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
Where are all the NeoCons who where screaming for Sadams head and "spreadin Deemocraceee around the world" now that the Iraq government has a legitimate reason to act like a democracy and prosecute these criminals. No 14 appeals I bet, just swift justice. That's why they'll never get their hands on them.
If they want the Iraq government to stand up for itself let this be their first offical act. Have a trail, a verdict and let them decide the punishment. The repukes want them to be their own nation and have sacrificied our brave men and women supposedly to that end, so let them be "Big boy" and run their country and prosecute murderers the way they see fit.
Never happen
Congress taking action? That would be like the 40 thieves turning on Ali Baba!
You mean the Republic part of congress who is blocking every thing that the American people want done.
The New Name for Blackwater should be Bush & Chaney’s new “SS”. They want to create a personal army like Hitler did in World War II. The US Army can and will not do their dirty work because of the Geneva Convention and fear of procession.
The New SS can kill innocent civilians to sustain the War so that the Administrations friends and Congress can continue to make money. Congress can not be re-elected without the money coming in from War profiteers.
The name of the game is to accelerate the War to the whole of Islam, making more money for the War profiteers. Bush new SS can kill innocent civilians and incite the wrath of the entire Islamic community do this with impunity.
I don't think that's the real motive but, with this kind of nonesense, it might as well be!
The State Department has no authority to grant immunity from any legal process, and certainly not from Iraqi criminal law.
The British SAS demonstrated years ago, in Malaysia and later in Yemen, how to defeat insurgents. They rendered all possible aid to local citizens and the last thing they ever did was use their weapons!
The whole Blackwater concept is ignorance in action.
This is getting so bazaar that I cant keep it all in my head anymore!!! None of this can be rationalized by John Q. Public and this is just the stuff that we know of...what arent we privy to! The movie line "you cant handle the truth"...ya that applies here and in anything this administration has done or is up to its ham hocks in now. Karl Rove is sitting in a mushroom cellar somewhere ruminating and spewing angles and policy all under the radar, now even more than before....anyone can see his scummy fat fingers stirring every pot...same style, dirty, underhanded, back stabbing, tom foolery that will bring this country to its knees on the world stage...and still it seems the majority sleeps and shops and allows this nightmare to continue. I hope some real patriots somewhere do the noble thing and takes the oath to country and constitution seriously...they are pawns to this administration...pawns of little worth and will be sacrificed for the liars and thieves that have taken this country from us all!!
With crooks in charge of the White House, is it any wonder that they would protect their own thugs?
Blackwater is accountable to the US and Iraqi governments!
The US and Iraqi government is accountable to the 'people'!
Therefore Blackwater is accountable to the 'people' and the laws of Iraq and the US!
Count out Iraq, because what's going on here (immunity) shows that this administration IS COLONIZING Iraq. The Iraqis have no say in the Blackwater misdeeds, so says Ms RICE.
Makes no difference to me the sub-issues for at the end of the day, anyone in Iraq is accountable to Iraq first and the USA second, and Iraq and the USA are accountable to the citizens, therefore, Blackwater is accountable to the citizens and the laws that govern all citizens.
Buying absolution?
"Edgar Prince's widow, Elsa, who remarried after her husband's death, has served on the boards of the FRC and another influential Christian-right organization, Dobson's Focus on the Family. She currently runs the Edgar and Elsa Prince Foundation, where, according to IRS filings, her son Erik is a vice president. The foundation has given lavishly to some of the marquee names of the Christian right. Between July 2003 and July 2006, the foundation gave at least $670,000 to the FRC and $531,000 to Focus on the Family."
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/10/02/blackwater_bush/
Always seem to be a connection between religion and murderous organizations.
I'm in no a fan or defender of Blackwater. It's a slimey outfit. But in every dictionary I've looked in, "mercenary" is a "professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army. As far as I can tell, Blackwater has been contracted to provide security services and if they served in *any* army, which up till now that haven't, it would be the US army. It may feel good to use the emotionally charged term to describe Blackwater employees, but technically, I don't think applies.
They recruit soldiers from other countries, as well. So, yes, they meet the definition in letter aqs well as in spirit... They just don't like the word
How about an army of two, trobins?
Nope, the shoe fits. Countries of origin, other than the United States of America, for Blackwater mercs (a partial list): South Africa (1500!), Chile, Afghanistan, Brazil, Italy, Ukraine, Serbia.
See: http://www.alternet.org/story/18193/
http://theunjustmedia.com/Mercenaries/American%20Mercenaries.htm
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Blackwater_USA
Dictionaries do not prescribe language usage; they report it. Usage and meanings change over time. Most dictionaries report that the primary meaning of "mercenery" is "motivated exclusively or primarily by money." If Blackwater mercenaries who are U.S. citizens were motivated primarily by patriotism and not money they could join the U.S. Army or Marines for substantially less pay.
Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia's article on mercenery:
While the United States and many other countries are not signatories to the Protocol Additional GC 1977 (APGC77), it provides the most widely accepted international definition of a mercenary, albeit one not universally accepted. In the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977 it is stated:
Art 47. Mercenaries
1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.
2. A mercenary is any person who:
(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;
(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.''
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercenary
There's good article discussing this very issue: "Blackwater: Mercenaries by Definition" by A. Alexander at
http://www.progressivedailybeacon.com/more.php?page=opinion&id=1706
What a joke... saying there may be no legal means to prosecute criminals for criminal behavior?!?!?
Has EVERYONE forgotten our common law rights to 'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness'.... Oh Wait, I forgot... theses are just warm & fuzzy words with no meaning to people who want to control society and your self-determination!
Blackwater, which provides war time security in a war zone, is an illegal mercenary outfit & is blatantly against the law.
The sooner we revolt the less blood we will have to shed.
SO many things have been done throughout history of the US in our name without our knowing it. But in that vein so many things have been sheilded from us by the very media we depend upon for the truth, the news. Where has the media been all this tiem while many of us knew that the Bush/Cheney crowd was doing evil inour name? Where was the investigations that should have started five years ago in the tactics Bush/Cheney was using to manipulate us? Our attention span is such that we have been diverted from taking to task any of this other occurances in the world that we would be focused on to not stay focoused on thw wrong doing criminals at the top. So easy have we turned out heads when told to by the media when the attention should have stayed on the right things rather than minor details blown up out of proportion by Bush/Cheney. Remember the different colors of alerts? How fast did they go away when we were already scared enough to let Bush/CHeney do their deeds? Not so like the germans in history have we found too late who has taken from us what they said they were giving us? "I am a uniter not a divider" who said those very words? Who believed him. Fear is what horse Bush rode into the white house on after he got there by default the first time. Dirty politics that we thought were history in a time when we have the internet have only bloomed into what we have now. Who will stop what has been done? How can we stop what is done now when republicans still stand behind Bush like he has done well when we all know what he has done in our name. Fear by any other name is...
Wheres the media? Are you kidding? Where have you been? We as Americans have been fully informed about Paris Hiltons' jail ordeal, Lindsay Lohans' rehab problems, and now they are not backing off one bit about Brittany Spears' custody battle. I don't think they could handle any mor.
The only way we can stop this kind of stuff is to vote out the old Congress and put in new. At least the new won't have the knowledge to cheat and pander until they've been there awhile. And we must unite as a country but that doesn't seem likely, does it???
Which reminds me, I guess the Repubs are gloating after last night's debate for the way the other (MEN) went after Hillary. Hope they feel good now. The dirty rats.
Condi Rice has added her name to the list of war criminals in the Bush Junta. I wish IMPEACHMENT was back on the table, that is the only way to slow down these criminals until they are booted out of the government they claim to hate in January 2009.
I wonder....if Congress told Chaney tomorrow that
he was going to be impeached for war crimes,
would he step down, or would he use other means
to shut off the tide? Any opinions?
He would do the same as Nixon, he would resign and get a full pardon. Bush would appoint another V.P. to guarantee himself a pardon if he should he resign.
No legal basis to charge the Blackwater thugs.? How about MURDER.
As Deep Throat said with regards to Watergate, follow the money. Odds are very good that someone deliberately obstructed justice. Our country went over 200 years without hiring mercenaries. We don't need them now
If you were to follow the money from Chaney and
Bush we all know where it owuld lead. Offer enough
to a rat and he'll trap himself.
All Bu$hCo knows how to do is find loopholes in the Law and The Constitution.
They are very good at it, but it's the only shred of competency they have displayed while in power.
Funny thing, Can you jus imagine if Rusian, Cuban, Hesbollah mercenaries will do what the Blackwater did in the US, Israel or any other US posessions?,all hell will break loose and there will be no excuses/new cherry picking laws,etc. on earth to protect them.
I presume the old/new Bush's doctrine is the Iraqis' lives are expendable after all who are they to complaint when we are there for their own good, so what if a few here and there die as Rummy used to say it is a war, what the hell do you expect!one fights with the mercenaries one has...
'I presume the old/new Bush's doctrine is the Iraqis' lives are expendable..."
When Rep. Chris Shays at the recent hearings gave Blackwater an 100% rating, he effectively said that Iraqi lives have no value.
The private security groups being used to guard the officers and political persons of Iraq and other nations including ours was one of the reasons for us having less troops in Iraq. It served two purposes. It gave less
troop information as to dead and wounded and provided a money tree for private enterprise. This administration loves money that is not accounted for and outsourcing to no-bid cronies. The dead and wounded of mercenaries is not reported and Cheney set up a fault free law for all contractores. Even Halliburton cannot be sued by the Iraqis for failures or damages. Viva the scum.
This is just another indication of the Bush Administration's total disregard for truth and law. Unfortunately, our Congress also has no respect for law or the administration would have been Impeached long ago and called to account for their many crimes and misdemeanors and for their betrayal of this country. Dennis Kucinich seems to be the only one with the courage to call for impeachment, and of course our media barely prints a word he says.
When we as a nation hold ourselves and those who represent us above the law, we should not expect the rest of the world to treat us with respect or honor. We will reap what we sow.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
