PDA

View Full Version : Charges dropped against Iraq contractors...



BrianW
12-31-2009, 08:02 PM
Well damn, I bet the one guy who pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter feels like an ass...

cnn link (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=5)

Hwyl
12-31-2009, 08:35 PM
Bad link Brian, here's the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8436780.stm

SamSam
12-31-2009, 08:58 PM
A US district judge dismisses charges of crimes committed in another country. Their own statements of complicity are thrown out on a technicality. Looking good. I haven't followed this at all, they were charged in Iraq also I believe, how is that going or how did that go?


Urbina prefaced his opinion with a quotation from a landmark 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case, Tehan v. U.S.:
"The basic purposes that lie behind the privilege against self-incrimination do not relate to protecting the innocent from conviction, but rather to preserving the integrity of a judicial system in which even the guilty are not to be convicted unless the prosecution shoulder the entire load."

Ian McColgin
01-01-2010, 12:03 AM
Dear oh dear. They were mildly pressured. Compare their treatment to Lindh.

I hasten to add that the remarks should have been excluded. It's not about their guilt or innocence - no doubt there anyway - but rather about the system they and President Bush were doing so much to destroy.

skuthorp
01-01-2010, 01:54 AM
Quote Urbina in part: "preserving the integrity of a judicial system"

Don't make me laugh!
I wonder though about civil action, seeing there are 'confessions' exaunt and one has pleaded guilty.

BrianW
01-01-2010, 08:42 AM
Thanks for finding a working link Garth.

SMARTINSEN
01-01-2010, 09:18 AM
From the context it is pretty clear to me that he means extant, Donn. Why are you so picky about these things?

LeeG
01-01-2010, 09:22 AM
anal retentive

Paul Pless
01-01-2010, 09:29 AM
I bet the one guy who pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughtera major personal 'ooops' moment for sure

SMARTINSEN
01-01-2010, 09:44 AM
Is that ok with you?

Sure, thanks for the explanation. I thought that you may have been trying to stir things up a bit.

Ian McColgin
01-01-2010, 10:03 AM
As a dyslectic with incredibly bad spelling myself, I'm with Donn on this. If we wish to be understood, we must use language 5yq5n jqi3w w3hw3.

ljb5
01-01-2010, 12:19 PM
Yup.

If you'll remember, when these charges were filed, some of us predicted the Justice Department would find a way to screw it up.

Just like they did with Ted Stevens.

Apparently (in both cases) they had been warned that they were going to get the case thrown out, yet they kept doing it.

brad9798
01-01-2010, 07:39 PM
And yet they still wasted time and a LOT of money p*ssing up a rope ... not too smart.

SamSam
01-01-2010, 07:53 PM
Yeah, what a waste of taxpayers money. It almost seems the trial was purposefully sabotaged.

brad9798
01-01-2010, 08:24 PM
And it probably was purposely sabotaged ...

SamSam
01-01-2010, 08:31 PM
By who..m?

brad9798
01-01-2010, 08:33 PM
By who..m?

I have no clue what that coded post means ... :(

???

skuthorp
01-01-2010, 09:00 PM
What the blazes is "exaunt?" This is the second time I've read it this morning, and I can't find any evidence of it being a word. Is it an Aussie usage not found in English dictionaries?
Sorry about my spelling Donn, if I'm in a hurry or it's late here I often don't proof read my posts. It seems though that the meaning got through finally.

Word on our news today was that the Afghan Govt aint pleased and will pursue the matter given that they actually are guilty no matter what the 'justice system' says. The hook may be the one who plead guilty.

johnw
01-01-2010, 09:08 PM
Yup.

If you'll remember, when these charges were filed, some of us predicted the Justice Department would find a way to screw it up.

Just like they did with Ted Stevens.

Apparently (in both cases) they had been warned that they were going to get the case thrown out, yet they kept doing it.
What's the angle here? Is this a continuation of a Bush policy by the Obama administration? If so, why would they sabotage the prosecution?

I have a stupidity theory of history. People keep trying to be clever, and things keep going wrong.

paladin
01-01-2010, 09:54 PM
Perhaps that was the intent, to get it thrown out.....I wish to know what a U.S. court is doing deciding the case, is it part of the status of forces agreement with Iraq?....personally, those men were armed with automatic weapons, they shot unarmed civilians who were not firing at them, they just opened up.......I'd have them hung by their.....gronicles......for murder 1, and serving life without a chance of parole, not allow them to be repatriated, because some weenies would commute the sentence. I had a situation like that in Vietnam.....the guy was working as a civilian supply supervisor, he was buying weapons, grenades any armaments he could get his hands on by trading steaks or whatever he could from the supply network, then selling the weapons to the local vietnamese......trading in drugs, some especially nasty concoctions, then had a row with a girlfriend and she disappeared, her body was found a week later.....he wanted out of the country, fast........I called the local police Colonel and let them have him.....in the calaboose, permanently.....when we pulled out of Vietnam they let all prisoners loose and he was repatriated....I ran into him in Arkansas while I was clearing paperwork for some refugees.....couldn't do a thing about it...I did lodge a complaint....

SamSam
01-01-2010, 09:56 PM
I have no clue what that coded post means ... :(

???
It means I didn't know which was correct, who or whom. So, who would purposely sabotage the trial and why?

brad9798
01-01-2010, 10:07 PM
I cannot help you with this one ... but I suspected months ago that this would happen ...

:(

SMARTINSEN
01-01-2010, 10:12 PM
It means I didn't know which was correct, who or whom.

Calling Donn
Calling Donn

Please help us.:D


A very simple mnemonic is that you would use whom when referring to him, her, or them.

SMARTINSEN
01-01-2010, 10:17 PM
Getting back to the matter at hand, perhaps the Iraqis could demand that the accused be extradited.

We brought enlightenment to Iraq, there is no reason to think that they would not receive a fair trial

paladin
01-01-2010, 10:29 PM
The problem, if they are allowed to go free, will encourage military minded folks to go after their families killers and anyone around them......the contractor will have his employees targeted.

ljb5
01-01-2010, 11:03 PM
What's the angle here? Is this a continuation of a Bush policy by the Obama administration? If so, why would they sabotage the prosecution?

The misconduct in question occurred during the Bush administration.

You can read about it here (http://www.expose-the-war-profiteers.org/archive/legal/2009-2/20091231.pdf)

Section 8 on page 16 is entitled, "Failure of the Government's Taint Procedures."

It's a bit complicated, of course, but as it turns out, the government was trying to investigate without use of the statements that had been given under immunity. They had a "taint attorney" assigned to verify that the investigation was not tainted by verboten information.

The "taint attorney" reported multiple times in 2007 and 2008 that the DOJ and FBI had violated the controls and had become tainted.

In February 2008, the government used these off-limits statements to obtain a search warrant...

In October 2009, there was an investigation (Kastigar), in which all this was revealed.

Apparently, it took until now to get the charges dropped.

Looks like all the damage was done before Obama took office.

brad9798
01-01-2010, 11:41 PM
Let me guess ... something about dates a warrants ...

C'mon, lj, am I correct?

Can't see your posts anymore ... but pm me if I have it nailed!

I'll BET I do!!!

bwahahahaha.

brad9798
01-02-2010, 12:17 AM
Right on John T-

Done with lj ... thus, my ONE AND ONLY EVER PERSON ON IGNORE!

Again ... you are correct!

Brad

:)

Nicholas Carey
01-02-2010, 01:54 AM
Calling Donn
Calling Donn

Please help us.:D

A very simple mnemonic is that you would use whom when referring to him, her, or them.
No need for Donn.

Your high school English and Latin (you did take Latin, didn't you?) will serve you in good stead here. Both who and whom are [generally speaking] interrogative pronouns. When asking a question, both stand in for for an unknown person (or persons -- neither who nor whom have number). The difference is case. Who is nominative case; whom is accusative case. We use the nominative case of nouns and pronouns in the subject of a sentence:
Dude, who stole my car?
We use the accusative case when the noun or pronoun is a direct or indirect object, that is, it is either the object of a transitive verb
I popped whom wif mah 9mm for stealing mah ride?
or the object of a preposition:
To whom shall I direct this 9mm cap in retaliation for the stealing of mah ride?
Consistency being the hobgoblin of little minds, though, English will get you in the end. In the above example questions regarding the use of whom, if one wished to further qualify the object as to the affected body part, one would use who rather than whom:
I popped who's fat a** wif mah 9mm for stealing mah ride?

To who's fat a** shall I direct this 9mm cap in retaliation for the stealing of mah ride?
Hope the newfound knowlege of grammar comes in handy -- use it in good health.

BrianW
01-02-2010, 09:48 AM
Word on our news today was that the Afghan Govt aint pleased and will pursue the matter...

Why would the Afghans be involved?

SamSam
01-02-2010, 10:04 AM
To whom it may concern;

There is this...

However, on October 29, 2007, immunity from prosecution was granted by the U.S. State Department, delaying a criminal inquiry into the September 16 shootings of 17 Iraqi civiliansand this...

It is intended to replace Order 17 of the now-defunct Coalition Provisional Authority, which governed Iraq after the US-led invasion of 2003.
That order granted private security contractors immunity from prosecution in Iraq but made them subject to the law of their "sending state".
but then again...

The U.S. Department of Justice also said any immunity deals offered to Blackwater employees were invalid, as the department that issued them had no authority to do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_Worldwide#cite_note-128

Judicial and legal are one thing, right and wrong and "justice" are another.

John Smith
01-02-2010, 10:16 AM
I'm not going to convict anyone of anything, if I get chosen for jury duty.

The only way to get fair justice, if we can't hold the big shots accountable is to hold no one accountable.

I know two people who voiced this opinion and got excused.

I don't know how else to fight back.

We talk about too big to fail. Hell, we've got TOO BIG to stand trial.