Blackwater Murderers Go Free On Technicality

[Quackers]

Have to say, I'll never be a fan of Obama, but the last week has improved my opinion of his administration

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8476794.stm

Appease left-wing base angry over healthcare bill not going far enough.

Next!

 

[Formaldehyde]

DUDE READ IT. WHERE DOES IT SAY THE US ARMY CLEANED IT UP?

"Cleaned it up" are your words, not mine. You just can't seem to help but create absurd straw men instead of arguing the issues. I stated that the casings were apparently removed by the US Army instead of Blackwater as I originally stated, which was ostentisibly done as part of their investigation.

But it does appear that Blackwater may have indeed tried to "clean up" the crime scene as I originally thought, probably from reading it somewhere else:

http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/28755213/GOVERNMENT-INC

evidence in support of claims by Blackwater employees that they were fired upon and were therefore acting in self-defense. The US Army investigation determined that there was "no enemy activity involved" and described the killings as a "criminal event." There is also evidence that Blackwater employees tampered with the crime scene in a cover-up effort.Yet Blackwater continues to receive lucrative govt. contracts and the State Dept. reportedly gave bonuses for "outstanding performance" to officials with direct oversight of Blackwater. How can this be? Blackwater was founded in 1997, but its security division was incorporated in January 2002, just before the US invasion of Afghanistan, which led to its first contract, with the CIA, in April 2002. One of the key players involved in that contract and securing Blackwater's role as the leading mercenary company of the Bush administration was Buzzy Krongard, then executive director of the CIA. Buzzy, a friend of Blackwater CEO Erik Prince, went to Kabul in April 2002 and said the agency's new station there was sorely lacking in security. That same month, Blackwater landed a $5.4 million six-month no-bid contract to provide 20 security guards for the Kabul CIA station, and Blackwater was off and running. Erik Prince has made six-digit contributions to Republican candidates and is well-connected with right-wing power brokers, but maintains that these contacts had nothing to do with Blackwater's growth during the Bush years from a tiny start-up to a billion dollar federal contractor. Buzzy Krongard's brother, the top State Department official charged with investigating allegations of fraud, waste and abuse, has the duty to oversee Blackwater. Inspector General Howard Krongard will resign Jan. 15"' amidst charges of perjury and obstruction of justice in impeding investigations of fraud by contractors in Iraq. The chairman of the House oversight committee investigating fraud in Iraq finds that "the State Dept. is acting as Blackwater's enabler." Just what is being enabled? CamPEiEncy anD carrupiion In 2003, Blackwater was awarded a $27 million no-hid contract to provide bodyguards for US staff in Iraq. A year later.

The crime scene was obviously disturbed. The casings and even the bullets were apparently removed by someone prior to a complete forensics investigation. Apparently, part of that activity was part of the US Army's own investigation which started within minutes of the incident, and which came to the conclusion that Blackwater had committed an atrocity by firing on civilians when they had not been fired upon first. I'll leave it up to others to speculate as to why further tampering of the crime scene was allowed to happen, and for what reasons.

I dont see how you can continue this line of reasoning and retain one whit of credibility around here.....

Seeing that you are apparently again trying to attack the credibility of the poster instead of addressing the issues, that's not much of a surprise at all.

 

[MobBoss]

"Cleaned it up" are your words, not mine. You just can't seem to help but create absurd straw men instead of arguing the issues. I stated that the casings were apparently removed by the US Army instead of Blackwater as I originally stated, which was ostentisibly done as part of their investigation.

Even using your own words and quote provided offer no evidence to support your assumption.

I am indeed arguing issues, and taking you to task for not providing anything substantive to back up your ridiculous claims.

But it does appear that Blackwater may have indeed tried to "clean up" the crime scene as I originally thought, probably from reading it somewhere else:

http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/28755213/GOVERNMENT-INC

It takes more than a single sentence quoting from a journal piece to constitute proof.

Form, if our positions were reversed, you would laugh me out of the forum on such a weak offer of proof. Seriously.

The crime scene was obviously disturbed. The casings and even the bullets were apparently removed by someone prior to a complete forensics investigation. Apparently, part of that activity was part of the US Army's own investigation which started within minutes of the incident, and which came to the conclusion that Blackwater had committed an atrocity by firing on civilians when they had clearly not been fired upon first. I'll leave it up to others to speculate as to why further tampering of the crime scene was allowed to happen.

So you are backing off your allegations that Blackwater or the US Army purposefully disturbed the crime scene?

Btw, I dont find you assumption that the US Armys investigation of this mere minutes after the incident very compelling. It typically takes a site investigation team quite a bit longer than that to get word of such an incident, let alone drive through a possibly hostile area to investigate an incident scene where possible insurgents may have opened fire on a convoy. The area will have to be secured first, and that takes a bit of time.

For someone who frequently tries to attack the credibility of the poster or the source instead of addressing the issues, that's not much of a surprise at all.

First of all, throughout this thread you have been using the OP source as to say something it absolutely does not. Repeatedly. Over and over. Secondly, a single sentence copied out of an article (which may or may not be biased we have no idea) simply isnt that strong or credible of a source.

If you wouldnt try to allege certain quotes say something they obviously dont, and provided some decent links with substantive proof to back up your claims we wouldnt be having this discussion.

I will simply point out that so far zero posters have backed you up in the claims you have made in this thread. That should tell you something.

 

[Ecofarm]

I wonder how many other ENTIRE GROUPS could be called murderers based on the lack of individual convictions.


I see a thread...

Muslim Murderers/Terrorists go free on technicality. We all know they are guilty, even if a trial against them failed to produce a conviction; let's hang them.

 

[El_Machinae]

The problems included the mishandling and tainting of witnesses, so I honestly can't see how much of anything can be used now. The misconduct was extreme and broad, they really mucked this up.

Oh yeah, it will be crushingly difficult. But there's a pretty strong onus to try

 

[MobBoss]

Oh yeah, it will be crushingly difficult. But there's a pretty strong onus to try

Well, they already did try, but got shut down, didnt they?

 

[Formaldehyde]

It takes more than a single sentence quoting from a journal piece to constitute proof.

It apparently takes even far more than mere "proof" to convince you.

But I don't have to. I have shown there is indeed suspicion that Blackwater did tamper with the crime scene as I originally stated. So much for your "credibility" ad hominems.

 

[MobBoss]

It takes even far more than that to convince you.

Dont be disengenuous...if the shoe was on the other foot it would take more than that to convince you as well.

But I don't have to. I have shown there is indeed suspicion that Blackwater did tamper with the crime scene as I originally stated.

No you havent. You have given us a single sentence from an article. You dont even know its accuracy. Apparently you cant find anything from any legitimate news source, or publicly disclosed investigation. But if it were as evident as you allege, you shouldnt be running into such problems finding sources. You lack of additional support on this is quite telling.

Like I said, if that were my offer of proof to you, you would laugh it off OT.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Dont be disengenuous...if the shoe was on the other foot it would take more than that to convince you as well.

Don't be disingenuous. The odds of me convincing you of anything are likely only slightly worse than the opposite.

Like I said, if that were my offer of proof to you, you would laugh it off OT.

This isn't a court of law. We are both speculating based on a few lines from various articles posted on the internet. But the difference is that when you get it wrong, it's no big deal. You typically don't even acknowledge it from what I've seen. But when others do it, they apparently no longer have any "credibility".

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, they already did try, but got shut down, didnt they?

Has the appeal happened already?

 

[Ecofarm]

It apparently takes even far more than mere "proof" to convince you.

The only "proof" is ambiguous bravado statements made in the heat of the moment. Stuff like "I wasn't scared, we pwnd them" and other such crap people say after the event and before time to reflect on the full context or implications of their contextless statements. That's why, aside from intelligence desires, such testimony is not allowed in a court of law. It is, essentially, statements made without Miranda Rights and by people in unstable emotional states of shock that renders comments contextless.

Nice "proof".

Next time you are in shock, we will grill you without counsel and hold everything against you - and use that, alone, to convict you. Does that seem fair?

 

[El_Machinae]

Being grilled without Miranda is one thing. Excited Utterance is another. Such testimony is certainly allowed.

 

[RedRalph]

The only "proof" is ambiguous bravado statements made in the heat of the moment. Stuff like "I wasn't scared, we pwnd them" and other such crap people say after the event and before time to reflect on the full context or implications of their contextless statements. That's why, aside from intelligence desires, such testimony is not allowed in a court of law. It is, essentially, statements made without Miranda Rights and by people in unstable emotional states of shock that renders comments contextless.

Nice "proof".

Next time you are in shock, we will grill you without counsel and hold everything against you - and use that, alone, to convict you. Does that seem fair?

I'm pretty sure that that is allowed in court, actually. Show me otherwise.

 

[JollyRoger]

The only "proof" is ambiguous bravado statements made in the heat of the moment. Stuff like "I wasn't scared, we pwnd them" and other such crap people say after the event and before time to reflect on the full context or implications of their contextless statements. That's why, aside from intelligence desires, such testimony is not allowed in a court of law. It is, essentially, statements made without Miranda Rights and by people in unstable emotional states of shock that renders comments contextless.

Nice "proof".

Next time you are in shock, we will grill you without counsel and hold everything against you - and use that, alone, to convict you. Does that seem fair?

Actually, statements made in the heat of the moment are easier to get into evidence in many instances. Exceptions to the hearsay rule come to mind. Plus, Miranda often does not apply if someone is voluntarily babbling.

What happened here is outside that context though as Miranda was arguably applicable (debriefing that was not really in the heat of the moment), but for some reason not applied.

 

[Patroklos]

When is the last time Chavez had a press conference after a fire fight?

 

[RedRalph]

When is the last time Chavez had a press conference after a fire fight?

Wuuutttttt????

 

[MobBoss]

Don't be disingenuous. The odds of me convincing you of anything are likely only slightly worse than the opposite.

I dont ask you for proofs of obvious truths. This is not one of those instances however. If you gave me multiple and legitimate sources from various news agencies (CNN, or whatever) then we wouldnt be having this discussion.

Saying that you cant convince me no matter what is rather shallow given the fact that you havent given anyone reading this much to convince them either.

This isn't a court of law.

Never said it was, but it is a court of public opinion. You have made several very assumptive statements and have simply not been able to back those up with any substantive proof, and in fact have repeatedly try to pass off quotes as proof when they didnt say any such thing. This has been more than obvious to everyone reading this thread. Why you continue to try and defend that is beyond me.

We are both speculating based on a few lines from various articles posted on the internet.

I am questioning your speculation which has been devoid of any real proof, and have offered my own (speculative) opinion of what may have happened. My burden of proof is rather light compared to yours because my premise is based not on conspiracy, but of common knowledge. Stuff not tied down in Iraq grows legs real fast because people scavenge for anything of value. Thats a no-brainer. Alleging that the US Army or Blackwater took the time to clean up a firefight site in the middle of a combat zone to cover their tracks in the middle of a bunch of Iraqis isnt quite the no-brainer you wish it were.

But the difference is that when you get it wrong, it's no big deal. You typically don't even acknowledge it from what I've seen. But when others do it, they apparently no longer have any "credibility".

No, other people that I ask for links and proof typically provide same without a lot of bellyache. And in the past, if I cant provide links or proof I quickly clarify to make sure my comment is simply my opinion and nothing more.

 

[Patroklos]

Wuuutttttt????

Thats what happened, the "confessions" are from when the state departement debriefed them for a situation report immediately after the event. The state department didn't care at the time about future criminal proceedings, they just wanted to know right then and there what happened so they could react appropriately.

 

[Ecofarm]

And the opinions of what happened were hardly contextual or solidly credible independantly. Most of them being mere utterances of shock.

No conspiracy at a higher level was found. Noone was indicted for lying. Apparently, the men's fear was real and we will never know exactly what happened but they did not pick an intersection to obliterate for fun, fame and fortune.

Give me a motive.

Murderers? Hmmm? Very frekn nice. These people are there to help and we assume they conspire to randomly murder people at a random intersection on the other side of the world. Very frkn nice.


What kind of a f MORON does it take to think that these highly trained and paid people would jeopardize their jobs, company, LIVES and (dare I say) country's reputation to slaughter random people IN PUBLIC for fun.



Either provide a god damn motive or drop the murder charges LIKE THE GOVERNMENT DID.

This thread should have been closed for BS at title.

 

[MobBoss]

Has the appeal happened already?

No, I was referring to the original charges.