What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
75 Comments
- physphd, on 11/01/2007, -4/+29Buried as grossly inaccurate. The title of the linked CNN article is "Officials: Blackwater guards offered limited immunity," then the article goes on to describe the extent of that immunity. So basically the exact opposite of the submitter's title and description.
- pintomp3, on 11/01/2007, -2/+24actually, they got partial immunity. whatever they say can't be used in court.
- inactive, on 11/01/2007, -1/+17I have a feeling that this is going nowhere.
- an0nymous, on 11/02/2007, -1/+13It's a dodge. Nothing's changed.
Sure you can prosecute them, but statements taken by the government cannot be used in criminal prosecution.
Good luck with that prosecution. - OBKenobi, on 11/01/2007, -6/+16Ok, now does everyone know the deal with this Blackwater ***** yet? Ok, good. Now let's make sure they don't get away with it, like CACI and Titan Corp got away with Abu Ghraib. Not to mention Rumsfeld!
- calhoun, on 10/31/2007, -1/+6I know we all love a big scandal but, please, aren't the facts more important? From the article:
====================
"the department's Diplomatic Security branch does not have the right or ability to offer blanket immunity and did not do anything that would inhibit prosecutors if charges are to be pursued.
"We want to see anyone who violated laws or broke rules held accountable," the official said. "Nothing that was done prevents anyone from being prosecuted if they broke the law.
====================== - noahhoward, on 10/31/2007, -0/+5Yeah I'm sure all of our soldiers love the guys who get paid like princes to live out some vigilante fantasy while regular troops are paid ***** to take fire.
- mikelieman, on 11/01/2007, -1/+6Yeah, that's intentional. The Administration is firing up their sock-puppets to propagandize the issue.
- AllYourBase3, on 10/31/2007, -4/+8Does this mean everyone who harped on the government the other day will be in here saying they were wrong?
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 10/31/2007, -2/+6How can terrorists captured on the battlefield who have never set foot in the United States have Constitutional rights?
- m3th0dm4n, on 11/04/2007, -0/+3US prison system compared to 3rd world country prison system?
Glorified day club. - IrishJoe, on 11/01/2007, -1/+4No, mikelieman is referring to the DIgg poster michaelnew20 who changed the title of the article from CNN's title "Officials: Blackwater guards offered limited immunity" to "Sorry Charley! Blackwater NOT Immune" and stated falsely that "No immunity deal was offered to Blackwater USA guards for their statements regarding a shootout in Iraq last month" when CNN says, "No blanket immunity deal was offered to Blackwater guards for their statements regarding a shootout in Iraq last month." The Bush Administration did NOT offer "blanket immunity" they offered "limited immunity" meaning that the shooters would not be prosecuted based on their testimony and it could not be used in court against them. They could be convicted using other evidence. Blanket immunity would have prevented them from being prosecuted at all. The Digg Poster, michaelnew20, deliberately removed the word "blanket" and changed the title of the post to mislead Digg users. This is exactly what the Bush Administration does every day. That is why mikelieman called michaelnew20 a Bush Administration sock-puppet because michaelnew20 engaged in deliberate propaganda, lying to Digg users to convince them of something that is NOT true.
- psingl8715, on 11/04/2007, -1/+4Good point to being up. They should receive a fair trial from the Iraqi court system.
If an Iraqi citizen came to the US and killed several of our citizens, would we extradite them back to Iraq to receive a trial? I doubt it.
I'm all about innocent until proven guilty; but if they are guilty, what better way to serve out a punishment than to be in a prison from a 3rd world country.
Let’s face it; the US prison system is nothing more than a glorified day club. - noahhoward, on 10/31/2007, -2/+5But but but the fundies told me the US was Evil and Blackwater would get away with it all!
- inactive, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2I remember a time when people would actually mark inaccurate stories like this as "INACCURATE". What happened to those days? Has everyone gotten lazy?
- psingl8715, on 11/01/2007, -2/+4Holding people accountable for their actions? Seems like common sense to me.
- IrishJoe, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2But the shooters got limited immunity and can't be convicted based on their testimony so they DID get off.
- weeeezzll, on 10/31/2007, -1/+3You have a keen eye my friend. It's called flim-flam. The Democrats will cry out for justice to be served, the Republicans will call them America Haters for doing so, the Democrats will rebut with some dictator comment regarding the Bush administration, the Republicans will call Democrats tree hugging hippies, then they will both vote themselves a big fat pay raises and continue more of the same.
We are being conned each and everyday by these idiots, and we are even stupider than they are for letting them get away with it. - inactive, on 10/31/2007, -3/+5Oh goody, more spinning over this non-story. I love ho the Liberal press is trying to paint a group of insurgents as "Innocent Civilians" so they can crucify the group that's taking up the slack left by congress under-funding the military.
Don't like private body guards being hired? Then give the military the money it needs to do its job. - VitriolAndAngst, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2Which really seems strange when THEY are the defendant. Usually, this is used when you want someone to net you a bigger fish.
- insomniac8400, on 10/31/2007, -2/+4How can a US court give them a trial when no crime was committed on US soil?
- VitriolAndAngst, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2The correct term should have been; "Drive by."
- ScottAG, on 10/31/2007, -2/+4Doesn't "shootout" imply that there were shots exchanged, regardless of who fired first?
- tehWyman, on 08/19/2009, -0/+1YOU'RE YOU'RE YOU'RE
- psingl8715, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1Please explain your comment. I'm assuming your talking about the 5th amendment which says " ....nor shall (an individual) be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself...."
I never said someone had to testify against themselves. I just don't like the idea of them being granted "immunity" and be allowed to kill innocent civilians without being held accountable. If they go through due process and they are found innocent, no big deal. If it turns out that they are guilty, shouldn't they be held responsible? - VitriolAndAngst, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1They've been recruiting in Chile, and some former soviet state -- places where there were fascist dictators and goons-for-hire need work.
- IrishJoe, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Yes, Blackwater does employ foreign fighters in Iraq. Erik Prince the CEO of Blackwater claimed that they could not be mercenaries because he is an American. But he's not the one shooting Iraqis. Many of Blackwater's "contractors" in Iraq are from countries other than the US but being paid to act in a military manner in a war, so by his own definition they are mercenaries. And the State Dept. gave the Blackwater shooters "limited immunity" meaning that their testimony could not be used to convict them. So the title of this post which contradicts the title of the linked article is wrong.
- MrCobaltBlue, on 10/31/2007, -2/+3But this is state sponsored terrorism.
- IrishJoe, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Exactly. And if they can't convict the Blackwater shooters who committed the crimes they can't get them to "flip" on the higher ups in the company. Very clever if immoral.
- inactive, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1They are immune until captured by a foreign state and tried as war criminals or just plain murderers, then in many instances the penalty can be death.
No statute of limitations exist in this instance and as many Nazis found, pissed off people tend to continue hunting, until they get you. - d1a1s1, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1You're missing the point. What he meant was that Blackwater will have a hell of a time getting ANY backing from the military, even if they are ordered to.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Merely immunity without the blanket, for assistance in an investigation that will white-wash the matter.
This will go on and look like something until we forget about it -- then it will be quietly dropped.
Blackwater is transitioning to getting paid outrageous amounts of money to fight the war on drugs --- what's the worst that can happen? /shudder - VitriolAndAngst, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1How lucky have they been so far?
Let's see; about a Half Trillion $ that we know of missing (Pentagon cannot account for $2 Trillion -- that announcement made on 9/10/2001 -- wow, fortuitous timing!)
Scooter Libby and Tom DeLay get slapped on the wrists and more time to spend with pay-off consulting jobs.
Brownie -- doing a heckuva job somewhere that isn't San Quentin for outsourcing the FEMA evacuation to the former head of FEMA (who contracted it to some other group to actually does this sort of thing, but like good Capitalists, they rented the buses too late to do any good for anything but their own profits).
I think the only person seeing jail is Abramoff.
>> Pretty dang lucky.
But I'm sure you meant the prosecution. - VitriolAndAngst, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Blackwater didn't get immunity?
What, did someone cancel the fascist takeover? I'd be cheering in the streets if I thought this would happen. This would be the FIRST sign of accountability in about 7 years. Seems far-fetched. - IrishJoe, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Charlie was a cartoon character (a tuna) used in Starkist Tuna commercials in the 60s and 70s. He tried to get used by Starkist to be put in a can and sold (deathwish), but he wasn't up to their standards so they always told him, "Sorry, Charlie"
- IrishJoe, on 10/31/2007, -1/+2They've given Bush every penny he's asked for. Hundreds of Billions of Dollars and instead of using it to pay our troops what they deserve, he wastes it on Republican connected mercenary companies that cost thousands of times more than our troops do. Mabye they should start withholding the money from Bush so he can't feed it to GOP connected companies doing what our troops should be doing.
- IrishJoe, on 11/01/2007, -2/+3This sucks for all Americans in that a politically well connected company was able to commit crimes and their employees received "limited immunity" preventing them from being convicted using their own testimony. We all lose because the rule of law is circumvented and the Iraqis believe Americans to be lawless criminals. Our troops will suffer the most by being blamed by the Iraqis for the actions of members of the Bush Administration to protect a Republican linked company. The Bush Administration doesn't care that our troops will receive retaliation from the Iraqi people over their political act.
- coutch, on 11/01/2007, -1/+2Hello
- Wake up sheeple - Blackwater "soldiers" were given "use immunity" which means that for all intent and purpose, then can never convicted in a court of law here as any and all information use against them has to be proven to be gotten without any help or knowledge of the secret testomny they gave to the state department investigators.
/ The gov;t once again "pulls the wool over the sheeple's eyes" and no one cares as long as Halo 3 dosen't crash...
// Duh... - Frei, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Because only blackwater fired shots according to the US military/Iraqi investigation.
- john2kx, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1it sort of rhymes... either that, or some Asians are going to be disappointed.
- weeeezzll, on 11/02/2007, -1/+2Yes, I believe "shootout" implies two opposing sides firing at each other. Why do you ask?
- 16x9, on 11/01/2007, -1/+1Sadly, it seems that it WAS necessary as you're being marked down. :(
Then again, perhaps you're being marked down by the same nimrods who think we found WMD in Iraq and that Saddam attacked the U.S. on 9/11. And if that's the case, I'd consider being modded down as as a point in your favor! ;) - saigumi, on 11/01/2007, -1/+1Not having to incriminate yourself? Sounds like an amendment.
- aaronlinderman, on 11/01/2007, -0/+0I think the question was whether Blackwater is hired *by* foreign governments, not whether it hires foreign personnel. I don't know. Anyone?
- lxdengar, on 11/01/2007, -1/+1buried as inaccurate. Use immunity was offered.
- aaronlinderman, on 11/01/2007, -0/+0If a crime was really committed, there should be enough evidence to go around, even without the statements already given. As the media reports it, every Tom, Dick and Harry in Iraq knows Blackwater has been misbehaving. If that's really the truth, they'll have no trouble getting a conviction. On the other hand, the US judicial system, imperfect as it is, doesn't seem to play fast and loose with the facts the way much of the media does. I suspect the account we hear my change considerably if any trial is ever actually brought.
- sp1keNARF, on 10/31/2007, -1/+1why are we always a day behind reddit on this *****?
- Truzseeker, on 10/31/2007, -1/+1Linch um just like CIA op and former Bush business partner Saddam.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 10/31/2007, -1/+1The Government is using propaganda to make it seem like there was no deal. So how were the critiques wrong?
- aaronlinderman, on 11/01/2007, -0/+0No, I'm not sure everyone does know what happened. In fact, I'm not sure *anyone* knows. Because what we've got going on is a very bitter partisan debate about the Iraq war generally and how America views itself and its role in the world, all masquerading as an argument about Blackwater. I get the impression that very little said about Blackwater is actually motivated by a desire for truth. I'd like to know what actually happened at Nisoor Square, but all the partisan squabblers keep getting in the way...
-
Show 51 - 75 of 75 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is