State Department Complicit In Blackwater Lawlessness

Blue Girl has previously supplied an excellent synopsis of the emerging roiling scandal surrounding the State Department's grant of immunity to the Blackwater contractors involved in the Nissour Square massacre. Deb-TUD has written about the contorted use of Garrity immunity agreements in the circumstances surrounding independent contractor incidents. The Supreme Court in Garrity v. New Jersey did not envision situations involving non-agency personnel, and the immunity agreement derived from that decision never anticipated application to such situations either.

Now comes the latest news courtesy of the LA Times, via the AP. It turns out that the state Department has blithely been handing out immunity to all Blackwater mercenaries involved in shooting incidents all along.

Limited immunity has been routinely offered to private security contractors involved in shootings in Iraq, State Department officials said Tuesday, denying such actions jeopardized criminal prosecution of Blackwater USA guards accused of killing 17 Iraqi civilians.
....

The shooting investigation was initiated by the Bureau of Diplomatic Security hours after the attack. The inquiry was turned over to the FBI in early October after Justice Department prosecutors realized that the Blackwater bodyguards' statements could not be used in court.

A second senior State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing inquiry, said the agency has for years required its security contractors to give written statements within hours of any so-called "use of deadly force" in Iraq.

Waivers granting a security worker limited immunity -- by barring those statements in a criminal case against the worker -- are a "routine part" of the investigations by the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, the official said.

The waiver given to Blackwater guards reads, in part: "I further understand that neither my statements nor any information or evidence gained by reason of my statements can be used against me in a criminal proceeding, except that if I knowingly and willfully provide false statements or information, I may be criminally prosecuted for that action."

It's not clear whether the waivers were ever authorized by the Justice Department, which decides whether cases are prosecuted. Blackwater spokeswoman Anne Tyrrell declined comment about whether the immunity waivers were part of the security firm's contract with the State Department. ... (emphasis added)

So, the wholesale granting of immunity to any, and apparently every, Blackwater contracted mercenary involved in a shooting incident in Iraq, no matter how egregiously criminal, is not a bug, but rather a feature of State Department protocol. The rule of law simply does not apply to the Bush Administration and their hired guns. This is the way the State Department has run their little lawless operation all along. How nice.

The State Department has intentionally and routinely done this in an attempt to do everything they could to stop, and otherwise bugger up, any potential investigation and prosecution of their precious mercenaries. While it is true that there may not have been a good chance of a successful prosecution of these cases to start with thanks to Paul Bremer's Order 17, but the State Department sure did everything they could through delay, obfuscation, removal of evidence and witnesses, and, now we find, immunization, to screw up any possibility of prosecution. The pattern of conduct by State is neither that of an entity that thought the Blackwater conduct proper, nor that thought there was no potential culpability. The conduct of State screams cover-up and insolence to the rule of law, and the rights of humanity, from start to finish.

This is an insane way to investigate shootings that are clearly often questionable homicides. Immediately grant all the immunity you can to everyone involved? As a matter of routine? Amazing. The really interesting tidbit in the story is that Blackwater refuses to confirm it is part of their contract with the State Department. The bet here is that it is in the contract between Blackwater and the State Department. The whole State Department mercenary operation appears to have been designed to be completely lawless, and Blackwater won't even let it's high priced people talk to State without an even further grant of immunity. This is a sick setup.

There's more: "State Department Complicit In Blackwater Lawlessness" >>

House Intelligence Committee To Hold Hearings Before Amending FISA. Oversight, What A Concept?

Congressman Silvestre Reyes (D-TX), Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, has announced plans for the committee to hold a series of Intelligence Committee hearings on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

The Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Mike McConnell has asked Congress to rewrite FISA to, among other things, grant retroactive immunity to individuals and companies facilitating electronic surveillance activities in support of the NSA surveillance program disclosed by President Bush in December 2005.

Reyes says that before granting immunity for any activities, it is important for the committee to review what those activities were, what was the legal basis for those activities, and what would be the impact of a grant of immunity.

The committee's hearings will begin in June and will focus on the following questions:

What surveillance activities has the President authorized under the NSA surveillance program disclosed in December 2005? What was the legal basis for these activities, and how did those activities change since the inception of the program? What activities are occurring today?

How does the current FISA system operate? Can this system be improved?

Are current legal authorities adequate for tracking terrorist communications, or are changes to the law required?

Whether current and proposed legal authorities adequately protect the Fourth Amendment rights of Americans.

In April 2006, the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed Tash Hepting, et al v. AT&T et al, Case No. C-06-0672-VRW, in the Northern District of California, alleging that for years AT&T has purposely and improperly diverted customer traffic to the NSA as a means of aiding the NSA's covert surveillance program. At the time of the filing EFF Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston said that

The evidence that we are filing supports our claim that AT&T is diverting Internet traffic into the hands of the NSA wholesale, in violation of federal wiretapping laws and the Fourth Amendment. More than just threatening individuals' privacy, AT&T's apparent choice to give the government secret, direct access to millions of ordinary Americans' Internet communications is a threat to the Constitution itself. We are asking the Court to put a stop to it now.

You can find out more about both the lawsuit and the hearings at Ars Technica's news desk. These are hearings we don't want to miss. Gee, I hope at least some of them are public.

There's more: "House Intelligence Committee To Hold Hearings Before Amending FISA. Oversight, What A Concept?" >>

Immunity for Goodling?

Could be. The House Judiciary Committee is considering it, and might be able to get the requisite 2/3 of the congress persons who hold seats on the committee to agree. It would mean that four Republicans would have to vote with the Democrats who control the Congress (and therefore the committees). Given the lack of support for the Attorney General, it is not unthinkable that four would stand up and defy the White House. (If your congressperson is on the committee, avail yourself of the contact information we provide in the sidebar and drop him or her a line.)

They know, and so does the White House that in 2008 we are selecting a different president no matter what. But every single congressperson is up for re-election every two years. They virtually never stop running for office. And for the first time in any of their careers Americans suddenly seem to be paying attention to absolutely everything. In this climate of heightened awareness among the electorate, the Republicans on the committee might be a bit reluctant to be seen as carrying water for this feckless president and his mendacious minions.

Americans are more than a little bit put off about the fact that an innocent woman spent four months in prison for doing her job in a Democratic administration. (We like to think of political prisoners as a big part of the reason we engaged in that 50-year ideological struggle with the USSR. Remember? I for one didn’t show up for duty during the Cold War just to pave the way for a worse brand of authoritarianism to take over at home. Just sayin.’)

Monica Goodling threw a change-up that had the White House swinging wildly when she announced preemptively that she would be “taking the Fifth” when testifying before Congress (she at one point indicated she wouldn’t even appear. That contemptuous talk was stifled quickly).

Conyers cited Goodling's dual role as Gonzales's aide and the Justice Department's liaison to the White House for the unusual immunity offer, saying she could "clear up the many inconsistencies and gaps surrounding this matter."

"Ms. Goodling clearly has much to contribute to the committee's understanding of the surrounding circumstances," Conyers said.

If the Committee grants immunity to Goodling, the only way the Justice Department could mount any objections would be if it could show objectively that an ongoing criminal investigation would be jeopardized by the arrangement. The Purge has sparked no criminal probes, but the department's inspector general and Office of Professional Responsibility are exercising caution and conducting reviews to determine if any policies were violated.

Immunity would compel Goodling to answer questions in exchange for the promise that she would not face criminal prosecution based on evidence obtained by her testimony. (The Fifth guarantees a protection against self-incrimination).

The White House is anxious about any testimony she might offer – she was the liaison between Justice and Karl Rove. They do not want her to testimony under oath, and have been quite insistent about it. That they are so eager to keep her quiet is reason enough to grant her immunity and compel her testimony. And if she still balks, let her sit in a cell on contempt charges for a couple of days. I have a feeling a few days shock time would loosen her tongue right up.

[Cross posted to Blue Girl, Red State]

There's more: "Immunity for Goodling?" >>