http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/w...f513ff1e78a9fd&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss * investigated by the FBI * could (and are likely to) be indicted by the Justice department. * reason: violation of rules of use of deatly force that were in place specifically for contractors see? no immunity for Blackwater and (other similar contractors). and certainly no free hand to do whatever they want.
Prosecutors have yet to decide whether to seek indictments, and some officials have expressed pessimism that adequate criminal laws exist to enable them to charge any Blackwater employee with criminal wrongdoing. As of right now, there can be no prosecution so it essentially is immunity. We'll see if future legislation changes that.
it's my understanding that the JD is looking for ways to prosecute them because some of those contractors went completely against the rules they were given. it just has to be done in a non-arbitrary way. if they did what they're accused of doing, then F*CK them. good f'n riddance. i do think (hope) that it's only a few bad apples. contractors are badly needed in Iraq.
One might wonder whether violations of Contractors Rules of Engagement might be considered an abrogation of their contract and therefore loss of protection from local prosecution.
You don't have to kiss my liberal ass; just pay attention Perhaps not in the future, but the immediate consideration is not so clear. From the NYT article you provided: Rep. Price is incorrect: if there are applicable deficiencies in the law, those conditions can, indeed, serve as an excuse for action like this to go unpunished. I hold prosecutors to a standard many here at Sciforums are willing to criticize as unfairly demanding. There is no compelling reason that I should change that policy. Lara Jordan Jakes reports for AP: Add to that the general immunity transferred from the CPA, that the Iraqi government only rescinded in the wake of the Nisoor incident, and it becomes even more difficult to justify a prosecution of the shooters. Throw on top of that pile the specific rule forbidding Congress from passing laws ex post facto, and the question becomes absolutely obscure. For, obviously, no new law Congress passes can retroactively authorize prosecution, and there is an obscure argument to be had--one I've used in other arguments about law--that Congress cannot indirectly authorize ex post facto; e.g., the government is obliged to protect the Nisoor shooters from any Iraqi prosecution under laws passed after the incident. The whole thing is a f@cking mess, and in the end, there is only one person who is ultimately responsible: President George W. Bush. This is his war, his rules, his decision to use mercenaries, his CPA that implemented the original immunity rule. And, no, he's not liable for war crimes by this incident. At least, not without a much better argument than any I've devised. I would be very surprised, and very likely distressed, if the Blackwater mercenaries were prosecuted for what, more and more, appears to have been mass murder. ____________________ Notes: Johnston, David and John M. Broder. "F.B.I. Says Guards Killed 14 Iraqis Without Cause". NYTimes.com. November 14, 2007. See http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/world/middleeast/14blackwater.html Jakes Jordan, Lara. "Charges Uncertain in Blackwater Inquiry". Associated Press. November 14, 2007. See http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g8j2u56IMqRcZhCnXxakvpIEJ3-QD8STOF601
Umm, attend: Congress's war; Bush's war; (y)our war. And we've almost won it! Cheer up. Life is good!!
good point. and tiassa, don't worry. the lawyers at that level of government are VERY smart. there are always clever legal ways to manouver through existing laws if they're in the way. no law is absolute. but i don't think it would be that defecult in this situation. even a mediocre lawyer would have put in some clauses in the contracts covering scenarios of murder. if there are reasons to prosecute "mercenaries", as you call them, there are ways.
I'm aware that you are utterly disconnected from the concept of history. Here, consider this watered down "I told you so" routine, and consider also the point in the comments: Despite the hard rhetoric of the right wing during the Clinton years, it was not an easy thing to look at a president making a call to war and say, “Yeah, but you’re full of ….” To the other, Congress cannot authorize the president to violate the law. This entire war is a human rights mess, and in the end, there is only one person ultimately accountable for that: George W. Bush. Thank you for trying, though, G. I appreciate the attempt at sincerity. The upside is that if we ever get out of this mess, Congress will never again have an excuse for trusting the president. And, yes, Bush gets credit for that one, as well.
Because I live in real time? What violation? What law? What nonsense. According to your hysterionics. I'm not feeling your pain. As I appreciate your attempt at comprehension. Bush: "Tiassa, I am you're father."
