If you recall, last year Blackwater (an outfit that was contracted to handle security on behalf of the U.S. Government overseas in Iraq & elsewhere) employees were accused of engaging in inappropiate open fire in the streets of Iraq (without provocation) which resulted in the death of several innocent pedestrians.
I reported on the incident.
Post: 10/24/07
http://ijulian.blogspot.com/2007/10/blackwatertrigger-happy-security-for.html
Although the wheels of justice initially turned slowly in respect to the prosecution of the Blackwater employees responsible for the unfortunate incident, a preliminary hearing was finally placed on calendar in recent days.
However, keen observers on the sidelines - and the press in particular - are crying foul because Judge Ricardo Urbina - who is presiding over the case- has chosen to conduct the proceedings behind closed doors at the courthouse.
In defense of the decision to conduct the hearings out of the glare of the searing spotlight, Urbina has argued that an intrusive media machine (at this early stage of the probe) would negatively impact witnesses and potential jurors - and subsequently - the defendants' right to a fair trial on the legal issues ripe for adjudication.
Some assert that the Judge's actions are extreme and unjustifiable and - in sum - are in conflict with the Supreme Court's stand that courtrooms be open (and the proceedings, thus, transparent) in the absence of extraordinary circumstances which warrant closed-door sessions.
The court is seeking to determine if government prosecutors illegally citied defendant statements which were supposed to be remain confidential because they were utttered under the promise of immunity.
Although, Justices in the Supreme Court (Warren Berger, for instance) have dictated ways to minimize the effect of potentially-damaging publicity during the course of a sensational high-profile trial such as the Blackwater proceeding, lawyers appear to favor a "no access" route as a precaution to prevent any muddying of a potential jury pool.
On the other side of the gallery, lawyers stress that a fair trial can be had without the need for hearings of a questionable clandestine nature, provided the court takes extreme care and exercises proper discretion.
"The Judge has the option to close sessions that may be potentially sensitive," one argued, "with the provisio that transcripts will be released later."
Also, potential jurors may be screened, to ensure that those with fixed opinions (and a jaundiced view) are weeded out.
Blanket secrecy, to most - os not only Un-American - but flies in the face of the true pursuit of Justice.
Frankly, I am of the opinion that the decision to go "private" may be rooted in more scurrilous soil.
Because Blackwater guards were in the employ of the government, in essence, I surmise that there will be a deceitful effort behind closed doors to seek a dismissal of the charges on the grounds that the defendants were on a top secret mission and merely carrying out their assignment when the innocent victims sauntered into the fray by chance.
Unless the statements (allegedly protected by a grant of immunity) reveal a shocking disregard for procedure and/or a cavalier devil-may-care attitude about collateral damage and the casualities of war, the Blackwater defendants may end up in the clear.
Shutter the thought!
No comments:
Post a Comment