Follow @PoliticsIE
 
 
 
Page 1 of 8 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 80

Thread: Blackwater employees get off

  1. #1
    Politics.ie Member Clanrickard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Last outpost of freedom
    Posts
    31,844
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Blackwater employees get off

    US court dismisses charges against Blackwater security guards | World news | The Guardian

    The men on trial for the massacre of 17 civilian in Baghdad have had their case dismissed. The Iraqi government wanted the rial in Iraq and will be very very pissed off with this.

    US district judge Ricardo Urbina ruled in favour of the Blackwater men yesterday, saying prosecutors wrongly used against them statements they had given under duress. He said the government's case was built largely on "statements compelled under a threat of job loss in a subsequent criminal prosecution," a violation of their constitutional rights.
    Which begs the obvious question now that Obama wants people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed the mastermind behind the 9/11 terrorist attack to be tried in civilian courts. Will their testimonies extracted by waterboarding and "enhanced interrogation techniques" be also thrown out as they were obviously "given under duress"? Judge Urbina has set a precedent.

  2. #2
    Politics.ie Member Sync's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    27,510
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    If the only evidence being used against him was obtained by torture or excessive pressure, then yes I'd expect him to get off. The case against the then-blackwater staff can be refiled if there's evidence.

    Pretty damning comments from the judge:
    "In their zeal to bring charges against the defendant(s), the prosecutors and investigators aggressively sought out statements the defendants had been compelled to make to government investigators in the immediate aftermath of the shooting and in the subsequent investigation," he said.

    The government used the statements to "formulate its theory of the case ... and ultimately to obtain indictment in the case," he added.

    "In short, the government had utterly failed to prove that it made no impermissible use of the defendants' statements, or that such use was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt."
    There are also news stories coming out that the prosecutors were warned in the buildup to the case that what they were doing was innappropriate. It sounds like something that will end up before the bar association.

  3. #3
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Waterford
    Posts
    1,096
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Clanrickard View Post
    US court dismisses charges against Blackwater security guards | World news | The Guardian

    The men on trial for the massacre of 17 civilian in Baghdad have had their case dismissed. The Iraqi government wanted the rial in Iraq and will be very very pissed off with this.



    Which begs the obvious question now that Obama wants people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed the mastermind behind the 9/11 terrorist attack to be tried in civilian courts. Will their testimonies extracted by waterboarding and "enhanced interrogation techniques" be also thrown out as they were obviously "given under duress"? Judge Urbina has set a precedent.
    Waterboarding and enhanced interrogation techniques according, to Bush and Rumsfeld, do not constitute duress. They were not used on US citizens. Conversely, routine interrogation of Americans as part of a murder investigation in an occupied state should not be allowed.

  4. #4
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    479
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Good question!

    Quote Originally Posted by Clanrickard View Post
    US court dismisses charges against Blackwater security guards | World news | The Guardian

    The men on trial for the massacre of 17 civilian in Baghdad have had their case dismissed. The Iraqi government wanted the rial in Iraq and will be very very pissed off with this.



    Which begs the obvious question now that Obama wants people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed the mastermind behind the 9/11 terrorist attack to be tried in civilian courts. Will their testimonies extracted by waterboarding and "enhanced interrogation techniques" be also thrown out as they were obviously "given under duress"? Judge Urbina has set a precedent.
    That's a good question but I fail to see how the threat of losing your job qualifies as coercive since they all volunteered as at-will employees for these jobs with those conditions. Think about it: you have the right to remain silent (and be fired and so free to pursue other work) or choose (volunteer) to give statements in your Employer's white-wash of an investigation (which is no guarantee that you still won't be fired and prosecuted). Therefore, it seems to me this lousy Judge just lowered the standard on what now amounts to coercion which means your point is well taken about how this could easily play as precedent into KSM's defense because he (and other Al Quada suspects) were tortured and water boarded into giving "confessions". My guess is what's sauce for the goose (Blackwater Security guards who killed dark skinned people) won't be sauce for the gander (KSM who killed light skinned people). In short, American Courts (and the US Government & Media in general) will have no problem supporting a double standard of justice based upon the worth of the victims involved.

  5. #5
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    153
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    In Iraq the militant groups wear the same thing as the civilians. If you come under attack,you only have a split second when you see a potential threat to make a decision.
    Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

  6. #6
    Politics.ie Member Sync's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    27,510
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny View Post
    That's a good question but I fail to see how the threat of losing your job qualifies as coercive since they all volunteered as at-will employees for these jobs with those conditions. Think about it: you have the right to remain silent (and be fired and so free to pursue other work) or choose (volunteer) to give statements in your Employer's white-wash of an investigation (which is no guarantee that you still won't be fired and prosecuted). Therefore, it seems to me this lousy Judge just lowered the standard on what now amounts to coercion which means your point is well taken about how this could easily play as precedent into KSM's defense because he (and other Al Quada suspects) were tortured and water boarded into giving "confessions".
    The problem was that this wasn't their boss at McDonalds ordering them, it was the State Department, an active branch of govt.

    For instance if you're working for McDonalds and are arrested on a drugs charge, they can't fire you if you avail of your rights, and the Gardai can't make you lose your job for availing of those rights.

    Here it was a case where the government of the United States told these people "Give up your constiutional rights or you're fired" It was pretty clearly unconstiutional for the reasons the judge stated, and for the reasons the prosecutors were repeatedly warned about in the buildup and in the process of the trial. They have no one to blame but themselves for this result.

  7. #7
    Politics.ie Member evercloserunion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    819
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Interesting that the OP's sole concern seems to be with executing KSM, he doesn't give a sh*t about the 17 massacred civilians.

    Anyway, I think the blame lies with the prosecution in this case. Because the prosecutors were lazy and didn't do their job properly, these men now walk free without having properly been tried for this horrendous crime. What the judge said shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone.Rule like this have always operated in common law countries.

    And BTW, if the only evidence the US can bring against KSM is his own confessions made under torture then I would not buy the prosecutor's case myself and I would expect KSM to be let off the hook. Otherwise what's to stop the state picking you up tomorrow, torturing you into saying you planned the attacks yourself and then throwing you in jail.

    But it's unlikely that the case against KSM will have a similar fate. The prosecution will step up its game for KSM. I wouldn't be surprised if the prosecution in this case had intentionally screwed up their own case, I've heard of it happening before.
    To live honestly, to hurt no one, to give every one his due.

  8. #8
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    479
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Hmmm...

    Quote Originally Posted by Sync View Post
    The problem was that this wasn't their boss at McDonalds ordering them, it was the State Department, an active branch of govt.
    They were at-will employees working for Blackwater which was a contractor for the State Department. And whether it's the State Department or the New Jersey State Police asking the questions - they had the right to remain silent...and they didn't remain silent...for fear of losing their jobs...which is now the standard for coercion...for some people anyway.

    For instance if you're working for McDonalds and are arrested on a drugs charge, they can't fire you if you avail of your rights, and the Gardai can't make you lose your job for availing of those rights.
    You don't know what you're talking about! McDonalds can fire all their at-will employees for no reason which means it wouldn't matter if you availed yourself of your rights by remaining silent or not.

    Here it was a case where the government of the United States told these people "Give up your constiutional rights or you're fired"
    So how do you figure that's coercive since as at-will employees they'd be free to pursue other work else where?

    It was pretty clearly unconstiutional for the reasons the judge stated,
    No it wasn't and that Judge has about a good an understanding of the law as you. LOL!

    and for the reasons the prosecutors were repeatedly warned about in the buildup and in the process of the trial.
    Translation: someone obstructed justice by tampering with a Federal prosecution.

    They have no one to blame but themselves for this result.
    The US needs Iraq as an oil colony and no one will be permitted to stand in the way of that here or abroad.

  9. #9
    Politics.ie Member Clanrickard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Last outpost of freedom
    Posts
    31,844
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by evercloserunion View Post
    Interesting that the OP's sole concern seems to be with executing KSM, he doesn't give a sh*t about the 17 massacred civilians.
    .
    I do give a sh*t but these guys have been cleared of the crime. The trial should have taken place in Iraq.

  10. #10
    Politics.ie Member evercloserunion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    819
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    No it wasn't and that Judge has about a good an understanding of the law as you. LOL!
    You saying you know more about US Constitutional/criminal law than a US judge?
    To live honestly, to hurt no one, to give every one his due.

Page 1 of 8 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •