State to Blackwater: Nothing You Say Can and Will Be Used Against You in a Court of Law
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."
Aside from the fundamental problem that there is quite possibly no legal framework for charging the Blackwater shooters under any legal system--US civilian law, military law or Iraqi law--legal analysts and a former federal prosecutor say the State Department has already tainted the Nisour Square criminal investigation in several ways. The FBI was not dispatched to investigate the case until two weeks after the shootings occurred, meaning that the initial investigation was in the hands of a non-law enforcement agency that just happens to be Blackwater's employer. By the time actual law enforcement, the FBI, was sent to Baghdad, the crime scene had been tainted and some of the perpetrators questioned with the alleged immunity provision. "To rely on non-law enforcement to conduct sensitive law enforcement activities makes no sense if you want impartial justice," says Melanie Sloan, a former federal prosecutor who currently serves as Executive Director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "This investigation has already taken so long and it looks like the State Department has impeded the possibility of a successful criminal investigation." The Washington Post reported that "Some of the Blackwater guards have subsequently refused to be interviewed by the FBI, citing promises of immunity from State."
This is hardly the first indication that the government's investigation of the Nisour Square shootings was lacking in integrity and impartiality. The State Department's initial report on the shooting was drafted by a Blackwater contractor on official US government stationary. The FBI team initially dispatched to Baghdad to investigate Blackwater was to be guarded by Blackwater until Sen. Patrick Leahy raised questions about the arrangement forcing the Bureau to announce it would be guarded by official personnel and not personnel from the same company it was investigating.
Perhaps the most disturbing part of this story (aside from the loss of Iraqi civilian life) is that even if Blackwater was not so politically connected to the White House and even if there was a truly independent US Justice Department and even if immunity had not been offered and even if there was an aggressive investigation, it may all be totally irrelevant. When Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently dispatched a team to Baghdad led by veteran diplomat Patrick Kennedy to review the department's private security force, the team returned with the conclusion that it "is unaware of any basis for holding non-Department of Defense contractors accountable under US law."
While there are currently moves afoot in the US Congress to adjust language in the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act to allow for prosecutions of State Department contractor crimes in US civilian courts and although there is a debate over whether the court martial system could be applied, the reality is that the political will to prosecute contractors has been totally absent since day one of the Iraq occupation. Not a single armed contractor has ever been prosecuted for crimes committed in Iraq--not under US civilian law, not under military law and certainly not in Iraqi courts, which have been banned by the US occupation authorities from going after private contractors.
What is so often lost in this new debate on accountability and oversight is this fact: private contractors now outnumber regular soldiers on the Iraq battlefield. The military--with its massive bureaucracy--has been unable or unwilling to effectively monitor the actions of its soldiers and prosecute them for crimes. Who will effectively oversee the 180,000-strong shadow corporate army? Will FBI teams really be running around Iraq chasing allegations (ever increasing) of contractor crimes and misconduct? Who will guard the investigators? Who will interview Iraqi witnesses? Where will the funding come from? Who will arrest the heavily-armed mercenary alleged to have committed a crime, particularly when he was doing exactly what he was supposed to do in keeping VIP US officials alive in Iraq?
While there may be some token prosecutions that stem from the recent uptick in reporting on contractor crimes in Iraq, the reality is that without private forces from Blackwater and its ilk, the US occupation of Iraq would be untenable. Nothing will be done that would actually jeopardize the use of such forces in the war zone. While Blackwater's conduct in Iraq is horrifying, it is important to remember that US ambassadors--all four who have served under the Iraq occupation--owe their lives to Blackwater's shoot-first-and-never-ask-questions cowboy tactics. They are the reason the company can brag it has never lost an American life it was protecting. Blackwater does its job and while it is essential to prosecute its operatives for their crimes, the ultimately responsible party is the entity that hired them and deployed them armed and dangerous in Iraq.
Follow Jeremy Scahill on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jeremyscahill
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"While Blackwater's conduct in Iraq is horrifying, it is important to remember that US ambassadors--all four who have served under the Iraq occupation--owe their lives to Blackwater's shoot-first-and-never-ask-questions cowboy tactics. They are the reason the company can brag it has never lost an American life it was protecting."
I find this statement unbelievable. It seems to endorse that you can do pretty much anything you want to protect someone if that's your job. It starts with the assumption that some diplomat's life is worth more than any other human being along their route. It is the exact kind of permissive attitude that created this problem in the first place.
What good is Blackwater's security record if America looses ground in Iraq because they are turning the population against us? When did never loosing one person in their care become more important than all the American soldiers that might die because the family of people Blackwater gunned down retaliated against them?
Blackwater may never have lost a diplomat but I would be interested in the number of American soldiers that died as a direct consequence of their security tactics.
Why is this statement so casual about all human life that isn't a diplomat under Blackwater's care?
Unfortunately the issues involved ara a ggod deal more complex than the opinion stated represents. There are substantial legal issues involved in the use-immunity issue and there is nothing that disallows further proceedings or actions via other routes if such use-immunity is granted. This legal trail is after all the product of Democrat adminstrations just as much as it is of republican administrations, and to some, the failure of the Bush administration to defend Blackwater is as bad as the non-defense. Beyond the technical aspects of the legality of immunity or prosecution, matters that will be decided in courts, there is of course the expected reaction to the Iraqi defeatist school of neoliberals, looking to diminish the accomplishments of the "sure" tactics, countered by the neocon victory in Iraq school, looking to get the attention back to the surge accomplishments, which everyone agrees have reset the game, and to make the incident as minimal as possible.
Lost in all this are three important facts: what actually happened remains to be adequately documentd; Americans are innocent until proven guilty; and finally, these protection folks risk their lives every day to protect other Americans (including many of those politicians and journalists trying to hang them now) as wellas important foreign folks including Iraqis and others. The added complication of non-American Blackwater and other security folks is of course an added complication.
Until there is a clear understanding of what occurred, I would suggest that judgement be suspended. I would also suggest that a more complete explanation of the legal situation be provided and explored. Finally, let's remember that it takes amazing courage, training and determination to put oneself in life-threatening situations, whether those persons are American soldiers or private security personnel. It is of interest that most of those most outspoken and ready for a rush to judgement have never been in such situations and when they were threatened, they depended on the very people they now proclaim against.
I asked a friend who dabbles in real estate, flipping houses, if a subcontractor who was working for the contractor I hired to do a job, screwed up, who would he sue? The sub who committed the error or the guy you hired to do the job? How come nobody mentions Halliburton in the context of the Blackwater mess.
Inasmuch as the current administration endorses what's been called enhanced interrogation techniques it should come as no surprise that it also endorses cold-blooded murder. Of course, nobody knows anything about anything.
The war on Terror is an homegrown (U.S.) recipe. Suicide bombers and an civil war is what you get when you allow Bush, Dick and a Kindasleezy oops (Condi) to concoct a recipe after smoking to much meth. When Saddam was in control there was some form of control and 100 times more peaceful than it is now. Saddam was put in control by our very own government and when he did not allow the U.S to get their grubby hands on Iraq's oil all hell broke out in Washington. The real evil-doers are sitting up in Washington stealing tax-payers dollars and reaping havoc all over the globe. Impeachment is the only option to gain back public confidence and gain global respect. Lets make America beautiful again by taking out the TRASH! Start in Washington.
Unfortunately your argulent sounds like: "Hitler ran an orderly Germany and the German workers were fed," or the Italian facists made the trains run on time." Saadam was a thug who killed his own son-in-law and had two very pathological sons. Are we to sat that Idi Amin was really a good guy because Uganda was quiet and he only ate people on national holidays? There is a time to say that there are some very evil folks in this world and to allow "orderly government" arguments to be discussion points, moves the sanity envelope a bit far.
As usual, another scam from the Republics to steal money, kill and maim, then get away with it. Crooks.
Search for Naomi Wolf's "End of America" on YouTube
It's a sad state of affairs we've reached in our country....when will our congress stand up to this delusional president and show some backbone?
Don't you mean when will the Republics quit blocking progress in the direction the American people want to go? Blame the lack of standing up on the Republics! THEY are the ones going along with our nutcake prez.
>Some of the Blackwater guards have subsequently refused to be interviewed by the FBI, citing promises of immunity from State.
When a company does business with governments, they should be held accountable for what they do. They should be willing to be investigated because they are a public target. Sure, the company hasn't lost a client. But that is no excuse for possibly killing innocent people. They aren't above the law and should be held up as an example. It's only right.
Anyone ever pause to wonder why, if these cited activities occured during Blackwater's performance of convoy, and personal, protection of diplomatic and US government personnel, the said protected personnel never reported to their superiors or peers the apparent outrageous acts done on their behalf. It it were me, I'd tell someone about all of the shoot 'em ups, deaths, injuries, property damage etc. my bodyguards had engaged in, and the cumulative effect of similar reports over time, not necessarily with exact numbers of deaths/injuries and specific locales, might have caused someone, if they were truly interested in the notional mission of democratic conversion, to investigate. Apparently said mission is small beer to the players.
What law gives the Mid-level pundants in the State Department the Authority to grant immunity to these Blackwater thugs? Couldn't any competent Prosecutor argue these id-level pundants didn't what the authority to grant Immunity? That would be like my 8yo son telling his classmate, tell me your secret and I peromise not to turn you in. The Immunity Agreement that the State Department gace to the Blackwater thugs isnt worth the paper it was written on. Prosecute them anyway! (and use the statement against them)
I think you may have something here.
I don't know the law....but is there a legal argument that could be used to set aside the grant?
Here's an other example of state sanctioned kick aside rule of law. It gives thugs the go ahead.
Everyday we read about illegal violations. Why cannot something be done? Why are these people getting away with all this stuff? Someone out there explain to me how Politicians, Blackwater, etc. STAY OUT OF JAIL?
THIS SITUATION MAKES ME SO ANGRY AS TO MAKE ME ILL. UP TO WHEN IS THE ABUSE OF THE BUSH CABAL CONTINUING??? WHAT IS WRONG WITH SENSIBLE RESPONSIBLE PEOPLE? ARE WE IS A SLEEPING FLOWERS FIELD LIKE DOROTHY AND HER FRIENDS?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
