"Recklessly violated their rights".

What a POS of a judge. Expect backlash and more suicide bombings as a result of this decision.

#1...

Why you blaming the judge? The prosecution was warned and rushed this to trial. I am curious what happens to the sixth guy who pleaded guilty.

Crispee, a mercenary shouldn't have any rights, IMO.

..."the court declines to excuse the government's reckless violation of the defendants' constitutional rights as harmless error."

Would be nice if the article made it clear which prosecutors and investigators -- i.e., Bush Admin DoJ or Obama Admin DoJ -- were responsible.

Crispee, a mercenary shouldn't have any rights, IMO.

#3 | Posted by dxlingr at 2010-01-01 10:36 AM |

They were hired by the US Goverment to protect our military and Iraqi officials...

I was responding to you blaming the judge for the mistakes of the prosecution.

"Crispee, a mercenary shouldn't have any rights, IMO" - DXL #3

How far are you prepared to take that "shouldn't have any rights" argument?

For instance, what about non-US citizens in Gitmo?
Or the missionary in a foreign land getting raped and murdered?
Or a US citizen simply being a tourist overseas?
Or a hit man in the US?
What about a drunk driver?

What I'm wondering is where you draw the line as to when someone forfeits their rights.

Killing somebody for profit isn't the same as killing somebody for your country or ideology.

When it's about money, which is only why Blackwater is there to begin with, it becomes something beyond a moral issue. It is murder for hire.

Granted our soldiers get paid, but the difference in pay between them and Blackwater is astronomical.

Granted our soldiers get paid, but the difference in pay between them and Blackwater is astronomical.

#7 | Posted by dxlingr at 2010-01-01 11:42 AM

They were hired to protect americans and american interests.

The NYT says, "Many Iraqis also viewed the prosecution of the guards as a test case of American democratic principles, which have not been wholeheartedly embraced, and in particular of the fairness of the American judicial system."

If so, we passed, and we also failed. As in an ideal democratic system the accused are protected from prosecutorial misconduct. But as in an antidemocratic, monarchical system, the victims can't sue the prosecutors, because of absolute prosecutorial immunity.

"They were hired to protect americans and american interests."

That's true.

And I wouldn't be talking smack about them...Walt will show up in a heartbeat.

And I'm sure he doesn't want to be bothered since he is now happily employed as a Democrat Strategist with WhiteWater. : )

"How far are you prepared to take that "shouldn't have any rights" argument?
For instance, what about non-US citizens in Gitmo?
Or the missionary in a foreign land getting raped and murdered?
Or a US citizen simply being a tourist overseas?
Or a hit man in the US?
What about a drunk driver?
What I'm wondering is where you draw the line as to when someone forfeits their rights.

#6 | POSTED BY OOHRAH"

How about illegal immigrants? Should they have basic human rights as well?

"Recklessly violated their rights".

What a POS of a judge. Expect backlash and more suicide bombings as a result of this decision.
#1 | Posted by dxlingr

witholding INCRIMINATING statements made by the DEFENDANTS

ps - - "exculpatory evidence" would be the shit the prosecutors HID because it wrecked their OWN CASE

psII - - recently AG Holder had ask that AK Senator Stevens conviction voided because fed prosecutors "made up shit"

psIII - - the Fed prosecutors should be interrogated at Gitmo, using their accrued vacation days, with the expense deducted from their 401Ks - - IMHO

So let me get this right. We can now send mercenaries to foreign countries to kill people for money and they are protected from prosecution by that country's laws and by our own laws. Can they also be used in this country now to control the masses?

Oh, God. Like anyone over there needed one more excuse to plant roadside bombs or recruit suicide bombers.

Can they also be used in this country now to control the masses?

#13 | Posted by RingMaster

Winchester to Deliver 200 Million 40-Cal. Rounds to Homeland Security
Washington D.C. August 22, 2009

#15 | Posted by markh

So it's not just us crazy gun nuts buying up all the ammo....whoed uh thunk it wud thu gobernment?

They don't need excuses, Marty, they hate ALL of us. That won't change.

If the prosecution screwed the case up, then the Judge made the correct decision. Hopefully, however, this will be the end of the story. Too many people died for their not to be some justice for the victims' families.

Can they also be used in this country now to control the masses?

Good point markh. I was baiting the pubbies, but they don't get it anyway.

To answer my own question, Yes, they already did. Blackwater was used to control the people when Hurricane Katrina flooded New Orleans.

It was a "successful" test by Bush and Co., that the government doesn't need the military for domestic issues anyway. Who needs the Posse Comitatus Act with people like Bush in power. They just hire private mercenaries. The attitude was "Fuck 'em if they can't take a little fascism".

Most republicans don't know what fascism is anyway. They think it's socialism.

Crispee, a mercenary shouldn't have any rights, IMO.

#3 | Posted by dxlingr

That would depend if he is fighting for us or against us. By the way, what is a mercenary?

"How far are you prepared to take that "shouldn't have any rights" argument?
For instance, what about non-US citizens in Gitmo?
Or the missionary in a foreign land getting raped and murdered?
Or a US citizen simply being a tourist overseas?
Or a hit man in the US?
What about a drunk driver?
What I'm wondering is where you draw the line as to when someone forfeits their rights.

#6 | POSTED BY OOHRAH"

How about illegal immigrants? Should they have basic human rights as well?

#11 | Posted by furio

Rights Of the United States of America are derived from GOD Read the Declaration and Constitution. Those rights are the PROPERTY of US citizens.
Blackwater was hired to secure people and objects of value IN A WAR. If (note the IF) I understand the situation correctly these guys were fired upon by guerillas (cowards) from a crowd and they returned fire. Hello wouldn't you.

Illegal immigrants don't have any rights in the US.
For those who didn't understand that last sentence it means legally I could kill (technicaly murder) an illegal alien and suffer NO consequences. Now would it be Morally wrong. HELL YES.

Ringmaster #13 .... Ok why is Obama's administration prosecuting terrorist as common criminals. THEY are war criminals. I find it amusing (well not really) that liberals are so eager to call Cheney or Bush or Limbaugh a war criminal (do I really need to supply footnotes for that one .... then read your own posts) but refuse to A: call a terrorist a terrorist or B: prosecute them using the Military.

Oh the terrorist and war criminals in Gitmo .... They were taken off a BATTLEFIELD they should be returned with extra holes. Problem solved. A dead terrorist can't kill someone else. DUH

How about illegal immigrants? Should they have basic human rights as well?

#11 | Posted by furio

They have the right to a bus ride back home and a closed border when they try to come back.

Killing somebody for profit isn't the same as killing somebody for your country or ideology.
When it's about money, which is only why Blackwater is there to begin with, it becomes something beyond a moral issue. It is murder for hire.
Granted our soldiers get paid, but the difference in pay between them and Blackwater is astronomical.
#7 | Posted by dxlingr at 2010-01-01 11:42 AM

You're wrong - Prince has clearly expressed Blackwater is an anti-Muslim Christian mercenary cell. That's in a number of books as well. They are fundamentalist "Christians" who murder for profit. In New Orleans they killed American citizens with impunity - because that's how fundamentalists operate when protected by a Christian fundamentalist regime.

Urbina prefaced his opinion with a quotation from a landmark 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case, Tehan v. U.S.:

"The basic purposes that lie behind the privilege against self-incrimination do not relate to protecting the innocent from conviction, but rather to preserving the integrity of a judicial system in which even the guilty are not to be convicted unless the prosecution shoulder the entire load."

Blackwater was used to control the people when Hurricane Katrina flooded New Orleans.
It was a "successful" test by Bush and Co. . . . .
#19 | Posted by RingMaster

Blackwater had the Walmart trucks filled with ice & supplies . . however they remain pissed because Congressman William Jefferson diverted their payroll

Watching supposed "liberals" criticize this ruling is nothing short of hysterical. The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination clearly bars prosecutors from using statements compelled under threat of a job loss in a subsequent prosecution. The statements at issue in this case were aggressively compelled under threat of job loss, and were then used by prosecutors to guide its charging decisions despite warnings from senior attorneys.

If you are a liberal, you should applaud this court's enforcement of the Constitutional right against self-incrimination. Unfortunately most of the liberals here are partisan hacks who would rather see that right disregarded because of their hatred of companies like Blackwater. Pathetic.

I think the ruling is probably correct, but I don't think that it's any less likely that these Blackwater personnel were guilty of the actual charges. It's too bad that the case was handled in this way.

Watching supposed "liberals" criticize this ruling is nothing short of hysterical. The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination clearly bars prosecutors from using statements compelled under threat of a job loss in a subsequent prosecution. The statements at issue in this case were aggressively compelled under threat of job loss, and were then used by prosecutors to guide its charging decisions despite warnings from senior attorneys.
If you are a liberal, you should applaud this court's enforcement of the Constitutional right against self-incrimination. Unfortunately most of the liberals here are partisan hacks who would rather see that right disregarded because of their hatred of companies like Blackwater. Pathetic.
#25 | Posted by joe at 2010-01-01 06:51 PM

MERCENARIES are not "employees" - they are a separate military combatant and deserve to be tried for their war crimes like all other combatants.

Threat of job loss?! Blackwater has such a rich history of murdering their own I can only assume that's why they change their company name so many times to things that are now unpronounceable.

Their "job" interfered with military operations and have a continuing negative impact to this day.

Blackwater was used to control the people when Hurricane Katrina flooded New Orleans. It was a "successful" test by Bush and Co. . . . .
#19 | Posted by RingMaster"

I'm with ya bro . .
Blackwater had the Walmart trucks filled with ice & supplies . . however they remain pissed because Congressman William Jefferson diverted their payroll
#24 | Posted by markh at 2010-01-01 06:24 PM

Dude, they shot people. Blackwater is a fundamentalist mercenary cult and need to be tried for their criminal activities. Passing out water and shooting innocent people does not qualify as a "rescue effort".

MERCENARIES are not "employees" - they are a separate military combatant and deserve to be tried for their war crimes like all other combatants.

There was no question in this case as to whether the parties constituted "employees" for purposes of the threat of job loss principles under the Fifth Amendment. Do you have knowledge as to this matter that District Judge Urbina does not have? If so, please elaborate.

The facts in the record show that the men at issue worked for a private company which provided security services to US soldiers in Iraq. They are "employees" because they are "employed" by Blackwater.

Immediately following the incident, the men were required to give statements to State Department officials with the explicit requirement that they either make the statement or face termination. The written warning further provided that the statements could not be used against the men in a subsequent criminal prosecution, as required by the Constitution. However, the judge found that prosecutors did use those compelled statements based on testimony from over 25 witnesses, including the entire prosecutorial team.

I recommend you do some reading before making such asinine comments.

Here's the 90 page memorandum opinion, idiot. Read it before shooting your mouth off.

I recommend you do some reading before making such asinine comments.

#29 | Posted by JOE at 2010-01-01 07:40 PM |

Something "lawyer" joe hears in "court" on a daily basis.

Here's the 90 page memorandum opinion, idiot. Read it before shooting your mouth off.
ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov
#30 | Posted by JOE at 2010-01-01 07:41 PM

Thanks for the document and vote of confidence.

No private company can commit murder without knowing the investigation would demand their compliance. Kastigar v US is incorrect in determining that any subsequent loss to the defendants was immanent as they would have been tried in Iraq without that insulating case. Iraqi law should have jurisprudence as these were not United States military persons. Their contract should be investigated for further violations of this nature.

I will read the entire document, but first explain how non-military are immune.

Kastigar v US is incorrect in determining that any subsequent loss to the defendants was immanent as they would have been tried in Iraq without that insulating case.

You make no sense, and you appear to be ignorant of the critical facts of this case, which are as follows:

The Blackwater employees were forced to either give a statement regarding the incident or face termination;

Constitutional jurisprudence is clear that any statement compelled by threat of termination may not be used by prosecutors in a subsequent criminal case;

The facts here showed that the compelled statements were in fact used by the prosecutors.

That's all you need to know to see that the Defendants' Fifth Amendment rights were violated. But because you have a hard-on for Blackwater, you are coming up with all sorts of irrelevant bullshit and ignoring these basic facts. Suit yourself.

"the compelled statements were in fact used by the prosecutors."

Who were these idiots?

You're right, Joe...the judge did the right thing. WTF were the prosecutors thinking?!?

"Kastigar v US is incorrect in determining that any subsequent loss to the defendants was immanent as they would have been tried in Iraq without that insulating case."

You make no sense, and you appear to be ignorant of the critical facts of this case, which are as follows:
The Blackwater employees were forced to either give a statement regarding the incident or face termination;
Constitutional jurisprudence is clear that any statement compelled by threat of termination may not be used by prosecutors in a subsequent criminal case;
The facts here showed that the compelled statements were in fact used by the prosecutors.
That's all you need to know to see that the Defendants' Fifth Amendment rights were violated. But because you have a hard-on for Blackwater, you are coming up with all sorts of irrelevant bullshit and ignoring these basic facts. Suit yourself.
#33 | Posted by JOE at 2010-01-01 08:58 PM

Being tried in the United States it would appear that the State Department investigators purposefully maligned their prosecution. Their own people warned them - this indicates willful abandonment of justice and there must be recourse.

Being tried in Iraq - they would have no such luxury and be tried for war crimes which is what should happen.

So either these "warriors" are guilty of war crimes if they are military or they are guilty of murder since they are not military. How this case is dismissed is irrelevant to me - justice FAILED to address the essential argument of murder and tarried upon technical and non-applicable nonsense. If an employee of any Walmart were to shoot a customer dead they would be arrested and subsequently tried regardless hampering their "employment" or potential Walmart contracts being marred from the publicity. The employer should be demanding their compliance, not just the State Department investigators, the Iraqi government and the families of those whom they murdered.

Justice is also morally obligated to not construe it's own interpretation with exemption from justice. Let's see them tried properly and not squirm away with double jeopardy bullshit.

Blackwater + White House = Exoneration!!!

Judge Ricardo Urbina didn't personally throw out the criminal charges against these...cowardly Blackwater "Murderers".....No..all he did was to read out the "prepared" script that he was ordered to read! This script was of course "prepared" by so-called "Justice Officials" in the White House! Their joke of course is on everybody else...as usual!!!

Ok why is Obama's administration prosecuting terrorist as common criminals. THEY are war criminals.

Obama is a scholar in constitutional law. Bush ignored the constitution and convinced the average idiot that he was within his rights to do whatever he wanted to because he had executive power. He labeled terrorist enemy combatants. He used it as an excuse to attack a sovereign nation that had nothing to do with those criminals. That was morally wrong.

If you don't like that definition too bad, I don't like your unamerican opinion either.

Oh the terrorist and war criminals in Gitmo .... They were taken off a BATTLEFIELD they should be returned with extra holes.

That is what you were led to believe. The fact is they were not. They were picked up for rewards offered by the CIA. Most had only an associated roll in anything. Why do you think the Bush administration refused to try any of them? Most were already let go because the the government didn't have shit on them to begin with. Those still there are likely near impossible to convict also. It sucks doesn't it. If they were really guilty of anything they should have been tried and hung by a military tribunal years ago. Instead what Bush did was have them tortured and imprisoned with no basic human rights at all. If you agreed with that policy you need to be treated the same for the rest of your life too.

#37 | Posted by RingMaster at 2010-01-02 12:32 AM
#38 | Posted by RingMaster at 2010-01-02 01:02 AM

Salient. Awesome.

One of the worst components imo is that Congress were aware of this contractors behavior, are briefed on the torture and still pretend there is an arguable terrorist threat from outside of America. Blackwater were their employees, not ours.