Case Agaisnt Blackwater Dropped

[Genx87]

I am pretty sure if Amanda Knox went to the US embassy and got on a flight home her ordeal would have turned out differently.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

If the prosecutors were attempting to use sworn statements given under the promise of amnesty/immunity, then that cannot be used as evidence.

Period. End of story. Yes they were wrong for what they did, and should be brought to justice for their crimes. They cannot have their rights violated though in that process.

 

[hal2kilo]

I have to wonder if the prosecutors deliberately did this to get it thrown out.



Hmmm....so they were warned, and they went ahead and did it anyone. Nice way to get out of murder charges. And you wonder why Iraqi's get mad at us.

Also, all the resident trolls here that demand US justice for actions elsewhere in the world, why aren't you demanding that Iraqi courts handle this? You all would be outraged if Yemen demanded the right to try the recent plane bomber, but you have no problem flip-flopping if it favors you.

Let me guess, Bush appointed prosecutors that still have not been flushed out!

I'm still baffled as to why there was not a total house cleaning in the Justice Department as that has been the norm when administrations change. Something really stinks here.

 

[Tab]

If the prosecutors were attempting to use sworn statements given under the promise of amnesty/immunity, then that cannot be used as evidence.

Period. End of story. Yes they were wrong for what they did, and should be brought to justice for their crimes. They cannot have their rights violated though in that process.

Pretty much. I just hope that these so called State Department Officials whomever fucked this up are hung by the balls.

 

[Zebo]

Thats the risk they take. From what I heard, they made good money, way more than the average soldier makes.

Blackwater mercs making more than petraeus.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/blackwater_mercs_make_more_than_petraeus/

No they don't make more. Mr. Petraeus' salary is divided by 365 days in that article vs. ~220 working days. BW only gets paid on days they work.

And if you take immunity away none will come at any price. But that's what the left wants of course to harm war effort by any means necessary.

Then they talk a good game about human rights /fair trails for terrorists while wanting to leave American contractors hung out to dry in 7th century kangaroo court system. Disgusting.

I don't agree with war in Iraq - never have. I also don't dig we are hiring mercenaries for what public does not support or failing to grow Army to fill role - but once those decisions are made you still must treat them fairly and with due process WE believe in since they are under our command and payroll.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

No they don't make more. Mr. Petraeus' salary is divided by 365 days in that article vs. ~220 working days. BW only gets paid on days they work.

And if you take immunity away none will come at any price. But that's what the left wants of course to harm war effort by any means necessary.

Then they talk a good game about human rights /fair trails for terrorists while wanting to leave American contractors hung out to dry in 7th century kangaroo court system. Disgusting.

I don't agree with war in Iraq - never have. I also don't dig we are hiring mercenaries for what public does not support or failing to grow Army to fill role - but once those decisions are made you still must treat them fairly and with due process WE believe in since they are under our command and payroll.

Under WHO'S command?

The US has absolutely no say what so ever in what they do, none, zero, zilch and nada. They are there for one reason alone, to act as bodyguards and to do that they are equipped and paid by a corporation which has given them NO ROE rules what so ever.

Besides, considering how much they loot they sure as hell make more than Petreus does a month in a couple of weeks of work. Most of them are not even capable to handle their job most of the time, there are NUMEROUS occasions where troops have done their job because they were so drunk that it would take them a week to sober up.

They are the failures of Armed forces who were given a new chance where they get immunity of actions which any souldier would face dishonorable discharge and probably at least ten years in jail.

Think about it, you arm people who have been rejected and expect them to behave when they know full well that they are immune from prosecution... not too fucking bright.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

If the prosecutors were attempting to use sworn statements given under the promise of amnesty/immunity, then that cannot be used as evidence.

Period. End of story. Yes they were wrong for what they did, and should be brought to justice for their crimes. They cannot have their rights violated though in that process.

Too bad they are civilians, in a military court they would hang.

 

[Zebo]

Under WHO'S command?

The US has absolutely no say what so ever in what they do, none, zero, zilch and nada. They are there for one reason alone, to act as bodyguards and to do that they are equipped and paid by a corporation which has given them NO ROE rules what so ever.

Besides, considering how much they loot they sure as hell make more than Petreus does a month in a couple of weeks of work. Most of them are not even capable to handle their job most of the time, there are NUMEROUS occasions where troops have done their job because they were so drunk that it would take them a week to sober up.

They are the failures of Armed forces who were given a new chance where they get immunity of actions which any souldier would face dishonorable discharge and probably at least ten years in jail.

Think about it, you arm people who have been rejected and expect them to behave when they know full well that they are immune from prosecution... not too fucking bright.

How can you generalize like that? They are not 'rejects' many served honorably in combat & SF roles, completed their enlistment or retired then reuped with BW/Triton etc after 911. Blanket immunity and ROE was a problem though. I have no prob trying ones who fuck up under UCMJ and/or US Federal courts. My issue is w/ Iraqi kangaroo courts and the inevitable making Iraq war on trail over in Iraq some people in this thread are in agreement with.

 

[Fern]

And you wonder why those of us on the right don't want our terrorist suspects brought into the civilian criminal justice system.

I can just imagine some judge throwing out the case against the 9-11 mastermind because he was kept in a cold cell for a few days and was not allowed to talk to a lawyer.

Exactly.

While in this case it appears to be mis-steps by the State Dept, it still demonstrates the inherent problems with non-judicial branches being tasked with responsibility of prosecution in civil courts. The military is no more judicial than the State Dept and shouldn't be expected to comply with chain of custody rules for evidence nor giving Miranda warnings etc.

Odd, but when terrorists are released from GITMO for these types of legal techincalities liberals here declare them "innocent" yet when the (predictably) same thing happens in Blackwater's case it's an outrage and injustice.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Exactly.

While in this case it appears to be mis-steps by the State Dept, it still demonstrates the inherent problems with non-judicial branches being tasked with responsibility of prosecution in civil courts. The military is no more judicial than the State Dept and shouldn't be expected to comply with chain of custody rules for evidence nor giving Miranda warnings etc.

Odd, but when terrorists are released from GITMO for these types of legal techincalities liberals here declare them "innocent" yet when the (predictably) same thing happens in Blackwater's case it's an outrage and injustice.

Fern

No it's absolutely not. Again with you the same as Pro-Jo, I simply cannot believe that an argument against trials is that sometimes people are found innocent. That is a GOOD thing. The phrase 'technicality' gets thrown around a lot, and what that is really legal shorthand for is 'had Constitutional rights violated'. I'm a lot more concerned about the Constitution than I am any criminal.

Obama is embracing an equally cynical brand of justice as Bush did. Namely that we will give people trials only if we're positive we can convict them. It's a disgrace.

 

[JSt0rm]

I also don't dig we are hiring mercenaries for what public does not support or failing to grow Army to fill role - but once those decisions are made you still must treat them fairly and with due process WE believe in since they are under our command and payroll.

Yes but they made a choice to go there and I feel like personal responsibility is in order. If they don't want to hang in some 7th century courtroom then they shouldn't

1. be there

2. open fire on civilians

simple. They aren't in the armed forces and they shouldn't have those protections.

 

[nobodyknows]

These guys should be doing time.

The State Dept hired them to escort/protect their employees to and from the airport. I don't know why our soldiers couldn't have done the same job?

I do recall reading the a trip from Baghdad to the airport cost $50,000 one way.

 

[Fern]

Exactly.

While in this case it appears to be mis-steps by the State Dept, it still demonstrates the inherent problems with non-judicial branches being tasked with responsibility of prosecution in civil courts. The military is no more judicial than the State Dept and shouldn't be expected to comply with chain of custody rules for evidence nor giving Miranda warnings etc.

Odd, but when terrorists are released from GITMO for these types of legal techincalities liberals here declare them "innocent" yet when the (predictably) same thing happens in Blackwater's case it's an outrage and injustice.

Fern

No it's absolutely not. Again with you the same as Pro-Jo, I simply cannot believe that an argument against trials is that sometimes people are found innocent. That is a GOOD thing. The phrase 'technicality' gets thrown around a lot, and what that is really legal shorthand for is 'had Constitutional rights violated'. I'm a lot more concerned about the Constitution than I am any criminal.

Obama is embracing an equally cynical brand of justice as Bush did. Namely that we will give people trials only if we're positive we can convict them. It's a disgrace.

If you can't "believe that an argument against trials is that sometimes people are found innocent", well it's simply because that's not the argument. In fact, "people are found innocnent" hasn't got a damned thing to do with it.

Look, we have three branches of government:

Exec (includes the State Dapt and military)

Judiciary (includes police etc who are "sworn officers of the court"

Congress

Trying to have the Exec branch (military) etc do the work of the judicial branch is flat-out stupid. Therefor, having people involved in military matters, like terrorists captured by the military, turned over to civilian courts is simply ridiculous. The military exist to blow shit up and kill people, not to follow rules on the chain of custody for evidence or read Miranda rights.

There's a reason why police are not involved in war, likewise, the military shouldn't be required to be involved in civilian courts.

I know you know better, but I'm tired of seeing this stupid crap repeated here - courts/trial etc DO NOT find people innocent. You are either guilty or not proven guilty. Not proven guilty != innocent. Boat-loads of people found 'not guilty' are NOT innocent, it's merely that they could not be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Such is the case with many at GITMO and perhaps the Blackwater people.

Fern

 

[Zargon]

But does that matter? It's still their country. So many people went crazy when Amanda Knox was convicted according to the Italians law, saying it was not fair. But so what? There is no law saying that all countries must meet X, Y, or Z standards before they are "fair". She was tried like any other citizen in Italy. According to their laws, she got a fair trial.

maybe because they never got close to actually proving amanda know did anything? how does that compare to the prosecutors fucking shit up, and who said its OK?

 

[fskimospy]

If you can't "believe that an argument against trials is that sometimes people are found innocent", well it's simply because that's not the argument. In fact, "people are found innocnent" hasn't got a damned thing to do with it.

Look, we have three branches of government:

Exec (includes the State Dapt and military)

Judiciary (includes police etc who are "sworn officers of the court"

Congress

Trying to have the Exec branch (military) etc do the work of the judicial branch is flat-out stupid. Therefor, having people involved in military matters, like terrorists captured by the military, turned over to civilian courts is simply ridiculous. The military exist to blow shit up and kill people, not to follow rules on the chain of custody for evidence or read Miranda rights.

There's a reason why police are not involved in war, likewise, the military shouldn't be required to be involved in civilian courts.

I know you know better, but I'm tired of seeing this stupid crap repeated here - courts/trial etc DO NOT find people innocent. You are either guilty or not proven guilty. Not proven guilty != innocent. Boat-loads of people found 'not guilty' are NOT innocent, it's merely that they could not be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Such is the case with many at GITMO and perhaps the Blackwater people.

Fern

The judiciary does not encompass police officers in any way, shape, or form.

Period.

Police in any form are executive agencies either on a state or federal level, just like the military. In fact the police play a very specific adversarial role in our justice system, with the defendant on the other side while the entire purpose of the judiciary is to provide an impartial arbiter. The police are anything but. So no, your wild reorganization of the American system of government isn't going to fly. Furthermore the police in the form of the FBI and other agencies expend considerable resources investigating and arresting terrorists around the world. You are advocating for a two tiered system of justice based upon the uniform of the person who arrests you.

Your definition of 'innocent' is simply incorrect.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/innocent

#2 definition: 'not guilty of a crime'.

The legal definition of 'innocent' is also synonymous with 'not guilty'. The law and therefore the entire system by which we hold people does not make a distinction between 'innocent' and 'unable to prove he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt' for incredibly obvious reasons, so the whole 'he was found not guilty but I know better' doesn't hold an ounce of water.

 

[Craig234]

The judiciary does not encompass police officers in any way, shape, or form.

Period.

Police in any form are executive agencies either on a state or federal level, just like the military. In fact the police play a very specific adversarial role in our justice system, with the defendant on the other side while the entire purpose of the judiciary is to provide an impartial arbiter. The police are anything but. So no, your wild reorganization of the American system of government isn't going to fly. Furthermore the police in the form of the FBI and other agencies expend considerable resources investigating and arresting terrorists around the world. You are advocating for a two tiered system of justice based upon the uniform of the person who arrests you.

Your definition of 'innocent' is simply incorrect.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/innocent

#2 definition: 'not guilty of a crime'.

The legal definition of 'innocent' is also synonymous with 'not guilty'. The law and therefore the entire system by which we hold people does not make a distinction between 'innocent' and 'unable to prove he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt' for incredibly obvious reasons, so the whole 'he was found not guilty but I know better' doesn't hold an ounce of water.

Actually, Fern's right about innocent and not guilty. People are 'presumed innocent' (in our criminal system. not Gitmo), and that presumption remains if they are found 'not guilty'.

But that is what it means, that they were found not to be proven, guilty, not to be proven innocent. On rare occassions, courts HAVE issued findings of positive innocence, where there's strong evidence and need.

I don't recall all the situations that trigger that process, but the standards of proof are far different for the defendant than a criminal trial.

Having defended Fern on that point, I do not like or agree with his sneering tone as if 'mere' not guilty somehow lets him inisuate many of the not guilty at Gitmo are really guilty.

It doesn't seem to me he can be bothered to put in the effort or honesty to look into how many are really innocent.

 

[fskimospy]

Actually, Fern's right about innocent and not guilty. People are 'presumed innocent' (in our criminal system. not Gitmo), and that presumption remains if they are found 'not guilty'.

But that is what it means, that they were found not to be proven, guilty, not to be proven innocent. On rare occassions, courts HAVE issued findings of positive innocence, where there's strong evidence and need.

I don't recall all the situations that trigger that process, but the standards of proof are far different for the defendant than a criminal trial.

Having defended Fern on that point, I do not like or agree with his sneering tone as if 'mere' not guilty somehow lets him inisuate many of the not guilty at Gitmo are really guilty.

It doesn't seem to me he can be bothered to put in the effort or honesty to look into how many are really innocent.

Courts can make findings of fact that certain events did or did not occur, but as far as the law is concerned 'not guilty' and 'innocent' are the same thing. There is no stipulation for 'well we didn't have enough proof but... jeez look at the guy'.

 

[Craig234]

Courts can make findings of fact that certain events did or did not occur, but as far as the law is concerned 'not guilty' and 'innocent' are the same thing. There is no stipulation for 'well we didn't have enough proof but... jeez look at the guy'.

I think everyone's right, just sayiing different things and there's a misunderstanding.

What you're saying as I read it is that a finding of not guilty has *no* sitgma to it of 'the scumbag got away with it' - not guilty is with the full presumption of innocence. And you're right.

But it's also correct to say that ALL it says is that there's a PRESUMPTION of innocnce - not one bit of comment on whether the person is guilty or innocent, any more than there is for anyone never charged.

As far as the cour is concerned, the person, like any uncharged person, may well be guilty - but they're not in any way stigmatized suggesting guilt.

The finding of not guilty means and only means that the person was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and remains presumed innocent, they were not 'found innocent'.

Indeed, a person foun 80% probably guilty is found 'not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, presumed innocent'.

I disagree, as I said, and I think you do too, with Fern's stigmatizing the not guilty.

This is in contrast to the actual court finding of 'innocent'.