I understand that Blackwater is a security company.
I understand that Blackwater security personnel were involved in something that resulted in the death of Iraqi civilians.
I understand that the U.S. is investigating.
I understand that the Iraqi's claim that Blackwater fired without provocation and have yet to find witnesses to say otherwise.
What I want to know is why the U.S. government gave the Blackwater employees involved in the episode immunity. I've read a little about it, but couldn't make much sense of why these individuals were given immunity when they were under investigation for the wholesale slaughter of civilians.
Can someone please explain it to me?
2007-10-29 12:31:59 · 7 answers · asked by Cinnibuns 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Star Chamber.
2007-10-29 13:34:38 · answer #1 · answered by Duncan w ™ ® 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
From my limited knowledge of the event, Blackwater was Contracted by the Iraq government not the US government.
Their position did not allow the Iraq Government bring them up on charges or bring them to trial.
I do not know if they did something wrong, or if the opposition removed the weapons to make dead look Innocent.
The US government may not have the legal right to bring them to trail.
But if Iraq is demanding their removal or placement under US control, it is best to eliminate any bad blood, or legal matters to prevent headaches before the transfer happens.
The immunity blanket, eliminates the political football, Bush's opposition might want to deploy.
This would allow Blackwater to be used with out, the constant threat of endless investigations.
2007-10-29 13:13:23 · answer #2 · answered by tom 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Corruption. We don't need Blackwater, Inc. to do things the army used to do for less money.
The idea is that we don't want our troops, government employees, or favored corporations to be hauled before a foreign Court and subject to their laws.
There have been Blackwater employees that have committed murder, they get fired for that infraction and sent home.
Blackwater is subject to less law than our own troops. Imagine how people of the occuppied country feel about foreigners going wild in their country and above their law.
2007-10-29 13:02:09 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I doubt anyone can explain it because it makes no sense unless some sort of corruption was involved.
2007-10-29 12:37:04 · answer #4 · answered by Edge Caliber 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
They were protecting diplomats. I guess that is their logic. Shoot first, claim diplomatic immunity later.
2007-10-29 16:47:22 · answer #5 · answered by Gaia 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Stinks.
2007-10-29 12:41:15 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Our President at his finest........
2007-10-29 12:51:12 · answer #7 · answered by sirbobby98121 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋