>>>>>>>>>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091231/ap_on_go_ot/us_blackwater_prosecution
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Anyone who had bet that the Blackwater gunslingers would be convicted has lost.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Slowly slowly.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>They are hundreds of thousands of those blackies, eventually someone will get charged.
>>>>>>>>>I can foresee dozens of reckless driving charges being given, sprinkled occasionally with brutally high parking tickets.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Justice is slow but ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I don't know. This was probably about as bad as anything they have done and the guys all got off scot free.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You can thank the State Department for that one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Go on....
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not disputing what you say, I just don't know what you mean.
>>>>>
>>>>>Mike, they gave the guys immunity for their testimony, then tried to use their testimony against them. Even the Podunk Police know better than that!
>>>>
>>>>If that's true then the obvious question is why did the State Department do it? The reason that occurs to me is that they didn't want to attempt a serious prosecution.
>>>
>>>From the article:
>>>
>>>The case against the five men fell apart because, after the shooting, the State Department ordered the guards to explain what happened. In exchange for those statements, the State Department promised the statements would not be used in a criminal case. Such limited immunity deals are common in police departments so officers involved in shootings cannot hold up internal investigations by refusing to cooperate.
>>>
>>>The five guards told investigators they fired their weapons, an admission that was crucial because forensic evidence could not determine who had fired.
>>>
>>>Because of the immunity deal, prosecutors had to build their case without those statements, a high legal hurdle that Urbina said the Justice Department failed to clear. Prosecutors read those statements, reviewed them in the investigation and used them to question witnesses and get search warrants, Urbina said. Key witnesses also reviewed the statements and the grand jury heard evidence that had been tainted by those statements, the judge said.
>>>
>>>The Justice Department set up a process to avoid those problems, but Urbina said lead prosecutor Ken Kohl and others "purposefully flouted the advice" of senior Justice Department officials telling them not to use the statements.
>>>
>>
>>That seems to add weight to my suggestion. Why would they 'purposefully flout the advice' . Are we supposed to believe that they were not only stupid but so stupid as to continue to be stupid after being advised of their stupidity (g) ?
>
>Isn't that the essence of stupidity? ;)

Probably about as close as you can get..... :-}