Blackwater Cleared in Baghdad Shooting
Lindy Chamberlain-Creighton speaks to the media as her ex-husband, Michael Chamberlain, right, listens outside a coroner's court in Darwin, Australia, Tuesday, June 12, 2012. / AP Photo/AAP, Patrina Malone
A federal judge dismissed all charges Thursday against five Blackwater Worldwide security guards accused of killing unarmed Iraqi civilians on a crowded Baghdad street in 2007.
U.S. District Judge Ricardo Urbina said Justice Department prosecutors improperly built their case on sworn statements that had been given under a promise of immunity. Urbina said the government's explanations were "contradictory, unbelievable and lacking in credibility."
The decision throws out a case steeped in international politics. The September 2007 shooting in busy Nisoor Square left 17 Iraqis dead and inflamed anti-American sentiment abroad. The Iraqi government wanted the guards to face trial in Iraq and officials there said they would closely watch how the U.S. judicial system handled the case.
"We're obviously disappointed by the decision," Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said in an e-mail. "We're still in the process of reviewing the opinion and considering our options."
Blackwater contractors had been hired to guard U.S. diplomats in Iraq. The shooting led to the unraveling of the N North Carolina-based company, which has since changed its management and changed its name to Xe Services.
Urbina's ruling does not say whether the shooting was proper, only that the government improperly used evidence to build the case. After the shooting, the State Department ordered the guards to explain what happened.
Investigators promised the men that their statements were to be used only for the internal inquiry and would not be introduced in a criminal case. Such limited immunity deals are common in police departments so officers involved in shootings cannot hold up internal investigations by refusing to cooperate.
The deal meant that prosecutors had to build their case without using those statements. Urbina said the Justice Department failed to do so. Prosecutors read those statements, reviewed them in the investigation and used them to get search warrants, Urbina said.
The five guards had been charged with manslaughter and weapons charges. The charges carried mandatory 30-year prison terms.
It is unclear what the ruling means for a sixth Blackwater guard who turned on his former colleagues and pleaded guilty to killing one Iraqi and wounding another.
AP U.S. District Judge Ricardo Urbina said Justice Department prosecutors improperly built their case on sworn statements that had been given under a promise of immunity. Urbina said the government's explanations were "contradictory, unbelievable and lacking in credibility."
The decision throws out a case steeped in international politics. The September 2007 shooting in busy Nisoor Square left 17 Iraqis dead and inflamed anti-American sentiment abroad. The Iraqi government wanted the guards to face trial in Iraq and officials there said they would closely watch how the U.S. judicial system handled the case.
"We're obviously disappointed by the decision," Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said in an e-mail. "We're still in the process of reviewing the opinion and considering our options."
Blackwater contractors had been hired to guard U.S. diplomats in Iraq. The shooting led to the unraveling of the N North Carolina-based company, which has since changed its management and changed its name to Xe Services.
Urbina's ruling does not say whether the shooting was proper, only that the government improperly used evidence to build the case. After the shooting, the State Department ordered the guards to explain what happened.
Investigators promised the men that their statements were to be used only for the internal inquiry and would not be introduced in a criminal case. Such limited immunity deals are common in police departments so officers involved in shootings cannot hold up internal investigations by refusing to cooperate.
The deal meant that prosecutors had to build their case without using those statements. Urbina said the Justice Department failed to do so. Prosecutors read those statements, reviewed them in the investigation and used them to get search warrants, Urbina said.
The five guards had been charged with manslaughter and weapons charges. The charges carried mandatory 30-year prison terms.
It is unclear what the ruling means for a sixth Blackwater guard who turned on his former colleagues and pleaded guilty to killing one Iraqi and wounding another.
Popular on CBSNews.com
- Officials confirm there's only 1 winning Powerball ticket
- Long Island police defend Hofstra student killing 161 Comments
- 1 winning ticket sold in Fla. on Powerball
- Allegedly random murder, "hate crime," stuns NYC
- Authorities: N.Y. college student was killed by police 56 Comments
- The War in Chicago
- Crash in small Va. town injures dozens during parade
- Powerball frenzy locks down most possible number combos
I wonder who the judge votes for, come election time.
They committed these acts for sure.
They just got away with murder.
Their own statements show it....but "not allowed in evidence"
MURDERERS
I have seen the "with/without prejudice" ruling used in CIVIL proceedings, but I don't know if it applies in federal criminal cases.
Simply: The Justice Department in 2007 was run and staffed by the same folks who committed errors in that case and it also was thrown out due to their incompetence.
2007 - This was the Bush administration Justice Department.
It is reasonable to assume that either this era of the Department was staffed with an inordinate amount of incompetent lawyers or... some very smart "team players".
I think I'll go for door #2.
---------------
For the record -- I personally consider it a travesty of justice that this case was thrown out.
But, I am wondering what the CIA has to do with this article. You do know Blackwater/Xe is a private MILITARY contractor... don't you?
Wait a minute. The reason it was thrown out is because they said they wouldn't use their statements? Them why do police in this country make deals they don't keep? Double standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
An offer of immunity by a prosecuting attorney for co-operating is a matter of record & a different critter altogether from the cop on the beat who, according to the supreme court, is allowed to lie to suspects in order to elicit information/confessions from them. Double standard? Well, not really. The prosecutor is the only one who can make an offer of immunity that is binding on his office. The police officer cannot make an offer that obligates the prosecutors' office to anything. Now, if an LEO violates your rights during an investigation (apparently being told the truth by investigating officers is not a "right" covered by the constitution) that's a camel with a different set of humps. In that situation, if the prosecutor is aware of the violation, he, as an officer of the court, is supposed to notify the court of the violation. The operative words being "aware of the violation". It seems to me that a lot of DA's around the country either have blinders on of follow their own version of "don't ask, don't tell".
Hitler gene pool for sure.