Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Just the Boston Hearld? Was it given the exact same of coverage as when they were first charged? The same level, attention to detail, complete with a left wing talking head, lips curled over bared teeth as he talked about the evils of any corporation?If that is directed at Me, I don't see how you came to that conclusion. I am not defending anyone. A ruling was made. I'm just wondering if the American people will be informed of this by our crack media industry.you're worried about the reputation of THESE people?
How nice...
Kind of like a newspaper accusing someone of child molestation in 40 point type, above the fold on the front page. But then printing a two line retraction on page 36 of the entertainment guide when it is proven that they were not child molesters.
It was directed at you. And apparently people DO know since the person who posted the O/P and the rest of us here don't exactly have access to confidential information in that regard.
And I'm pretty sure the Boston Herald is part of the "MSM"
Just the Boston Hearld? Was it given the exact same of coverage as when they were first charged? The same level, attention to detail, complete with a left wing talking head, lips curled over bared teeth as he talked about the evils of any corporation?If that is directed at Me, I don't see how you came to that conclusion. I am not defending anyone. A ruling was made. I'm just wondering if the American people will be informed of this by our crack media industry.
Kind of like a newspaper accusing someone of child molestation in 40 point type, above the fold on the front page. But then printing a two line retraction on page 36 of the entertainment guide when it is proven that they were not child molesters.
It was directed at you. And apparently people DO know since the person who posted the O/P and the rest of us here don't exactly have access to confidential information in that regard.
And I'm pretty sure the Boston Herald is part of the "MSM"
As an agnostic I doubt justice will be done. But, if there is a just God, and therefore a devil, those who murder innocents overtly or covertly will burn in hell.
U.S. District Judge Ricardo Urbina said Thursday the Justice Department overstepped its bounds and wrongly used evidence it was not allowed to see. He said the governments explanations have been contradictory, unbelievable and not credible.
Now shut the fuck up.
what an elegant turn of phrase.
No matter how large you write the words, these animals should have been tried.
you're all for using evidence obtained by torture... but what evidence did you object to here? there's no 5th amendment as pertains to one's employer... there is only a 5th amendment privilege with regard to government.
and why you'd have an interest in seeing criminals not be tried is beyond me....
Well, I don't have to deal the with the 5th where I'm from. In saying that I've never understood the purpose of it myself - think it is unnecessary...
do you actually know what the 5th amendment says?
Obviously not, claiming he finds no need for a protection from self incrimination is pretty telling. But don't forget he is one of those idiots that is not a free man but a subject beholding to what ever Government happens to be in place.
You must be so proud of your terrorist heroes' feats in that pic.No matter. If the atrocities continue, and I've little doubt that they will, the people of Iraq will pick up the slack left by the capricious American justice system and take care of the Blackwater problem themselves. They have made it quite clear that mercenaries are not welcome; I feel inclined to share their sentiment, especially in light of the murders that were recently excused.
I guess you missed this part. Or is it that "justice" here didn't fit your personal predetermined guilty verdict. Uuuummm..............
No, I missed the part in the article where he gave examples of said "contradictory, unbelievable and not credible" explanations from the govt....
Oh? How about the part where the Government tried to use information obtained after granting immunity?
oh, that pesky constitution. seems to me the govt fucked up from jump street and the wise old latino judge did the right thing in the fullness of his experience.
of course, if you don't believe in 5th amendment rights, you may feel differently.
Well, I don't have to deal the with the 5th where I'm from. In saying that I've never understood the purpose of it myself - think it is unnecessary...
do you actually know what the 5th amendment says?
Well, I don't have to deal the with the 5th where I'm from. In saying that I've never understood the purpose of it myself - think it is unnecessary...
do you actually know what the 5th amendment says?
Obviously not, claiming he finds no need for a protection from self incrimination is pretty telling. But don't forget he is one of those idiots that is not a free man but a subject beholding to what ever Government happens to be in place.
Then read about it.No, I missed the part in the article where he gave examples of said "contradictory, unbelievable and not credible" explanations from the govt....
Oh? How about the part where the Government tried to use information obtained after granting immunity?
That was not in the article in the OP.....
Immunity Jeopardizes Iraq Probe
Guards' Statements Cannot Be Used in Blackwater Case
By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Potential prosecution of Blackwater guards allegedly involved in the shooting deaths of 17 Iraqi civilians last month may have been compromised because the guards received immunity for statements they made to State Department officials investigating the incident, federal law enforcement officials said yesterday.
FBI agents called in to take over the State Department's investigation two weeks after the Sept. 16 shootings cannot use any information gleaned during questioning of the guards by the department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security, which is charged with supervising security contractors.
....
No matter. If the atrocities continue, and I've little doubt that they will, the people of Iraq will pick up the slack left by the capricious American justice system and take care of the Blackwater problem themselves. They have made it quite clear that mercenaries are not welcome; I feel inclined to share their sentiment, especially in light of the murders that were recently excused.
I am soooooo glad that we actually have a Bill of Rights. Few of us think the concept of presumed innocent until proven guilty is silly. God bless the USA...pretty exceptional.Well, I don't have to deal the with the 5th where I'm from. In saying that I've never understood the purpose of it myself - think it is unnecessary...
do you actually know what the 5th amendment says?
Verbatim? Nope, not without looking it up. But I do believe it says you have the right not to say anything that might incriminate you in a court of law...sounds like a silly thing to put in the constitution IMO...
Technically it was a private deal with Bush and Blackwater that said they could not be prosecuted in any jurisdiction for anything. It was an illegal act and should not be binding. Illegal contracts are not enforceable. The judge IS wrong, period.
This is the same agreements Nation's sign with respect to the treatment of our soldiers who, on ocasion, commit murder. They are tried in the US by military tribunals. If there is a consensus that Xe employees should be tried by the military then so should terrorists. If not....looks like technicalities are REALITIES that we have to accept.
and there was no "private deal".....quit making shit up.
YOU quit making shit up. I have the Scahill book. Maybe you should read it.
I am soooooo glad that we actually have a Bill of Rights. Few of us think the concept of presumed innocent until proven guilty is silly. God bless the USA...pretty exceptional.
Your attitude is EXACTLY the reason for the 5th. Presumed innocent.I am soooooo glad that we actually have a Bill of Rights. Few of us think the concept of presumed innocent until proven guilty is silly. God bless the USA...pretty exceptional.
It's part of our system down here too. You have to prove a charge beyond a reasonable doubt.
As for the fifth...let's see, a guy gets asked a question in front of a Grand Jury and takes the fifth. I've gone from not knowing whether the guy is in some way guilty, to definitely thinking they are guilty of at least something, why take the fifth otherwise. ....
Let me in on the irony..... The irony being, I'm sure it was put in to make ineligible statements made under duress...when taking into consideration this thread...
I am soooooo glad that we actually have a Bill of Rights. Few of us think the concept of presumed innocent until proven guilty is silly. God bless the USA...pretty exceptional.
It's part of our system down here too. You have to prove a charge beyond a reasonable doubt.
As for the fifth...let's see, a guy gets asked a question in front of a Grand Jury and takes the fifth. I've gone from not knowing whether the guy is in some way guilty, to definitely thinking they are guilty of at least something, why take the fifth otherwise.
The irony being, I'm sure it was put in to make ineligible statements made under duress...when taking into consideration this thread...
Your attitude is EXACTLY the reason for the 5th. Presumed innocent.I am soooooo glad that we actually have a Bill of Rights. Few of us think the concept of presumed innocent until proven guilty is silly. God bless the USA...pretty exceptional.
It's part of our system down here too. You have to prove a charge beyond a reasonable doubt.
As for the fifth...let's see, a guy gets asked a question in front of a Grand Jury and takes the fifth. I've gone from not knowing whether the guy is in some way guilty, to definitely thinking they are guilty of at least something, why take the fifth otherwise. ....
Let me in on the irony..... The irony being, I'm sure it was put in to make ineligible statements made under duress...when taking into consideration this thread...
You said it in your first sentence Dr. The prosecution MUST prove it beyond a reasonable doubt...if you incriminate yourself you just made their job easier.
No, I missed the part in the article where he gave examples of said "contradictory, unbelievable and not credible" explanations from the govt....
Oh? How about the part where the Government tried to use information obtained after granting immunity?
That was not in the article in the OP.....
