Blackwater Murderers Go Free On Technicality

[El_Machinae]

no courtroom - just detain them until the war on terror is over

How would their confessions work if they were in a civil suit? I can see how charges have to be stayed if their 5th Amendment rights were violated due to a forced debriefing, but there's still a civil avenue from the victims available.

How would those 'forced debriefings' fit into the evidence in a civil suit?

 

[Patroklos]

Yes, you consistently support lawbreaking mercenaries in their continuing efforts to escape justice.

Escape justice? Perhaps you missed the part where I WANT this to go to trial because it is an open and shut case for the defense. You might want to ask yourself why the prosecutors felt it necessary to violate statutes and constitutional rights in the first place...

But there we have it, I am consistant. You on the other hand simply flap in the wind, blindly following where ever your ideological sail takes you.

 

[RedRalph]

Do you think they may have done anything wrong at all, Patroklos?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Obviously not. He actually thinks this is an "open and shut case for the defense"! Just ask the one mercenary who has already pleaded guilty to the crimes!

Bush's administration obviously screwed the pooch on this one by allowing them to remove all evidence from the crime scene, and giving them immunity while requiring they testify to their crimes. So now, the "law and order" crowd is claiming they must be "innocent" because those confessions cannot be used to prosecute them in the US courts!

You have to love that all-too-typical "consistent" logic.

 

[MobBoss]

Obviously not. He actually thinks this is an "open and shut case for the defense". Just ask the one mercenary who has already pleaded guilty to the crimes!

I have pointed this out several times and you avoid it because you know it blows your arguement here out of the water.

Have you or have you not posted yourself that even innocent people have confessed to crimes they havent committed?

Yes...you have.

So if the innocence project has shown you that such confessions can indeed be simply given due to pressure from investigators/prosecution to avoid a heavier prison sentence, what makes you think this isnt the case here? Your own link said that the guy confessing was working with the prosecution - sounds to me like a plea deal in the making.....so how do you know he didnt confess to something he didnt do to get a plea deal since he probably thought they were going to be convicted anyway?

Answer: You dont.

Apparently you think you can argue on one hand that confessions arent ironclad and on the other argue that they are. Thats not how it works.

Now given the fact that you KNOW such confessions can be suspect what makes you think this guys particular confession valid?

You dont. You simply desire it to because of the situation involved.

Nothing more. Nothing less.

Bush's administration obviously screwed the pooch on this one by allowing them to remove all evidence from the crime scene

You have said this a couple of times now, but what proof of this do you offer? How do you know it wasnt locals that simply scavenged the stuff?

Like I pointed out before, this isnt like investigating a crime in downtown Tampa.

and giving them immunity while requiring they testify to their crimes. So now, the "law and order" crowd is claiming they must be "innocent" because those confessions cannot be used to prosecute them in the US courts!

So I guess you dont believe in the 'innocent until proven guilty' thing unless it suits you.

 

[Patroklos]

Do you think they may have done anything wrong at all, Patroklos?

They certainly did some things wrong, I have no doubt civilians were killed. But just because something wrong happened does not mean people are criminally culpable for it. The question is if the specific charges are 1.) valid and 2.) able to be proved to judicial standards.

Given the fact that the prosecutors were DELIBERATLY and KNOWINGLY violating rules to get to 2.), that calls into question 1.) and in our judicial system (and most) 1.) is really irrelevant for purposes of justice once the prosecution screws the pooch.

Now, because I happen to think that these guys are innocent I am not shedding any tears over this particular instance of prosecutorial misconduct due to its results, however this happens sometimes in cases where I don't think the party is innocent and thus it is really disturbing to me (because I am consistant, pay attention Form and learn something) that so many prosecutors over so many jurisdictions are consistently having major cases thrown out over technicalities.

Now while that may in fact constitute justice being done in terms of the rights of the accused being respected and the system maintaining its integrity (at least on the part of the judge), it doesn't allow us to actually have deliberations and a determination of the validity of the charges. This denies the accused the ability to be exonerated (as in this case the trial was expected to do) and lets people like Form maintain their baseless conspiracy theories.

 

[Patroklos]

Obviously not. He actually thinks this is an "open and shut case for the defense"! Just ask the one mercenary who has already pleaded guilty to the crimes!

So whenever there is a suspect turned to testify against supposed co conspirators that constitutes a guilty verdict? Why even have a trial. What is amazing here is that you say stuff like this and then accuse others of being inconsistant!

You realize of course that pretty much every defendant in Gitmo has had multiple co conspirators turn on them right? And thus we see you run flat faced into the wall that is the real world of your hypocricy yet again...

Bush's administration obviously screwed the pooch on this one by allowing them to remove all evidence from the crime scene,

There is no proof of this, you are literally making this up out of thin air. Just because the crime scene (a crime scene in the center of a bustlying city with little rule of law that was recently the sight of an insurgent ambush and is subject to the curiosities of thousand of bystanders) wasn't maintained does not mean it was some conspiracy to do so.

This was explained to you, especially the part about the brass. Your inability to process it is telling.

You have to love that all-too-typical "consistent" logic.

Apparently you can recognize consitancy and logic, why do you so doggedly refuse to use it yourself?

 

[RedRalph]

And thus we see you fun flat faced into the real world of your hypocricy yet again...

what?!?!?!?

 

[Patroklos]

run, it should have been run.

 

[illram]

How would their confessions work if they were in a civil suit? I can see how charges have to be stayed if their 5th Amendment rights were violated due to a forced debriefing, but there's still a civil avenue from the victims available.

How would those 'forced debriefings' fit into the evidence in a civil suit?

"Garrity statements" (compelled statements prefaced by an immunity warning that cannot later be used in a criminal proceeding) can be used in a civil suit. However, what civil avenue do Iraqi victims really have? Alien Tort Claims Act? That's a pretty tall order.

 

[RedRalph]

run, it should have been run.

I think that coulcd be a cool new expression... to 'fun flat face' one's self.

 

[El_Machinae]

This denies the accused the ability to be exonerated (as in this case the trial was expected to do)

Just to be pedantic, only in the rarest of cases does a criminal trial exonerate an accused. A 'not guilty' verdict does not mean 'innocent', because it's very common for a guilty person to be found 'not guilty' due to lack of evidence. Our system prefers letting guilty go free to letting innocents be convicted, it's the balance we've chosen (and I approve of).

 

[Patroklos]

Just to be pedantic, only in the rarest of cases does a criminal trial exonerate an accused. A 'not guilty' verdict does not mean 'innocent', because it's very common for a guilty person to be found 'not guilty' due to lack of evidence. Our system prefers letting guilty go free to letting innocents be convicted, it's the balance we've chosen (and I approve of).

This true, I know. But what I was trying to point out the distiction between someone who has had the charges tested in a trial with the benefit of a jury ruling in his favor and someone who just got off on a technicality but with all the questions unexplored and still hanging in the air.

Having the benefit of the charges and evidence being heard and rejected does a lot for the accused in terms of public perception and self vindication.

 

[El_Machinae]

Oh, for sure. If I were accused of a crime I'd prefer:
"Charges dropped by prosecutor due to lack of evidence" or "found not guilty" to "charges dropped due to technical mishandling of evidence" in the media.

 

[Formaldehyde]

What Patroklos is still apparently trying to conveniently forget is that all of them, instead of just one, would be in prison for manslaughter right now if the Bush administration hadn't screwed up the prosecution. To try to claim that having a "fair" trial under these circumstances would have given them a chance to clear themselves is disingenuous at best.

 

[Patroklos]

What the "law and order" crowd is still trying to conveniently forget is that all of them would be in prison for manslaughter right now if the Bush administration hadn't screwed up the prosecution.

1.) The Bush administration did not screw up anything. Unless you want to accuse these prosecutors of being some sort of double agents or something (which I will allow you are certainly capable of doing) then there is no connection

2.) Obama has been in office a year now, nobody cares about Bush. I realize this leaves you with nothing to troll with, but you will have to live in this new world.

The evidence wasn't there, and it never was there considering the actions of these prosecutors. If it was as open and shut a case as you claim it is then there would have been no need for their mechinations. Perhaps you should read the OP again and cataloge their misdeeds, they are quite extensive.

To try to claim that having a "fair" trial under these circumstances would have given them a chance to clear themselves is disingenuous at best.

The only circumstances that made this trial unfair was the PURPOSEFUL misconduct of independant prosecutors.

Again, unless you want to creat Forma Conspiracy Theory (FCA) #12957398C about Bush double agents in the prosecution team you are out of luck on this one.

 

[Formaldehyde]

1.) The Bush administration did not screw up anything.

You mean besides granting them immunity and forcing them to testify against themselves? And besides allowing them to clean up all the eivdence from the crime scene?

You are apparently deliberately ignoring the facts.

 

[Patroklos]

You mean besides granting them immunity and forcing them to testify against themselves?

There had just been a major attempt on the lives of our State Department representatives and a firefight in one of the buisiest intersections of Baghdad.

Given that situation (and I realize you won't answer this question honestly), do you not think our State Department leaders might want to have a clear and honest debreifing from all involved without having to worry about judicial procedure?

They made a simple trade, and a good one if you ask any rational person. Do you care to tell us the obvious alternative to them not offering immunity? All involved keep their mouths shut until their lawyers show up, and vital situational awarness and intelligence is denied to our diplomats. And on top of that, you STILL don't have any confessions. And they were not confessions, they were simple statments of facts by parties involved.

This is a perfectly reasonable and logical action to take on the part of the State Department, you are simply in denial of this because you want an imaginary conspiracy to wip up a lynch mob with. I am glad to see you display your heiness partisan hackery and conditional respect for the rule of law for all to see.

And besides allowing them to clean up all the eivdence from the crime scene?

You probably watch CSI and don't realize it is a fiction show.

Please Form, explain to me how you secure a crime scene on top of one of the buisiest intersections in a million person city that has a barely functioning emergency response and traffic police force and which is open to thousands of people to pick through in the minites after the event WHICH WAS A MILITARY FIREFIGHT INSIDE A WARZONE!

Is the ridiculousness of your expectation not sinking through?

And I will point out again that you are pulling all of this directly out of your anus. There is nothing even remotely pointing to any actions of the US government or anyone else to "sanitize" the sceen.

You are apparently deliberately ignoring the facts.

That is an odd accusation as of the two of us I am the only one providing facts.

There is only one thing to take away from this thread, and it is that you (as we all know anyway) have no consistat position and just flail around as you see fit to support your illogical ideological biases.

There is no need for you to reply, this is self evident to everyone reading and further participation by you just makes this more blatantly clear.

 

[JollyRoger]

How would their confessions work if they were in a civil suit? I can see how charges have to be stayed if their 5th Amendment rights were violated due to a forced debriefing, but there's still a civil avenue from the victims available.

How would those 'forced debriefings' fit into the evidence in a civil suit?

There would be plenty of other hurdles to a civil suit on this, but assuming those hurdles are cleared (and an American court), I think it would be challenging to block the confessions from getting in. You certainly couldn't exclusively rely on a 5th Amendment argument to block the testimony though you may try to use the 5th amendment violation to bolster another reason to block such as Rule 403 (Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence).

 

[Formaldehyde]

You probably watch CSI and don't realize it is a fiction show.

You probably make absurd straw men like this and think they are facts.

That is an odd accusation as of the two of us I am the only one providing facts.

No, ironically, you are the one who is using speculation instead of facts to try to convince yourself that there are valid reasons for the Bush administration to have completely screwed up this obviously criminal case of manslaughter, if not outright murder. If the mercenaries had not been allowed to clean up the crime scene they all would be in prison right now, instead of just the one who has already pleaded guilty.