Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
AP reports that a federal judge has dismissed all of the charges against the five Blackwater guards who opened fire on civilians and killed more than a dozen people in Niskoor Square in Iraq in 2007. The dismissals were based on legal technicalities:
A federal judge has dismissed all charges against five Blackwater Worldwide security guards charged in a deadly Baghdad shooting.U.S. District Judge Ricardo Urbina said today the Justice Department overstepped its bounds and wrongly used evidence it was not allowed to see. He said the government's explanations have been contradictory, unbelievable and not credible.
Blackwater contractors were hired to guard State Department diplomats in Iraq. Prosecutors say the guards fired on unarmed civilians in a busy intersection in 2007, killing innocent people.
After the shooting, the guards gave statements to State Department investigators. Prosecutors were not allowed to use those statements in the case.
I'd like to say I'm shocked by this but I'm not. The fact is that the Bush administration went to great lengths to immunize these military contractors from legal responsibility for their actions. When they later found it politically convenient to file legal charges against some of them, it turns out to be difficult to do. Hardly surprising.
Politics
Comments
Apparently, the Government of Iraq is planning to file an appeal.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/01/201011101136634433.html
Posted by: SLC | January 1, 2010 9:26 AM
Do you think they deliberately screwed up so they could say that they tried to bring these guys to justice, but "they got off on a technicality?"
IOW, ISTM that people are more likely to blame the judge for "letting them off" than blame the prosecutors for screwing up the case.
Posted by: BaldApe | January 1, 2010 9:56 AM
AP also reported an additional deciding factor used by the Judge to dismiss the case:
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 1, 2010 10:03 AM
This really should be a national embarrassment. After reading Ed's post (and without having read the opinion, I must admit), my first reaction was that the dismissal must have been based on some garden-variety attorney-client privilege or work product claim. Not even close.
The State Department immunized these people? I'm not one to assign malicious motives lightly, but this one seems too obvious to ignore. First, immunity deals are made by prosecutors (i.e., Justice Department officials) as part of building a case. Second, when State officials struck an immunity deal, they must have known that it would kill any potential prosecution of those being immunized. For State to do this (and I'm guessing without a heads-up to, or participation by, Justice; if Justice was involved then we've moved beyond simple malice and into the realm of conspiracy) means that State was deliberately trying to subvert any possible criminal prosecution.
Even more curious is the fact that immunity is normally granted to low-level bad guys as part of a plan to go after higher ups. Yet State has certainly shown no desire to go after Blackwater (now Xi) or any of its high-ranking officers. I don't deny that there may be such a plan in the works, but I've heard nothing of it.
This is the sort of thing that decimates credibility and trust between our country and the officials and citizens of other countries. We simply do not practice what we preach and for that, we should be ashamed.
Posted by: Dan | January 1, 2010 11:16 AM
This really should be a national embarrassment.
Yes it should, but the sad part is that it is more a point of "pride in power" for the true wielders. Two fingers to anyone who sees fit to challenge us even the government of the people.
Posted by: BlindRobin | January 1, 2010 12:18 PM
Think back to 2009 if you will. Nazi death camp guards were found, rounded up, and prosecuted after over fifty years. You can be sure the Iraq people won't wait as long as the Germans to prosecute war crimes.
Posted by: Bob Calder | January 1, 2010 12:26 PM
Holder's DOJ continues to be just as incompetent as Gonzales', it appears.
Posted by: Chuck | January 1, 2010 12:27 PM
Since these individuals are apparently a threat to the Iraqi people, under the Bush Doctrine, couldn't the Iraqi government hire third party agents to do that rendition thing and kidnap these people to be tortured...er, enhanced interrogated...about their crimes...er, actions? Isn't that legal according to Bush? Or is it only when armies are involved?
Posted by: Badger3k | January 1, 2010 12:39 PM
Can the evidence from the state department interviews be used in civil suits against Blackwater and the 5 guards?
Posted by: Dr X | January 1, 2010 1:47 PM
When I first read about this mess, I could not help but to remember LTCOL Oliver North's conviction being overturned for about the same thing. It is sad that most of his fans do not remember that it was the ACLU that made it happen.
Posted by: Freedonian | January 1, 2010 1:58 PM
And why are they in a U.S. court, the event was in Iraq shouldn't they be in their courts?
Posted by: gski | January 1, 2010 3:21 PM
The families of the killed will find no justice in the US courts. Neither will scores of other people wronged by the Empire.
Posted by: Roman | January 1, 2010 3:48 PM
"Military contractors" being of course new-speak for mercenaries.
Posted by: Troy Britain | January 1, 2010 6:14 PM
There has not been a war yet in which the employment of mercenaries did not make matters worse for the civilian population.
Posted by: Roman | January 1, 2010 6:34 PM
If I recall, this was Condi Rice's State Dept that offered these guys immunity. Is the State Dept. even empowered to do that? I'd love to see someone follow through & get these bloodthirsty mercenaries what they deserve, but considering how complicit the Obama admin has been in continuing Bush C's practices, I won't be holding my breath. :(
Posted by: Artor | January 2, 2010 12:21 AM
The point is, the Iraqi people have two places to take their greviance to: the US courts (which just told them to f... off) or Al-Qaeda. Guess who will they turn to now?
Posted by: Roman | January 2, 2010 7:00 AM
Maybe the Iraqi's could hire the mercenaries at Xe, for a "rendition." They [Xe] probably knows where these temp workers are holed up. And they are experienced with WET OPs anyway. Cause obviously these are heavily armed "bad-dudes" who are heavily armed with very poor aim and an enthusiasm for collateral damage.
Posted by: rwspisak | January 2, 2010 9:51 AM