QUOTE ("The New York Times)
Justice Dept. Cites Obstacles in Blackwater Case
By JAMES RISEN and DAVID JOHNSTON
Published: January 16, 2008
WASHINGTON — Justice Department officials have told Congress that they face serious legal difficulties in pursuing criminal prosecutions of Blackwater security guards involved in a September shooting that left at least 17 Iraqis dead.
In a private briefing in mid-December, officials from the Justice and State Departments met with aides to the House Judiciary Committee and other Congressional staff members and warned them that there were major legal obstacles that might prevent any prosecution. Justice officials were careful not to say whether any decision had been made in the matter, according to two of the Congressional staff members who received the briefing.
The staff members, who asked not to be identified, disclosed details of the meeting in interviews this week.
The December briefing took place after a federal grand jury had been convened in the case, suggesting that prosecutors had decided to begin hearing testimony with potential prosecution problems still unresolved.
Read more in the New York Times
By JAMES RISEN and DAVID JOHNSTON
Published: January 16, 2008
WASHINGTON — Justice Department officials have told Congress that they face serious legal difficulties in pursuing criminal prosecutions of Blackwater security guards involved in a September shooting that left at least 17 Iraqis dead.
In a private briefing in mid-December, officials from the Justice and State Departments met with aides to the House Judiciary Committee and other Congressional staff members and warned them that there were major legal obstacles that might prevent any prosecution. Justice officials were careful not to say whether any decision had been made in the matter, according to two of the Congressional staff members who received the briefing.
The staff members, who asked not to be identified, disclosed details of the meeting in interviews this week.
The December briefing took place after a federal grand jury had been convened in the case, suggesting that prosecutors had decided to begin hearing testimony with potential prosecution problems still unresolved.
Read more in the New York Times
It looks like they have purposely created a legal black hole (no pun intended) by giving them immunity. and this dousy from the article:
QUOTE
There are also questions about whether federal law applies to the Blackwater contractors.
I am not sure how there could be any question about weather federal law applies to them. Either Federal or international law applies. Either federal criminal laws apply or military law applies. I have always believed that anyone under a U.S. Federal contract was accountable to the U.S. Federal statutes. The Iraqi court has no jurisdiction to try them because that is what acts passed by congress say. I have seen nothing that doesn't hold them accountable to U.S. Federal statute in these acts of congress. Unless there is some executive order some where that exempts them. In my mind the only question is as to jurisdiction. Is the jurisdiction U.S. Federal Court, Military Court-Martial, or The Hague? Can the State Department grant immunity to suspects in a case or is that only the province of the Justice Department? Was the contract written in a legal manner? Did the State Department grant this contract as a a way of escaping responsibility to Defense Department regulation?
According to the article the Justice officials are concerned
QUOTE
But according to Congressional aides who received the closed briefing, Justice officials told them they were concerned about both the gaps in the law and the immunity deal.
What gaps in the law do they see that may allow them to not prosecute? Blackwater is a civilian contractor, doing business on a government contract, in a war zone. They are not even a DoD contractor. The fedral law has to apply here becasue the military has no jurisdiction in a case such as this, where they would have if Blackwater had been on o DoD contract.
The article uses phrases and words that mean 'problems,' 'difficulties,' or 'obstacles' roughly once in each paragraph (seven actual times) to describe a potential prosecution. The question here is weather they just wish to drag their feet or there honestly is a problem here. Maybe the legality of the contract itself needs to be analyzed. Can you imagine the fallout if the contract was deemed illegal and those who have lost their lives did so under a bad contract?
If this is true
QUOTE
“The U.S. government’s reaction to the shootings,” the report says, “has been characterized by confusion, defensiveness, a multiplicity of uncoordinated ad hoc investigations, and interagency finger-pointing. These failures underscored the Justice Department’s unwillingness or inability to systematically investigate and prosecute allegations of serious violent crimes.”
What does it say about an eventual resolution of this issue?