Three cheers for US Marine Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich for standing up for himself, his fellow Marines and our armed forces against those who are advocating retreat.
Marine Names Murtha In Defamation Suit – Washington Post
A Marine Corps staff sergeant who led the squad accused of killing two dozen civilians in Haditha, Iraq, will file a lawsuit today in federal court in Washington claiming that Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) defamed him when the congressman made public comments about the incident earlier this year.
Attorneys for Frank D. Wuterich, 26, argue in court papers that Murtha tarnished the Marine’s reputation by telling news organizations in May that the Marine unit cracked after a roadside bomb killed one of its members and that the troops “killed innocent civilians in cold blood.” Murtha also said repeatedly that the incident was covered up.
In the court filing, obtained by The Washington Post, the lawyers say that Murtha made the comments after being briefed by Defense Department officials who “deliberately provided him with inaccurate and false information.” Neal A. Puckett and Mark S. Zaid, suing for libel and invasion of privacy, also wrote that Murtha made the comments outside of his official scope as a congressman.
Once again, the career bureaucrats are putting their policy disagreements ahead of what is best for our troops on the ground. It is time to clean house of these MadLibs at State, DOD, NSA and CIA.
Term limits for Federal Bureaucrats — long overdue!
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
Interesting…who’s the source of the block quote?
Sorry about that.. and thanks, Br!
I sourced the article now in the original posting.
Washington Post.
So elected officials are now bureaucrats? So you don’t mind your favorite elected Republican officials being subjected to term limits?
Kevin, I thought he was referencing the Defense Department officials, who may well be career bureaucrats.
Did you get a chance to see what happened later in the day? Murtha just got some back-up. Maybe those claims weren’t so fraudulent after all? None of us know until the jury is in, but this doesn’t make it look good for Wuterich.
I’m not an attorney but defamation is very difficult to prove and there are a number of defenses. Truth of course is an absolute defense. Also, I don’t think Murtha actually named any of the defendents. Finally, by nature of the high profile of this case, the marines involved essentially become public figures and according to this http://tinyurl.com/l5x3g
“people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established, on the basis that the notoriety associated with the case and the accusations against them turned them into involuntary public figures.”
I find it interesting that Bruce seems more elated about Murtha being attacked for his opinion on the war than on whether the case has any actual merit. The case is just more swiftboating IMHO.
4: In any case, it seems that some Republicans are oh-so-quick to want to fire anyone who doesn’t agree with their political ideology (another sign of fascism). By the way, I noticed the other post about the ACLU. Do we have any information on the law firm representing Wuterich? I mean, they are in this for strictly patriotic reasons, not for any financial gain, right?
#7: Mark Zaid of the prominent DC firm Krieger & Zaid filed the lawsuit. Zaid has been pretty high profile in national security issues. I’m quite sure a guy like that doesn’t come cheap so either someone with deep pockets is funding the suit or Zaid is doing it pro bono. Maybe Wuterich’s a wealthy heir 😉
I can’t believe that you guys are being fooled by this. Proof that Murtha is smarter than you all, I suppose.
You don’t see what Murtha has done? He can’t get the Republicans in Congress to investigate the matter, because the Republican committee chairmen won’t hold hearings and won’t subpoena the Defense Department or the Bush people. So what does Murtha do?
Well, the Republicans went to alot of expense and trouble in the 1990s to establish the legal precedent that the Executive Branch, INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT, is required to respond to subpoenas and submit to questioning in an ongoing civil trial (which is what the Paula Jones lawsuit was). So, this soldier sues Murtha and POOF! We have a civil trial. Now Murtha’s lawyers can get the trial court to subpoena anyone he wants. Generals. Rumsfeld. Bush. Anyone at all. And thanks to the Republican campaign against Clinton, they have to show up and testify under oath!
Murtha just beat you, fellas. He’s gonna get everything he wants out of this trial. His lawyers will get to question anyone they please, and anyone who lies is going to jail for perjury. I can’t believe you don’t see what is going to happen here.
As for the soldier, he’s obviously in on it. He doesn’t care what Murtha says. But he DOES have a vested interest in proving that he was following orders from Higher Up. And Murtha wants to prove that, too. They are BOTH going to win this lawsuit!
Well, the Republicans went to alot of expense and trouble in the 1990s to establish the legal precedent that the Executive Branch, INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT, is required to respond to subpoenas and submit to questioning in an ongoing civil trial (which is what the Paula Jones lawsuit was).
Of course — if they are one of the parties named in the lawsuit.
That’s not the case here, however.
Try again.
[Comment deleted.]
raj, let’s stay on task and focus a bit here. You have some proof to supply on a series of baseless allegations you’ve made against all manner of commentators here –Bruce is a liar, VdaK is Matt’s sockpuppet, Matt gets his news from WorldNutDaily, etc.
Time to put up, raj. No lawyerly spinning to deflect; no evasion. Be a man and step up to the plate –for once.
RajIan seems to be engaging Murtha’s in cut & run tactics too. In several recent threads it/they throw some weak/untrue/fabricated “facts” and then cut & run to a new thread when confronted with the real, fact-based responses.
I would think that a person with any integrity would not make themselves look so foolish.
RajIan Lügner, Heuchler und Krankenwagenverfolger.
Prove us wrong RajIan.
BTW, lest me disabuse you, yes, I am quite livid about this post.
So what else is new?
#7 – “In any case, it seems that some Republicans are oh-so-quick to want to fire anyone who doesn’t agree with their political ideology (another sign of fascism).”
If it were not for the RajIan antics, with an enraged RajIan flailing about wildly and not able to back up his/her/its charges, that line would be the laugh of the day for me.
Where I come from, ELECTED OFFICIALS prevailing over unelected career bureaucrats, and firing the ones who not only subvert the elected officials’ policies (or “ideology” in Leftspeak), but who downright betray (and risk the lives of) our soldiers in the field as well, is known as DEMOCRACY, and as CIVILIAN CONTROL OF GOVERNMENT, and is practiced and defended by all Presidents (i.e., of both parties and throughout our history).
Only in twisted Leftspeak is the normal and appropriate practice of American democracy “fascism”. LOL 🙂
Kevin, does this mean that you are OK with keeping Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al in office, given that they disagree with you, but that you wouldn’t want to seem like a “fascist”?
Hey Calarato, welcome back.
ND30–
Where does the Supreme Court in Jones v. Clinton say that the subpoena power of the courts in a civil trial is limited ONLY to the parties named?
In our judicial system, courts issue subpoenas to all WITNESSES… not just to the parties to the lawsuit. If Murtha’s lawyers believe that Rumsfeld has relevant testimony to give, they can ask for a subpoena for him to appear and the court will issue one. That is how the courts get witnesses, even the unwilling ones, to come in and testify. Whatever gave you the silly idea that only the parties named in the suit were involved? Do you actually have a judicial precedent for that, or did you just make it up on the spot?
16: Big difference between firing someone for cause (not doing their job) and getting rid of them because you don’t agree with their political ideology.
By the way, most beaurocrats are in non-appointed, non-partisan jobs that aren’t subject to the whims of the office in power. Nice tried-and-true tactic of bringing up false logic to try and steer away from the point
yeah, that is not a good move for the pentagon, or marine recruitment. who would ever join now that you could be put on death row for the very things your superiors ordered you to do? with this guerilla warfare there is no time to balance such madness. a deadly catch 22.
Kevin –
So if I understand you correctly, you’re saying that you agree with the political ideology of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al, it’s just that they don’t happen to be “doing their job”?
Translation: “After 2 years of service, can’t be fired for any reason other than fraudulent application, substance abuse, viewing/possession of pornography, gross absenteeism, or serious insubordination.” And then only after a draconian procedure that can take over a year. In other words, performance means nothing. The will of the electorate means nothing.
I infer that you think that this is a GOOD thing. Or maybe I’m wrong? How come you want to fire Bush et al for allegedly “not doing their job” when you don’t want to allow the same for “beurocrats”?
You forget one thing, Anonymous.
In Jones v. Clinton, Clinton was being sued for conduct that had nothing to do with the performance of his official duties as President, and indeed happened BEFORE he was President.
However, in this case, what you would be attempting to file your lawsuits and claims over relate to official acts, which the Court has found fall under executive immunity. This is designed to keep people like yourself from filing frivolous lawsuits and legal actions in an attempt to damage and impede the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.
Since you have stated that yours and Murtha’s purpose in doing such things would be to be disruptive towards the executive branch and to punish these individuals for official acts, your chances are slim to none.
Once again, though, you’ve demonstrated the hypocrisy of Democrats such as Murtha, who tried to misuse executive privilege to defend their master against his boorish behavior and philandering, but then ignore it to attack Bush for official acts.
Sorry, in the last line of my #24, I misspelled Kevin’s misspelling, it should have been “beaurocrats [sic]”.
thank god for congressman murtha, a true national hero.
ND30–
Again, you are making statements (without any supporting evidence) that directly contradict the Supreme Court’s ruling in Clinton v. Jones. Do you have any actual cases that back up your legal theories, or are you just making it up?
In the Clinton case, the Supreme Court made its position quite clear:
“[N]either the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances.
Sitting Presidents have responded to court orders to provide testimony and other information with sufficient frequency that such interactions between the Judicial and Executive Branches can scarcely be thought a novelty. … [T]he Judiciary may severely burden the Executive Branch by reviewing the legality of the President’s official conduct… .
…
We add a final comment on two matters that are discussed at length in the briefs: the risk that our decision will generate a large volume of politically motivated harassing and frivolous litigation, and the danger that national security concerns might prevent the President from explaining a legitimate need for a continuance. We are not persuaded that either of these risks is serious.”
Clearly, you have not even bothered to read the law on this issue, or you would have known that the Supreme Court had rejected your “frivilous lawsuits” argument completely. How about you leave the legal analysis to those who have actually done the research, hmm? It really isn’t an amateur sport.
The established law in this area clearly makes administration officials subject to the subpoena power of the trial court. Looks like Murtha is going to get the generals and Rumsfeld to testify about these matters under oath, after all…
Interestingly, the lawsuit fails to also name a Republican Congressman, John Kline who made statements about Haditha similar to those made by Murtha. The lawyer filing the suit also has declined to identify those backing the suit financially which also means he’s not doing it pro bono or he would have said so. Supposedly, the lawyer, Mark Zaid, made a commitment on the Alan Colmes show to add other Congressmen who made Haditha statements to the lawsuit. Whether or not he follows through with that will pretty much establish whether this is a legitimate suit or merely more swift-boating of Murtha. I strongly suspect the latter.
#26 Ian — August 4, 2006 @ 11:11 am – August 4, 2006
Cite to source.
Good thing you waited 12 minutes to post that, Raj.
Isn’t it interesting that RajIan cites Glen Greenwald, master sockpuppeteer. Is Glen your role model RajIan?
Ich brauche einen neuen Kunden. Macht Ihres sieht einen Krankenwagen?
#27: Thanks rj, I usually give a cite but slipped up in this case. Not that many here will appreciate Glenn’s exceptional insight in these matters. But Kline’s quotes pretty much speak for themselves. I think, through Glenn’s prodding, Zaid has painted himself and the suit’s financial backers into a corner. It will be interesting to see how they try to wriggle out of it.
A sock puppet quoting a sock puppet.
I’m flattered that my comments seem to give you a sense of identity, #32.
Frank, hon…..
You’re talking to yourself, again, dear.
monty
monty, but it saves Frank from having to do the GayLeft thing and create a new handle for his sockpuppet artistry. Not that I’ve ever seen Frank do a Gayleft thing… even in jest.
[Comment deleted.]
Re #35, another indication that the “posting rules” are being capriciously enforce.
Let’s see if this passes muster here:
#28 Frank IBC — August 4, 2006 @ 11:39 am – August 4, 2006
Good thing you waited 12 minutes to post that, Raj.
If I had posted #26, I would have cite(d) to source in #26.
#29 BoBo — August 4, 2006 @ 12:39 pm – August 4, 2006
Ich brauche einen neuen Kunden. Macht Ihres sieht einen Krankenwagen?
Where do you get this? You don’t even have a subject in the second “sentence.”
And why should I care whether you need a new customer? That’s a rough translation of first sentence, but it would seem to be the singular Kunde–Kunden is plural. It would be “Ich brauche einen neuen Kunde” (singular customer) or “Ich brauche neue Kunden” (plural customers)
BTW, just to let you know, a lawyer’s client is not a Kunde (customer), he is a Mandant (client).
Another German lesson for the day.
Rechtsanwälte haben Kunden. Krankenwagenverfolger haben Kunden.
#38 BoBo — August 5, 2006 @ 8:24 am – August 5, 2006
Ich bedanke mich fuer Ihre Auskunft.
Aertzte haben auch Kunden, aber die sind als Patienten erkannt.
Gee, are we all supposed to follow these threads when they are not in ENGLISH???
Regards,
Peter H.
#40 Peter Hughes — August 5, 2006 @ 9:36 pm – August 5, 2006
Gee, are we all supposed to follow these threads when they are not in ENGLISH???
BoBo apparently believes that he/she can. I don’t know where he’s getting the English->German translations from, though. They are awful. I’m sure that he’s doing a copy/paste from somewhere, though, if only for the fact that he’s copying the “Umlauts” (the two little dots over some of the vowels). Few people can actually enter them themselves when typing–I don’t even bother trying any more.
Marine accused in Haditha may expand libel suit ~ Reuters
Kline is a former Marine and one of the most loyal Bush supporters in Congress. He is also currently facing a tough re-election campaign against FBI whistle blower, Colleen Rowley.
Rowely doesn’t have a chance.
Regards,
Peter H.
You think, Anonymous?
First, let me cite the actual case, as you didn’t.
Second off, no one states better than the Court why Clinton lost:
Petitioner’s effort to construct an immunity from suit for unofficial acts grounded purely in the identity of his office is unsupported by precedent.
Third, let me show WHY the court was not concerned about the risks you mentioned:
We are not persuaded that either of these risks is serious. Most frivolous and vexatious litigation is terminated at the pleading stage or on summary judgment, with little if any personal involvement by the defendant. See Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. 12, 56. Moreover, the availability of sanctions provides a significant deterrent to litigation directed at the President in his unofficial capacity for purposes of political gain or harassment. [n.42]
Given, Anonymous, that you and your fellow Democrats tried so hard to argue that Clinton should have absolute immunity from things he did when he wasn’t in office because of his status as President, a viewpoint wholly unsupported by statute OR precedent, I fail to see why you suddenly are arguing that the executive can be compelled to respond in terms of official acts, which is discouraged by precedent.
Finally, I quote:
The principal rationale for affording certain public servants immunity from suits for money damages arising out of their official acts is inapplicable to unofficial conduct. In cases involving prosecutors, legislators, and judges we have repeatedly explained that the immunity serves the public interest in enabling such officials to perform their designated functions effectively without fear that a particular decision may give rise to personal liability. [n.18] We explained in Ferri v. Ackerman, 444 U.S. 193 (1979):
“As public servants, the prosecutor and the judge represent the interest of society as a whole. The conduct of their official duties may adversely affect a wide variety of different individuals, each of whom may be a potential source of future controversy. The societal interest in providing such public officials with the maximum ability to deal fearlesslyand impartially with the public at large has long been recognized as an acceptable justification for official immunity. The point of immunity for such officials is to forestall an atmosphere of intimidation that would conflict with their resolve to perform their designated functions in a principled fashion.” Id., at 202-204.
That rationale provided the principal basis for our holding that a former President of the United States was “entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts,” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 749. See id., at 752 (citing Ferri v. Ackerman). Our central concern was to avoid rendering the President “unduly cautious in the discharge of his official duties.” 457 U. S., at 752, n. 32. [n.19]
While I understand your desperate attempts to manipulate the law to protect your Democratic masters, unfortunately, you can no more save Murtha than you could Clinton.