The U.S. State Department has confirmed it has granted some immunity to Blackwater USA and its soldiers concerning killing seventeen Iraqi civilians in Baghdad in September 2007. Nothing in the employees' written statements (including any statements of culpability or guilt) given to the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security may be used against them in a court of law. It is the same thing as granting immunity to obvious criminals to testify before the U.S. Senate. If they change their statements, those written statements given to the Bureau of Diplomatic Security even if those statements are clear admissions of guilt, may not be used against them. They can't be used to impeach their testimony.
Our reading of the mundane law is that the U.S. State Department has no such authority or power. The President of the United States doesn't have that authority under these international circumstances. He may coerce people into lying claiming he does have it, but that doesn't alter the fact that he doesn't have it. By whose authority does the U.S. State Department grant legal immunity to so-called private corporate contractors? By whose authority does the President of the United States claim such power? Even if the U.S. Supreme Court were to uphold that power in this case, it still would not make it right or ultimately legal. The court would be simply acting as the instrument of illegality, much as Nazi courts did under Hitler.
The U.S. is signatory to international obligations constitutionally that are the law of the land of the United States. The international law trumps any authority to shield people from applicable international laws. In other words, a nation cannot agree to international laws regarding conduct in fighting zones and then write internal laws to nullify those international obligations without rendering the nation a rogue state. Those laws require that everyone on the planet remain subject to law and that no nation or department of any signatory nation may abrogate those laws. To do so is to invite sanctions and attacks. It also renders one's word worthless since those laws are designed to protect the innocent from the aggressive.
What the President of the United States and the State Department are saying is that even if Blackwater USA employees acting within Blackwater USA policies and procedures started the so-called fight and wrote that down in official statements, the President will back Blackwater USA and work to shield them from due process of the victims and their families and nation, etc., even where the employees turn around and lie.
The Real Liberal Christian Church finds the entire system corrupt; however, it is due to the hardness of hearts that protections of civilians were found to be necessary in the first place. Now, the Bush administration has said it will shield Blackwater USA concerning first written statements even before the outcome of any investigation into what instigated the hail of bullets from Blackwater USA directed toward so many unarmed women, children, and elders, etc.
The problem here is raw power and a weak human spirit. The U.S. calls the shots, because it is the biggest bully on the planet right now. It can and does shield Israel, for example, while Israel picks on and torments tiny Gaza, the problems of which Israel has caused by its earlier and continuing terrorist activities for transfer or worse for Empire. The U.S. can bully little Cuba that would not be any problem for the U.S. whatsoever if the U.S. would simply let up. In fact, Cuba and the Cuban people would be excellent friends if the U.S. would simply treat them humanely. That pretty much goes for the entire planet.
Nations are only nasty, because other nations are nasty. There has never been a beneficent Empire. All so-called Pax has been false.
All the nastiness needs to die down and die forever, which it will eventually, even if it means all human souls become extinct on this plane of existence.
Technically, the most correct mundane case would consist of the World versus Blackwater USA and each individual involved.
Also, there is nothing inconsistent about an international law that says you can't kill civilians and the U.S. Constitution, as unrighteous as it is. The spirit of the U.S. Constitution (even though it is hypocritical in letter) is to take the people in the direction of greater individual protection and liberty at the same time. The spirit of the United Nations and other international organizations is supposed to be about that same thing. The only way to achieve that objective is via everyone agreeing not to abide by the letter of the fatally flawed U.S. Constitution or by looking for loopholes and ambiguities in international law but rather to abide by the New Commandment that is not hypocritical and is even real life itself.
The truth is that Blackwater USA has no business existing. It's evil at heart. There is no doubt about it.
Comprehending all of this, filling in between the lines, can seem daunting to the uninitiated. Keep asking, seeking, and knocking. If you don't give up, it will come to you more and more.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)