Plame lawsuit dismissed
POSTED BY: BarnStormer
UPDATED: Friday, July 20, 2007 21:07
VIEWED: 2281
PAGE 1 of 2
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QFR71G1&show_article=1
Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.
BarnStormer
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/19/AR2007
071901395.html?hpid=topnews
"U.S. District Judge John D. Bates dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds and said he would not express an opinion on the constitutional arguments. "
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There are two kinds of dismissals: on matters of fact and matters of law. This was a matter of law.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Damn
Your right. The Brietbart article only mentioned it was dismissed, not the reason.
I guess I just assumed it was'nt procedural, and the judge just did the right thing.
Sheesh
Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.
BarnStormer
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
"The alleged means by which defendants chose to rebut Mr. Wilson's comments and attack his credibility may have been highly unsavory, " Bates wrote. "But there can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism, such as that levied by Mr. Wilson against the Bush administration's handling of prewar foreign intelligence, by speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level Executive Branch officials."
ok, but then there's this...
Quote:
From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
[Laws in effect as of January 6, 1997]
[Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between
January 6, 1997 and November 30, 1998]
[CITE: 50USC421]
TITLE 50--WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE
CHAPTER 15--NATIONAL SECURITY
SUBCHAPTER IV--PROTECTION OF CERTAIN NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION
Sec. 421. Protection of identities of certain United States
undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources
(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to classified information that identifies covert agent
Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified
information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
can you say 'whitewash'... i knew that you could
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Judge Dismisses Plame Lawsuit
By Carol Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 19, 2007; 3:30 PM
A federal judge today dismissed a lawsuit filed by former CIA officer Valerie Plame and her husband against Vice President Cheney and top administration officials over the disclosure of Plame's name and covert status to the media.
U.S. District Judge John D. Bates said that Cheney and White House aides cannot be held liable for the disclosure of information about Plame in the summer of 2003 while they were trying to rebut criticism of the administration's war efforts levied by her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. The judge said such efforts were certainly part of the officials' scope of normal duties.
"The alleged tortious conduct, namely the disclosure of Mrs. Wilson's status as a covert operative, was incidental to the kind of conduct that defendants were employed to perform," Bates wrote in an opinion released this afternoon.
Bates also ruled that the court lacked the power to award damages for public disclosure of private information about Plame. The judge said that was because Plame and Wilson had failed to exhaust other remedies in seeking compensation from appropriate federal agencies for the alleged privacy violations.
The Wilsons' lawsuit claimed that Cheney, his chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, senior White House adviser Karl Rove and former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage violated the couple's privacy and constitutional rights by participating in discussions that led to Plame's identity being publicly revealed. They claimed the leaks to reporters were an effort to retaliate against Wilson.
Plame's identity was disclosed in a syndicated column in July 2003, days after Wilson publicly accused the Bush administration of twisting intelligence Wilson gathered on a mission for the CIA. He said the White House sought to exaggerate Iraq's nuclear threat and justify an invasion.
Libby was convicted in March of lying to a grand jury and FBI agents investigating the leak, and was sentenced in June to 2 1/2 years in prison. President Bush commuted his sentence earlier this month, eliminating the prison time.
So if I read this right, the case has been dissmissed because they have no case against the administration.
So yes, the Judge did rule correctly.
The judge also states that he did not have the jurisdiction to award damages for the disclosure of Plames personal information (not outing her, just personal information). And that only because they have to many other avenues they could go thru.
So, all that "assasinate Rove, Bush, Cheney, then mutilate them and send them to prison for hanging" crap was just more.....Well, Crap.
I'm glad this has finally been cleared up.
Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.
BarnStormer
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
For all you dupes who were siding with Plame and Wilson for their attempted coup of the Bush/Cheney administration......
Justice wins out - ALWAYS.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If so, you and yours better take out lynching insurance.
Just sayin 
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
If so, you and yours better take out lynching insurance.
Just sayin
-F
If there's any of that, I'll be on the givin' side, not the gettin' side.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
