by Frank James
A quick guided tour of some of the morning's most important or interesting, or both, Washington-related stories.
Wall Street is expecting the Federal Reserve Board to further cut the federal funds rate, the amount banks charge each other for overnight loans, by a quarter point at the board's meeting this week.
State Department investigators apparently exceeded their authority by offering limited immunity to Blackwater USA guards who were interviewed as part of the agency's probe into the shooting deaths of 17 Iraqi civilians by private security guards working as hired guns in Baghdad for the department.
Foreign fighters in Afghanistan are a growing problem for coalition forces in Afghanistan with the foreigners being more violent and extremist than the Taliban.
In a stance consistent with the Bush Administration's deregulatory approach, the top official of the Consumer Product Safety Commission opposes legislation that would greatly increase the penalties on companies who make unsafe products and which would increase the agency's budget.
The recall of Medtronic's malfunctioning Sprint Fidelis defibrillators placed the spotlight on the gaps in the federally mandated testing regime which medical devices undergo which is significantly less rigorous than what pharmaceuticals go through.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is trying in a nuanced way to put distance between herself and the tax plan introduced by House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel, which would lower taxes on lower and middle-income families while increasing them on the wealthiest Americans, demonstrating her concern over Republican steps to frame the plan as the largest tax increase ever.
Rep. John Murtha has used congressional earmarks to buoy the economic fortunes of Johnstown, Pa., his hometown which has been hard hit by floods and the waning of the local steel industry, including getting taxpayer money directed to a defense-industry company there despite the poor grades the company received from the Pentagon.
The Pentagon said it will correct information on enemy sniper attacks contained in a $1.4 billion increased funding request in which it ask Congress for the additional money because such attacks had quadrupled in the past year when in reality the number of attacks has fallen.
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
The State Department has shown once again the utter contempt that the United States Government has for the value of the lives of Iraqi civilians.
Blackwater thugs murder 17 Iraqi civilians without provocation and the State Department grants them immunity for the testimony in the investigation. This will make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for any of these murderers to be tried for this heinous crime.
These State Department officials knew exactly what they were doing when they granted the immunity. They got the message out to all of their mercenaries: "Shoot all the Iraqi civilians you want, we've got your back."
Utterly disgusting.
Posted by: AJF | October 30, 2007 9:18 AM
AJF, why is their an investigation at all? You have already played judge and jury and convicted them of murder without provocation. I'm sure you gave Blackwater a fair hearing. Please tell me what Blackwater's defenses were and the evidence they presented, and further, why you did not find it credible. I am confident you have already gone through this analysis, as only a raving idiot would call someone a murderer without proper foundation.
Posted by: Herbie H. | October 30, 2007 12:45 PM
"Please tell me what Blackwater's defenses were and the evidence they presented, and further, why you did not find it credible."
Blackwater's defense was that they were fired on first. I find that defense to be less than credible because the members of the US military that arrived on the scene immediately thereafter found no evidence that the Blackwater convoy was fired on. I trust the US military far more than I trust a bunch of for profit mercenaries.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/04/AR2007100402654.html?hpid=topnews
Herbie, your post is a prefect example of exactly why the Sate Department gave those guys immunity.
We have a case here wher there is very strong evidence of wrong doing. The State Department intervenes into the investigation in such a way as to make prosecution of the crime much more difficult. When the prosecution then fails State can say :"See no problem, no one was convicted of a crime" ignoring that they themselves stymied the case. And you go right along with it.
Tell me Herbie, why did State give ALL of them immunity for their statements? is much more typical to give a couple of people involved immunity so that you can use their testimony to convicted the others. If you want a conviction that is. I don't think that's what State wanted. They wanted a way to make sure this never got to court. so that people like you would be willing to write the whole thing off.
Posted by: AJF | October 30, 2007 1:39 PM
I'm not writing anything off, AJF. I agree with you that this incident should be investigated, and if a crime such as intentional murder were committed, that those responsible be tried for it. I don't believe that private contractors should be given blanket immunity, but that is not why I took issue with your post.
My problem with your original post is that you are stating that these people committed murder, and I seriously doubt you have all the facts. You are dismissive of Blackwater's contention, but seem to accept without question an admittedly after the fact investigation by the Army. Your basis is that you "trust" the Army more. I'm not sure that is a sufficient basis to decide questions of fact. I would hate to be on trial in a criminal matter if you were a juror, given that you are willing to decide significant issues on the basis of categories of people you "trust", as opposed to the actual evidence. In my view, the Army can write all the reports of investigation it wants, but they are not a court, and they have no authority to resolve whether or not a crime was committed. If we are going to proclaim someone a "murderer" I would at least like to see all the evidence, and give the accused the right to present a defense. This would include the right to confront and cross-examine the alleged witnesses to the occurrence, and indeed, the Army investigators and the methodology they used in concluding that they were not fired upon.
Posted by: Herbie H. | October 30, 2007 3:37 PM
[quote]
In a stance consistent with the Bush Administration's deregulatory approach, the top official of the Consumer Product Safety Commission opposes legislation that would greatly increase the penalties on companies who make unsafe products and which would increase the agency's budget.
[/quote]
Does this surprise ANYONE here?
Didn't think so!
Posted by: BC | October 30, 2007 3:38 PM
How would a trial be handled? We have rules of evidence requirements and you can bet twerps like you see on CSI didn't rush to the scene. Knowing aint proving. Ask O.J.
Posted by: whatnow | October 30, 2007 4:40 PM
Herbie H-
Are you willing to believe the military's assertion that Iran is providing IED's to Iraqi insurgents without further proof? Is that a less serious allegation than that against Blackwater? Are you waiting for the Iranians defense? Will you refuse to support attacks on Iran until that is proved in a court?
Posted by: AJF | October 30, 2007 5:31 PM
AJF, I think your questions are a little off point, but I'll answer them because I am bored.
1) Are you willing to believe the military's assertion that Iran is providing IED's to Iraqi insurgents without further proof?
No. I don't have personal knowledge of this situation, and with the intelligence failures in the lead up to Iraq, I am more than a little skeptical of our intelligence findings. If a smoking gun exists on this issue, I am not aware of it.
2) Is that a less serious allegation than that against Blackwater?
I would say it is a more serious allegation, in that it is my understanding that IEDs are one of the largest contributors to coalition casualties. Secondly, I think the prospect of a US-Iran war would go infinitely farther toward destabilizing of the region than anything Blackwater could do.
3) Are you waiting for the Iranians defense?
It is my understanding that they deny involvement, and it is not my place to decide who is telling the truth since I lack knowledge of the facts. I am inherently distrustful of the Iranian regimen, but my subjective impression of their regimen has little to do with whether they are telling the truth in this instance.
4) Will you refuse to support attacks on Iran until that is proved in a court?
False premise, as no court has legal jurisdiction over such a claim, and the parties would never willingly submit to an international body issuing a binding judgment on the matter. Games can be played in the UN, but as we have seen, both countries have shown their willingness to ignore that body, which I believe is ineffectual in dealing with international confrontations. Be that as it may, I would have to see some pretty convincing evidence to throw my support behind an attack on Iran.
I think what you are trying to do is make me feel hypocritical in not condemning Blackwater, based on the false assumption that I believe all of the allegations against Iran. As you can see, I have a healthy skepticism regarding the allegations against Iran; a skepticism toward allegations you appear to completely lack in a situation you claim to be analogous; that involving Blackwater. Even if your pont was valid that I was accepting allegations as fact with the situation in Iran, that would merely put me in the same boat as you, and would in no way excuse or justify your judgment that Blackwater agents are "murderers".
Posted by: Herbie H. | October 30, 2007 6:56 PM
You're right Herbie. I'm sure the Blackwater contractors are all a bunch of sensative souls who press wildflowers while not on duty. I'm sure there is a massive conspiracy between Iraqi citizens, the Iraqi police, and the US military to frame them.
I deeply apologize for intimating that individuals who have chosen the "profession of peace", being a mercenary, could possibly have commited murder in a situation where 17 civilians (ohh I guess I should say alleged civilians. It hasn't been proven in a court that they weren't fighters) ended up dead with no evidence of any attack taking place.
I'm sure the State Department was wholly justified in giving all of these saintly men immunity for their testimony, and thereby greatly diminishing the possibility that any court proceeding would ensue.
I look forward to working with you to proclaiming their innocence throught the land, along with proclaiming the innocence and goodness of all the detainees held at Gitmo who haven't been tried in a court either.
There. Feel Better? You have succesfully diverted attention from the point of my post, the shameful granting of immunity, by drawing attention to a bit of over the top prose. Mission Accomplished! I'm sure your Republican buddies are proud. The citizens of Iraq weep.
Posted by: AJF | October 30, 2007 8:10 PM