Flak? Bombs set off your vicinity to deter or destroy? Hardly, or certainly not intended to be so. Just an alternative point of view, substantiated with documentation and reasoned logic. Apparently ineffective, since here are the same errors, again.

First this:

“NOTE Actually, it was the Condi’s State Department that immunized the shooters—even though they didn’t have the power to do so. A bit hasty, what?”

Any citation or link with an authority or named source for the assertion “they didn’t have the power to do so”? Not “anonymous sources” or unnamed “government officials” but an actual bona fide documented source? If so, please put it up. Point of fact, the investigators from the Bureau of Diplomatic Security are ”federal law enforcement officers” not civilians, with full law enforcement authority and privileges. They conduct investigations and make arrests. It is their job to investigate possible wrongdoing by State Department employees, including contractors and subcontractors like Blackwater and Blackwater employees/private contractors. They do so under the authority of US law, and are likewise bound by it.

The problem for some people on this issue of the BDS investigators appears to center around the word “immunity”. Everyone here appreciates language; hopefully we all agree that words have no meaning outside of context. What does “immunity” mean in the context of “Garrity/Kalkines" warnings? First of all, understand that almost all governmental employees (including contractors) are required by the terms of their employment (contract) to cooperate fully with internal investigations. Accepting this requirement could be considered to be a waiver of Fifth Amendment civil rights. However, the courts have held otherwise. The following is from a web posting from a defense attorney whose firm specializes in representing the subjects of State Department internal investigations: (This link was given in the previous thread, please read in its entirety if you have not already done so.)

FOCUS ON DIPLOMATIC SECURITY
“The agents are then supposed to present you with one of two written “warnings”: either a Garrity Warning or a Kalkines Warning, both named after court cases. The Garrity Warning is intended to preserve the government’s ability to use your answers against you in any criminal proceeding. You are told that the interview is completely voluntary, and if you choose not to answer you cannot be disciplined for that refusal. This does not necessarily mean that there is an interest in prosecuting you.

The Kalkines Warning is given when the government has chosen to forgo any criminal prosecution against you ahead of time. In that case, you will be compelled to answer questions at the risk of losing your job, but your answers may not be used against you in any criminal prosecution. This does not mean, however, that there will not be a criminal prosecution. The use of that warning simply means that the government
is not planning a criminal prosecution at that moment. Whichever warning the agents give you, be aware that they may attempt to minimize its seriousness to induce you to volunteer information.”

The “Garrity warning” is equivalent to a Miranda warning, in that it protects the subject from being forced to give any information that might be self-incriminatory. Same as you and me. Quite a number of articles and blogs have been saying that these employees got immunity under a Garrity warning but, as you can plainly see, Garrity provides no immunity. Those who claim otherwise are mistaken or lying.

The “Kalkines warning” resolves the conflict between the rights of citizens to be protected from self-incrimination and the obligations of a government employee/contractor to serve the interests of the State in providing all required information regarding an internal investigation. After a Kalkines warning is given, the subject can be disciplined, fired, stripped of pension, and jailed for refusing to co-operate fully and truthfully. They have to give a statement, and that statement has to be truthful and complete or they can be charged with perjury. The caveat is that their own statement cannot be used against them. That proviso is the extent of the “immunity” conferred by Kalkines. The intent is to allow the government to expeditiously proceed with an investigation while preserving basic Fifth Amendment protection; these Kalkines warnings were what the BDS agents used. Is the preservation of constitutional rights a problem for anyone here?

Further, these are not optional warnings. They are required by the court decisions for which they are named, Garrity and Kalkines. The investigators are required by law to provide these warnings, and the employee/contractor is entitled to them as a matter of constitutional privilege. The investigators would have been violating the law to have interviewed the employee/contractors without having given the warnings. Is anyone here advocating that sworn law enforcement officers should be violating the law while conducting investigations?

Next, “A bit hasty, what?” Exactly how long should BDS agents have waited to begin the investigation? Generally, the sooner statements are taken, the more useful they are. This is especially so when there are multiple players being interviewed about the same event. Should everyone have waited for FBI or DOJ investigators to be vetted and flown in? Starting up an investigation and taking sworn statements needed to happen sooner, rather than later.

Now, the other big piece of misinformation floating around, that the Kalkines warning immunity will impede the investigation or allow criminals to escape prosecution. Those allegations are all coming from unnamed sources; if you have a link to a named source, please provide it. Here is an attributed statement in an October 31, 2007 NY Times article that clearly states the exact opposite:

“A Justice Department spokesman, Dean Boyd, said in a statement that Blackwater employees could be prosecuted despite the immunity deals, which were not authorized by federal prosecutors. [More on the “not authorized” red herring below.] He said that neither the Justice Department nor the F.B.I. could discuss the case, but said ‘any suggestion that the Blackwater employees in question have been given immunity from federal criminal prosecution is inaccurate.’”

Read the Garrity and Kalkines decisions, or the synopses of their meaning above, and decide for yourself what they mean rather than depending on unreferenced, not-for-attribution misinformation.

Finally, allow me to play in your sandbox a moment. What is the deal behind all these anonymous hints that somehow the initial investigators screwed the pooch and ruined the investigation? Why the anonymous sources pushing the use of the word “immunity” knowing it will cause uproar from the Left? Why are the DOJ and FBI investigators being denied all access to the Blackwater contractor statements given under Kalkines? Where are those statements now? Why did Assistant Secretary of State Richard Griffin, the chief of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, suddenly resign without giving a reason, and why is he now incommunicado? It would be irresponsible to not speculate.

Could it be that Those At The Top want to shift any blame for letting the Blackwater contractors walk to the lowly front line investigators? Are the statements being hidden because they incriminate higher ups? Has Griffin, a 36 year veteran of the State Department, formerly the deputy director of the US Secret Service and head of the BDS since June 2005, been designated as a fall guy for Rice’s policies with Blackwater? Did Rice/Bush direct that Blackwater be allowed free reign to operate as they pleased and is now blaming Griffin for the fallout? Is all of this a smokescreen to direct attention from the real issue of immunity - true, unequivocal, total immunity - conferred on all civilian contactors in Iraq under “Order 17”?

According to the NY Times article cited above:

“Americans are immune from Iraqi law under a directive signed by the United States occupation authority in 2003 that has not been repealed by the Iraqi Parliament.
A State Department review panel sent to investigate the shootings concluded that there was no basis for holding non-Defense Department contractors accountable under United States law and urged Congress and the administration to address the problem.”

So there’s the real criminality, and where the real focus needs to be, on Bush and Bremer and whoever else set up a paramilitary force that was armed, put above any law and turned loose on the people of Iraq. The investigators who interviewed Blackwater staff are a red herring, don’t be fooled. The real criminals are possibly/probably the shooters and certainly their protectors up the line, all the way to the top.

...some of us appreciate concise language even more.

With nuance, even.

No Hell below us
Above us, only sky

Sorry, thought that was common knowledge. WaPo:

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said yesterday that State has no power to immunize anyone from federal criminal prosecution. "We would not have asked the FBI and the Department of Justice to get involved in a case that we did not think that they could potentially prosecute."

Baltimore Sun editorial (quoted in near entirety):

The dumb promises of immunity must have been the last straw. The State Department capped its astonishing record of mismanagement of private security firms in Iraq in a fairly spectacular way, by making an offer of immunity it didn't have the power to grant, to the Blackwater USA guards who were involved in the notorious shoot-'em-up in Baghdad's Nisour Square.

What was most alarming about this immunity business is that it comes from the very people - the Diplomatic Security Service - supposedly overseeing Blackwater. Immunity from prosecution is supposed to make people open up, but this looks suspiciously like immunity granted with the idea of avoiding a trial. It accomplishes just the opposite of its intended purpose, in other words, if it ends up keeping testimony (about the State Department as well as about Blackwater) off the public record.

This week, the Iraqi parliament voted to rescind an order, issued by the Coalition Provisional Authority, that exempts private contractors from Iraqi law. It's about time - and it's encouraging to see the rule of law on the advance somewhere, after it has taken such a battering from the administration in Washington.

I think this is pretty simple, and there's no reason to go all Process Dodge-y on it.

If the immunity was genuinely granted as a way of nailing the higher-ups, there's a simple operational test: We're going to hear something about it. Like maybe a prosecutor appointed to look into it, or something, assuming that's not a coverup, too. But so far:

*** crickets ***

S

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

Tried the shorter version, that didn't take. Last one was the long version, step by step by step, with lots of references; still didn't take. WTF? Very Frustrating. Let's try this.

You, and many others, are confusing two versions of "immunity":

(A) The specific "use immunity" from Garrity/Kalkines is very common, State BDS not only had authority but were compelled by law to employ it - or not do the interviews.

AND, completely distinct,

(B) "Prosecutorial immunity" from a crime, as might be granted by DOJ but could not be granted by State.

State investigators used Kalkines. The subjects get "immunity" from the use of their statements against themselves. That's all they get. The wording of the Kalkines warning is at the beginning of the Blackwater employee statements, as reported by ABC who say they have the statements; State has not denied it.

Spokesman Sean McCormack - "State has no power to immunize anyone from federal criminal prosecution." Also true - he's speaking of prosecutorial immunity.

The Blackwater employees never got immunity from prosecution from State. I keep repeating that. Spokesman McCormack says it. DOJ says it. But you, and the Baltimore Sun, and TPM, and who knows how many other people keep repeating that the Blackwater employees were given or offered immunity from prosecution. Not true.

What the employees got was Kalkines "immunity", use immunity on their statements, that's all.

Two. Different. Kinds. Of. Immunity.

I can understand, sort of, how the MSM gets caught up in a frenzy, they just blindly repeat whatever AP or Reuters puts out. You're smarter than that.

To repeat:

State never gave the employees any immunity from prosecution.

State did give the employees Kalkines immunity covering only the use of their statements - that's all.

Yet, still, Lambert repeats the false construct:

"If the immunity was genuinely granted as a way of nailing the higher-ups..."

but, no such event occured, at least so far as has been reported with any authority. Only the rumor mill has made any claim for prosecutorial immunity - it never happened.

Two. Different. Kinds. Of. Immunity.

I'd try nuance but this issue is too simple to allow for it.

Oh, and please, stop with the "dodge" accusations. There's no dodge going on from me.

If this still isn't clear, come back again and I'll try again.

please delete