Comments on: License to Murder

License to Murder

Mr_Zero — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:47:01 -0800

The State Department has promised Blackwater USA bodyguards immunity from prosecution in last month's murder of 17 Iraqi civilians. Richard J. Griffin, the head of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security which granted the immunity, announced his resignation effective last Thursday.

By: Avenger

Avenger — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:51:37 -0800

Murder? How incredibly biased. The correct term is Freedomsnuffing, Mr. Zero.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:53:53 -0800

Richard J. Griffin, the head of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security which granted the immunity, announced his resignation effective last Thursday. Doesn't that mean he can be made to testify?

By: jayder

jayder — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:57:47 -0800

This reeks, to me, of an under the table political favor from Bush & Co. to Blackwater --- as if they said, "we will have some insignificant minion in State grant your guys immunity, and then pretend that the higher ups didn't approve it, by having the higher-ups express 'surprise' over the grant of immunity ..." That way, they grant the favor that Blackwater wants (i.e., that none of their employees are prosecuted for murder, which would certainly dampen the company's prospects) while minimizing the fallout for Bush and his cronies.

By: specialk420

specialk420 — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:01:43 -0800

another example of how disgusting and corrupt this administration is ... think Bush or Condaleeza will be setting foot inside the Hague on their own free will anytime soon?

By: DU

DU — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:07:11 -0800

This reeks, to me, of an under the table political favor from Bush & Co. to Blackwater... Under the table? It reeks to me of a completely out-in-the-open, SCREW YOU CONGRESS, THE PRESS AND AMERICA predictable move that anybody with any brains, guts and power would have seen coming and prevented weeks if not months (or years) ago.

By: Ironmouth

Ironmouth — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:13:49 -0800

Blazecock is right. I'm no Bush lover, but this is standard operating procedure in these cases. I represent law enforcement officers in internal investigations and the standard operating procedure is to give immunity so that they can order people to answer questions. There is a balance between ordering an employee to give information regarding a work-related incident and the privilege against self-incrimination. An employer cannot order you at the risk of your job to give information about such an incident if criminal prosecution could result. The lead case in these matters is Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967). The problem here is that the State Department officials acted too quickly and sacrificed the possibility of prosecution against the persons in question because they wanted to know what happened so that political and diplomatic damage control could occur. Its less of a back room deal than the millionth example of the Bush Administration confronted with a crisis, panicking and fucking up. However, here's the plus side. None of these persons has the ability to avoid being forced to testify because they could plead the Fifth. They have to tell all if questioned by anyone. The problems go farther than just the people on the ground and the higher up they can go by getting the testimony, the better.

By: Balisong

Balisong — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:16:22 -0800

This is, amongst other, plenty provocation to retaliate against us (U.S.) for wrongdoings. No doubt we (U.S.) will respond with airstrikes.

By: elpapacito

elpapacito — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:16:44 -0800

Garrity protections generally are given to police or other public law enforcement officers, and were extended to the Blackwater guards because they were working on behalf of the U.S. government, one official said

Wah, that' some statement. I'd bet Mr Griffin will resurface as consultant for some private defense or oil contractor, using his "experience", surely BW seem to owe somebody some big favor. As for the killer Iraquis, they should have got their own lobby, their own BW and all the stuff, cause not even their newly installed government is going to resurrect them.

By: Balisong

Balisong — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:19:55 -0800

Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967). posted by Ironmouth That's American courts. They don't apply.

By: neuron

neuron — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:29:32 -0800

The State Department has promised... Does this mean anything?

By: empath

empath — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:12:05 -0800

Blackwater is the most dangerous thing that's ever happened to America. You're talking about a private army that's capable of putting down riots and that has no loyalty to anything but the Republican party. When America ends, it will be beneath the heel of a Blackwater boot.

By: pompomtom

pompomtom — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:15:06 -0800

DU: SCREW YOU CONGRESS... Because Congress would do something about this issue? Heh. Good one.

By: stammer

stammer — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:18:18 -0800

Blackwater is the most dangerous thing that's ever happened to America. You're talking about a private army that's capable of putting down riots I imagine it took quite some time before people could be scared of a word as stupid-sounding as "Pinkerton", so Blackwater have a head start there.

By: Ironmouth

Ironmouth — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:20:05 -0800

Didn't even read the article, but I guess I was right.

By: Ironmouth

Ironmouth — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:23:38 -0800

That's American courts. They don't apply. Choice of law is more complex than that. A court could decide to apply American law, or even Iraqi law. There are instances where American courts have ruled that they are the proper venue, but that the proper choice of law is a foreign one. As for American courts not applying the problem is that the Iraqi ones don't apply either. A CPA law immunizes contractors from being prosecuted under Iraqi law. Many countries sign such "extraterritorality" agreements and agree to hand over prosecution of all cases to American courts. The outcome in the case is bullshit, but this is the law.

By: rokusan

rokusan — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:24:04 -0800

Richard J. Griffin, the head of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security which granted the immunity, announced his resignation effective last Thursday. I clicked the "Read More" for info on the "new opportunities" he'll be pursuing in the private sector, but the info is shockingly non-specific.

By: blacklite

blacklite — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:24:19 -0800

Surely this clear and obvious collusion will finally awaken the American people to the illegal back-door dealings of the administration!

By: Ufez Jones

Ufez Jones — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:52:54 -0800

The problem here is that the State Department officials acted too quickly and sacrificed the possibility of prosecution against the persons in question because they wanted to know what happened so that political and diplomatic damage control could occur. Its less of a back room deal than the millionth example of the Bush Administration confronted with a crisis, panicking and fucking up. .....And the home of the braaaaave.

By: caddis

caddis — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 01:36:27 -0800

Aren't these guys still in Iraq? Iraq wants to prosecute them.

By: moonbiter

moonbiter — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 01:57:07 -0800

The State Department investigators from the agency's investigative arm, the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, offered the immunity grants even though they did not have the authority to do so ...

By: Kirth Gerson

Kirth Gerson — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 04:44:29 -0800

Blackwater is the most dangerous thing that's ever happened to America. I disagree. The most dangerous thing is having the people who made Blackwater profitable be in charge of the country. I expect Griffin is going to get a nice executive position at Blackwater, sooner or later.

By: IndigoJones

IndigoJones — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 06:04:55 -0800

By: The Card Cheat

The Card Cheat — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 07:00:02 -0800

I'm sure the whole situation is giving Bush a good chuckle; One student, a first-year in South Asia studies, told the president: "My question is in regards to private military contractors. Uniform Code of Military Justice does not apply to these contractors in Iraq. I asked your Secretary of Defense a couple months ago what law governs their actions. Bush: "I was going to ask him. Go ahead. (Laughter.) Help. (Laughter.)" Student: "I was hoping your answer might be a little more specific. (Laughter.) Mr. Rumsfeld answered that Iraq has its own domestic laws which he assumed applied to those private military contractors. However, Iraq is clearly not currently capable of enforcing its laws, much less against -- over our American military contractors. I would submit to you that in this case, this is one case that privatization is not a solution. And, Mr. President, how do you propose to bring private military contractors under a system of law?" Bush: "I appreciate that very much. I wasn't kidding -- (laughter.) I was going to -- I pick up the phone and say, Mr. Secretary, I've got an interesting question. (Laughter.) This is what delegation -- I don't mean to be dodging the question, although it's kind of convenient in this case, but never -- (laughter.) I really will -- I'm going to call the Secretary and say you brought up a very valid question, and what are we doing about it? That's how I work. I'm -- thanks. (Laughter.)"

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:10:49 -0800

Doin' a heckova job, Griffey. "The most dangerous thing is having the people who made Blackwater profitable be in charge of the country." Well, yeah. Why the hell did they farm this out to the private sector in the first place? I mean other than to skirt around oversight and the law and stuff... ...kinda answers itself really. Still it's silly. The DS doesn't have the scope for certain larger scale operations, but why not give them the scope? Or some other agency? I suppose with a private firm you have some measure of intimidation (hey, these guys are capable of anything), but that works both ways. You don't want your bunny feeling 'hey, these guys are capable of anything.' And if all that's holding them is money, no matter how heavy their rep you have to wonder what happens if a higher bidder comes along. They want to farm out fixit jobs to PMCs swell. Government security, I'd prefer the oversight.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:55:25 -0800

That's how I work. I'm -- thanks." bush has survived his term in office precisely because it is glaringly clear that somewhere along the line, someone has already blown his fucking brains out.

By: Brian James

Brian James — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 17:16:51 -0800

In case facts matter to anybody, regardless of what the State Department officiam may have said, only AUSAs (assistant US attorneys) have the authority to bind the federal government to an immunity agreement. No one else--not the cops, the FBI, or some random State Department official--can. They may have offered to do so, which could have been done out of investigative sneakiness or just incompetence. So, not to defend Richard J Griffin, but whatever his role in this mess is, it did not (and could not) involve him actually granting anyone immunity.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:14:01 -0800

F.B.I. Says Guards Killed 14 Iraqis Without Cause