy Ridgeway, the guard who pleaded guilty
:nelson:
:)
Blackwater is AWESOME.
Talk about throwing the baby out with Blackwater.
I am not sure why people are surprised. It's the Federal government. You will never find a more wretched hive of overweening egos and overpaid civil servants. The Famous But Incompetent branch is bad enough but the DoJ has got to be the worst. We refer cases to them all the time as part of the job I do and they refuse anything that isn't a 110% slam dunk. They want to look as good as possible without doing any real work.
Quote from: Strix on January 01, 2010, 12:30:50 PM
I am not sure why people are surprised. It's the Federal government. You will never find a more wretched hive of overweening egos and overpaid civil servants.
FYPFY. Government weenies are pretty much all the same. Overpaid and underworked, but convinced that they shit ice cream all the same.
Quote from: grumbler on January 01, 2010, 12:35:17 PM
FYPFY. Government weenies are pretty much all the same. Overpaid and underworked, but convinced that they shit ice cream all the same.
That's bull shit. I shit Gold and piss Rosewater! :showoff:
Quote from: grumbler on January 01, 2010, 12:35:17 PM
Quote from: Strix on January 01, 2010, 12:30:50 PM
I am not sure why people are surprised. It's the Federal government. You will never find a more wretched hive of overweening egos and overpaid civil servants.
FYPFY. Government weenies are pretty much all the same. Overpaid and underworked, but convinced that they shit ice cream all the same.
Not all government is like the navy.
Quote from: Strix on January 01, 2010, 12:30:50 PM
I am not sure why people are surprised. It's the Federal government. You will never find a more wretched hive of overweening egos and overpaid civil servants.
:ultra:
And you've never seen an incompetent government until you've dealt with the Yukon Territorial Government. It has 98% of the powers of a province, and a billion dollar plus federal grant, and absolutely no one remotely qualified to do anything.
Quote from: Barrister on January 01, 2010, 01:11:19 PM
And you've never seen an incompetent government until you've dealt with the Yukon Territorial Government. It has 98% of the powers of a province, and a billion dollar plus federal grant, and absolutely no one remotely qualified to do anything.
You aren't no one, Beeb. I like you.
Quote from: PDH on January 01, 2010, 04:30:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 01, 2010, 01:11:19 PM
And you've never seen an incompetent government until you've dealt with the Yukon Territorial Government. It has 98% of the powers of a province, and a billion dollar plus federal grant, and absolutely no one remotely qualified to do anything.
You aren't no one, Beeb. I like you.
I don't work for YTG (Yukon Territorial Government). :goodboy:
I work for the Federal Government. :menace:
Quote from: Razgovory on January 01, 2010, 01:04:11 PM
Not all government is like the navy.
Not all government is unlike the US Navy, either. If you drove, then you would have to deal with Department of Motor Vehicle types and police, and you would know what I meant.
Quote from: Barrister on January 01, 2010, 05:30:40 PM
I don't work for YTG (Yukon Territorial Government). :goodboy:
I work for the Federal Government. :menace:
It might be different in Canada.
Here, the DoJ won't touch a case unless Helen Kellar could win it. It gets thrown back at the State who wins most of them but the criminals get lesser sentences.
Quote from: Barrister on January 01, 2010, 01:11:19 PM
And you've never seen an incompetent government until you've dealt with the Yukon Territorial Government. It has 98% of the powers of a province, and a billion dollar plus federal grant, and absolutely no one remotely qualified to do anything.
So where do i apply!
Quote from: katmai on January 01, 2010, 08:52:44 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 01, 2010, 01:11:19 PM
And you've never seen an incompetent government until you've dealt with the Yukon Territorial Government. It has 98% of the powers of a province, and a billion dollar plus federal grant, and absolutely no one remotely qualified to do anything.
So where do i apply!
http://employment.gov.yk.ca/
You'd fit right in. :P
Quote from: Strix on January 01, 2010, 08:50:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 01, 2010, 05:30:40 PM
I don't work for YTG (Yukon Territorial Government). :goodboy:
I work for the Federal Government. :menace:
It might be different in Canada.
Here, the DoJ won't touch a case unless Helen Kellar could win it. It gets thrown back at the State who wins most of them but the criminals get lesser sentences.
We've been dealing with DoJ fuckups in the ongoing cases of political corruption up here (Ted Stevens, and the 3-5 state officials caught up with the former Veco Oil company)
Quote from: grumbler on January 01, 2010, 06:43:50 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 01, 2010, 01:04:11 PM
Not all government is like the navy.
Not all government is unlike the US Navy, either. If you drove, then you would have to deal with Department of Motor Vehicle types and police, and you would know what I meant.
It's funny I've never had any problems with Department of Motor Vehicles or the police. Even when I did drive.
I'm trying to decide if you are trolling on this. It's so unlike you to say something this stupid.
Quote from: Barrister on January 01, 2010, 08:54:09 PM
Quote from: katmai on January 01, 2010, 08:52:44 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 01, 2010, 01:11:19 PM
And you've never seen an incompetent government until you've dealt with the Yukon Territorial Government. It has 98% of the powers of a province, and a billion dollar plus federal grant, and absolutely no one remotely qualified to do anything.
So where do i apply!
http://employment.gov.yk.ca/
You'd fit right in. :P
:w00t:
Quote from: Strix on January 01, 2010, 08:50:43 PM
It might be different in Canada.
Here, the DoJ won't touch a case unless Helen Kellar could win it. It gets thrown back at the State who wins most of them but the criminals get lesser sentences.
Definitely different that us. We're unafraid to lose a case. :whistle:
Quote from: Razgovory on January 01, 2010, 08:54:38 PM
It's funny I've never had any problems with Department of Motor Vehicles or the police. Even when I did drive.
AND THEN YOU WOKE UP, AND YOUR PILLOW WAS GONE! :o
QuoteI'm trying to decide if you are trolling on this. It's so unlike you to say something this stupid.
Don't worry about it. You could not understand it even if I explained it to you. :secret:
Sounds like grumbles had a few too many. :hmm:
Occasionally Grumbler says some bizarre things. This is one of them. I think it's either trolling or senility. When we get to a point like this it's best to just smile and nod. :yes:
Quote from: katmai on January 01, 2010, 08:54:26 PM
We've been dealing with DoJ fuckups in the ongoing cases of political corruption up here (Ted Stevens, and the 3-5 state officials caught up with the former Veco Oil company)
Yes, I imagine the DoJ is pissing in their pants. It kills them to be forced to actually work a case that the outcome isn't already 99.9% certain.
Quote from: Barrister on January 01, 2010, 08:55:24 PM
Definitely different that us. We're unafraid to lose a case. :whistle:
Given that there is no criminal code for provinces, it's a given that you won't send the case to the provinces ;)
Apparently, these guys can't be tried in Iraq because of an immunity agreement in place at the time between the Iraqi government and the Coalition Provisional Authority.
However, that raises a legal question I don't have the answer to: does the benefit of that immunity agreement attach to the individuals as such, or can it be waived by the US government?