Skip to comments.U.S. court reinstates Blackwater Iraq shooting case
Posted on 04/22/2011 3:11:57 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
(Reuters) - A U.S. federal judge erred in dismissing all charges against five Blackwater Worldwide security guards accused of killing 14 Iraqi civilians in 2007, an appeals court ruled on Friday.
The unanimous three-judge panel reinstated the charges and sent the case back to the judge for more proceedings, handing a victory to the U.S. Justice Department in a high-profile prosecution dating to 2008.
The five guards were charged with 14 counts of manslaughter, 20 counts of attempt to commit manslaughter and one weapons violation count over a Baghdad shooting that outraged Iraqis and strained ties between the two countries.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
No, not good. Vindictive and stupid, if you ask me.
I read the article to see if there was anything more on the three judge appeals court. But—nothing. Probably another gang of liberal activists.
Sounds like an Obama political favor to me. The libs will lap it up.
Much more information can be found below, if you’re interested.
I’m no lawyer, but I’d be curious to know what kind of standing the U.S. government has to prosecute crimes committed in a foreign country by non-military personnel.
MEJA. Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000.
With the particular case, the defendants moved to dismiss the charges, but Urbina - the judge that eventually dismissed the charges on other grounds - refused to dismiss on those grounds.
As of today, I believe there have been roughly 6-people who have been either convicted or pleaded guilty to violations of MEJA.
...handing a victory to the U.S. Justice Department...
Ah, that’s an interesting case. Each one made statements on forms that said the statements could not be used against them in a criminal trial.
The trial judge said using those statements tainted all the evidence, and dismissed the charges.
The appeals court said that the judge needed instead to evaluate the evidence against each defendant individually, to see what evidence against THAT defendant was tainted by the use of HIS testimony.
For example, one defendant’s testimony could be used to charge the OTHER defendants, even though it couldn’t be used against that defendant. So if the prosecuter can argue that evidence against a defendant was based on the testimony of a different defendant, that evidence should be admitted.