And Atrios was shocked(as was I) that Odierno(and good for him) said this presents a problem because it puts the troops in Iraq in danger from revenge kind of attacks. They sure didn’t publicly acknowledge such things during the W. years. Is it any wonder that people don’t think of the U.S. like they used to?

“The system just basically called them hajjis.”

Ackerman back in March 2003 was calling for, and approved of, “shock and awe.” I hate to tell you this, but in all of those cool videos from cable news that showed Baghdad exploding in brilliant flashes, thousands of innocent “hajjis” were also being killed. Far more than Blackwater ever killed.

At that time, you did not care about “hajjis” being killed.

One year ago, American munitions decimated Gaza. Not many here cared about that either. “Hajjis” being killed, whether by mercenaries, our own airmen, or our Israeli allies does not register greatly with Americans in general. So for you to say that our “system” believes those 17 killed by Blackwater is a disgrace, I call bullshit. It’s not just our judicial system, many in our country just lump those 17 people with all the rest.

You care about these 17 dead because “evil” Blackwater did it. It makes your point politically.

Cheer for more drone strikes in Pakistan. Excoriate Blackwater for killing up-close and personal. And people wonder why “they” hate us.

The judge could make no other decision. Read the opinion – or at least the first parts of it. Justice Department investigators recklessly and repeatedly violated clear evidenciary boundaries despite repeated warnings by those assigned to help them avoid precisely this result!

The State Department had standing procedures whereby Blackwater personnel who discharged their firearms on-duty were compelled to supply a thorough and accurate accounting. The form headed “Sworn Statement” used for these accounts carried the declaration:

I understand that this statement is made in furtherance of an official administrative inquiry regarding potential misconduct or improper performance of official duties and that disciplinary action, including dismissal from the Department’s Worldwide Personnel Protective Services contract, may be undertaken if I refuse to provide this statement or fail to do so fully and truthfully. I further understand that neither my statements nor any information or evidence gained by reason of my statements can be used against me in a criminal proceeding, except that if I knowingly and willfully provide false statements or information, I may be criminally prosecuted for that action under 18 United States Code, Section 1001

The statements so gathered were clearly protected from use against the defendants in a criminal proceeding (according to binding precedent in “Garrity” and “Kastigar” – per the opinion). These statements were the same ones LEAKED by someone within the State Department to the mainstream press – likely to try and embarrass Blackwater. That leak had the perverse effect of making the prosecution more difficult by tainting loads of witnesses and evidence.

Moreover, those statements were at the core of the State Department investigation presented to DOJ and FBI personnel deciding whether to prosecute the Blackwater team. Indeed, after that ill-advised presentation, personnel at the State Department realized how badly “tainted” that presentation was (and thus those DOJ prosecutors were) and notified the DOJ about their concerns. As a result, an entirely new DOJ team was assigned and a “taint attorney” was brought in to advise the new team in avoiding tainted evidence.

Despite this, warnings issued by the “taint attorney” were repeatedly and blatantly disregarded and the protected statements again became central to the prosecution’s case. So thoroughly was the prosecution case tainted that they convened a second grand jury prior to asking the first to return an indictment because they realized that half their witnesses and evidence were compromised. Worse, the second grand jury was presented with a redacted transcript (from the first grand jury testimony) and exculpatory evidence DOJ lawyers were required to present when seeking an indictment was deliberately withheld.

From the opinion:

In their zeal to bring charges against the defendants in this case, the
prosecutors and investigators aggressively sought out [inadmissible] statements the defendants had been compelled to make to government investigators in the immediate aftermath of the shooting and in the subsequent investigation. In so doing, the government’s trial team repeatedly disregarded the warnings of experienced, senior prosecutors, assigned to the case specifically to advise the trial team on Garrity and Kastigar issues, that this course of action threatened the viability of the prosecution. The government used the defendants’ compelled statements to guide its charging decisions, to formulate its theory of the case, to develop investigatory leads and, ultimately, to obtain the indictment in this case. The government’s key witnesses immersed themselves in the defendants’ compelled statements, and the evidence adduced at the Kastigar hearing plainly demonstrated that these compelled statements shaped portions of the witnesses’ testimony to the indicting grand jury. The explanations offered by the prosecutors and investigators in an attempt to justify their actions and persuade the court that they did not use the defendants’ compelled testimony were all too often contradictory, unbelievable and lacking in credibility.

In other words, the FBI and the government’s trial team screwed up. Worse, it screwed up in ways that were not only predictable but predicted and repeatedly warned against. It also bears repeating that their job was made more difficult by the deliberate leak of those protected statements.

Your bud Eli Lake over at the Washington Times wrote a piece that blared. “Judge Urbina exonerates Blackwater”. I assume he does not write his headlines but if he does he’s an idiot.

pidgas, just wondering……Do you think that if the victims of this little shooting rampage were…say..Americans instead of a bunch of hajjis would this ruling would stand?

This is what is REALLY going on here in Opposite World – and the architect “ally” is called out by name.

The FBI and government’s trial team did not “screw up.” They did precisely what they were instructed to do by their shadow government overlords. They were provided with explicit instructions on how not to taint evidence, which, here in opposite world, can be viewed as having been provided with specific instructions on how to taint evidence. They knew how to botch the case because they were taught precisely what it would take to facilitate that outcome.

“Incompetence” can NEVER be viewed as an acceptable explanation, when the obvious and plain truth as that the agents of the New World Order are protected from the Rule Of Law at every turn, by design.

Do you really believe that anyone will be fired for allowing the alleged terrorist on the Detroit-bound flight, when virtually no one was fired for allowing 9/11 to occur?

Here in reality, all apparent failures occur by design.

The Washington Times, just like FOX, is an organ of the shadow government. The Government wrote that headline – not some “editor.” It is 100% government propaganda. The masters of the universe know that they only need to control the headlines to control the perception. Nobody reads the stories, and even if they do, they do so through the filter of the government-provided headline. Welcome to “Talking Point World,” where all conversation is initiated and controlled by sound bites and headlines from apparent authority figures and alleged news organizations.

Study Edward Bernays – he wrote the book on perception:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays

Any “Rasmussen Poll” should be viewed as government controlled propaganda.

Wow, I haven’t thought of You and I in about 10 years; I also remembered them being much more melodic than that Youtube clip suggests.

Well, not so much the Functionary Incompetence Trick as activated by our evil shadow government overlords of evil as much as the CYA Functionary Incompetence Trick that our evil shadow government overlords of evil can rely on so reliably. Mistakes were made.

Whether they intended to sabotage a prosecution is unknown,

Oh, I think we know.

I see that the defendants claimed and government agreed that the statements from defendants were taken after they were told that their jobs depended on cooperating. CYA Incompetence Trick 101, with a windfall showered on our evil shadow government overlords of evil. I’m only surprised the case was brought after the seeds were planted.

Meant to add recommendation of Conrad’s The Secret Agent for context.

Well for once I have to agree with right wing Republican whack jobs. The Blackwater case proves beyond doubt the contention that the big problem trying international terrorists in civilian courts is that they might get off.

That Conrad read is excellent.

Do you really think that is possible? Remember that the Blackwater/Xe folks are from an USA employer while the terrorists won’t actually have any friends in high places to screw up the prosecution so readily.

That will make all the difference in the world. Not claiming that the trials of terrorists in civilian courts will be star chambers with pre-judgements but the reality is, they won’t be far off of that.

My $.02