STATEMENT BY JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN DEAN BOYD

ON THE BLACKWATER INVESTIGATION

"The Justice Department and the FBI cannot discuss the facts of the Blackwater case, which is under active investigation. However, any suggestion that the Blackwater employees in question have been given immunity from federal criminal prosecution is inaccurate. The Justice Department and the FBI continue the criminal investigation of this matter knowing that this investigation involves a number of complex issues. We are unable to comment further at this time."

Late Update: A highly knowledgeable responds ...

You know you're getting bamboozled when the reassuring statement is so carefully worded.

However, any suggestion that the Blackwater employees in question have been given immunity from federal criminal prosecution is inaccurate.

The immunity the employees reportedly got is not "immunity from federal prosecution" (also known as "transactional immunity") it's what prosecutors call "use immunity" (or "use and fruits immunity"). There is a difference that is important in a court proceeding that makes the DOJ statement technically correct, but as a practical matter if the Blackwater folks got use immunity, there is virtually no chance they will be tried or convicted for any crime. If they did get that kind of immunity, then prosecutors would theoretically be able to indict, but they would then have to prove that every piece of evidence used in the prosecution was obtained completely independent of the employees' statements. Especially in DC federal courts, where the Ollie North case produced an extreme version of that doctrine, that's pretty much an impossible task -- the prosecutors would also have to show that none of their witnesses had heard what the employees said in their immunized statements.

The State Department had no authority to give the employees "immunity from federal prosecution," but it's a much thornier question whether a promise not to use statements is also beyond their authority -- or whether it's any less binding on DOJ than the usual "use immunity."

Bottom line: DOJ's statement is a very careful bamboozle. Don't be fooled.