No immunity deal was offered to Blackwater USA guards for their statements regarding a shootout in Iraq last month that left 17 Iraqi civilians dead, a senior State Department official told CNN Tuesday.

The senior State Department official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of a lack of authorization to speak on the matter, said the department's Diplomatic Security branch does not have the right or ability to offer any kind of immunity and did not do anything that would inhibit prosecutors if charges are to be pursued. Monday, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said whatever arrangements were made were not sanctioned by the senior management of the State Department. Another spokesman said the working level Diplomatic Security officials in Iraq followed the procedures they had to follow and their actions would need to have been cleared by Washington. The spokesman added that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is not informed of every detail of every action taken. The decision on whether to prosecute the guards involved in the shooting is in the hands of the Justice Department now because the FBI has taken over the investigation.

So, to recap: the people who offered Blackwater immunity didn't have the authority to do so, Condi Rice does not know what her people in Iraq are doing, and the most corrupt DoJ in the history of the United States gets to decide how if Blackwater will be prosecuted.

UPDATE: CNN has updated the original article to state the following:

However, some kind of limited immunity was apparently offered by State Department investigators when they questioned the Blackwater personnel apparently involved in the shootings, the officials said. CNN previously reported the guards were promised their statements would not be used against them in a criminal prosecution as long as the statements were true.

...

Monday, the officials speaking on the matter said that even if some kind of limited immunity deal were made, it would not mean that charges would never be brought against those involved in the shooting.

(hattip to PatsBard)

UPDATE 2: Lots of interesting thoughts in the comments on how this could play out in court. Two comments in particular stood out as potential precedents employed by Blackwater attorneys:

Second Lieutenant Christopher M. Cooke, a missile launch officer, was charged with passing classified information to the Soviets over a six-month period from 1980-81. The prosecution was based in part on information he provided after being promised immunity. As it happened, the official who promised Cooke immunity was not authorized by law to grant him that protection; but the appellate courts nonetheless enforced the "deal" and Cooke walked. I would be very surprised if -- assuming there was actually a promise of immunity, and the Blackwater employees relied on it when providing information -- a conviction could stand. by Califlander on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 01:32:11 PM EDT

... Ollie North was convicted of multiple felonies, but they were overturned on questions of admissibility of evidence. North's congressional testimony was immunized. The prosecutor created a strong case based on the testimony of other witnesses, but during the appeal, all the witnesses started claiming that they couldn't be certain that their testimony wasn't influenced by the publicity about North's testimony. The Blackwater people will now claim that they thought they had immunity, so using anything they said would violate the 5th amendment, since they were tricked into testifying against themselves. They'll say the same about every lead that might have depended on the original testimony. The Justice Department now says it will do a new investigation, but perhaps they will "accidentally" mess up and somehow taint the case by "accidentally" relying on the original "immunized" testimony. So sorry, they will say. We did our best, but it seems that the Blackwater people are now legally untouchable because we made some "mistakes". by Joe Buck on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 01:14:19 PM EDT

(Cross-posted from CrazyDrumGuy)