Plame Court Action Denied

[bob_co]

I called it here. Seething liberals do not know they are wet yet.
The case wasn’t called on it’s meritt, but it was going no where.
The political bent of back and for has called it a day on this non-issue.

[tomndebb]

Link? Coherence?

(Yes, I am aware of the suit and its dismissal on jursidictiuonal grounds, but the OP lacks a clearly understood thematic component or a link to the specific story to which it rects.)

[elucidator]

On which it rects? Is that the Latin root from which we derive “rectum”?

[BrainGlutton]

[url=]Here’s the actual story.

U.S. District Judge John D. Bates said that Cheney and the others could not be held liable for the disclosures in the summer of 2003 in the midst of a White House effort to rebut criticism of the Iraq war by her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. The judge said that such efforts are a natural part of the officials’ job duties, and, thus, they are immune from liability.

That is . . . extremely disturbing.

[elucidator]

It also means that if you get married, the first night Cheney can come over and nail your wife.

[Tapioca_Dextrin]

If anyone happens upon a seething liberal, could you please pass them a towel.

[elucidator]

Seethe Liberal standing there, with his long shaggy hayer…

[bob_co]

Plame was not covert. There was no crime in the first place. She was covert, then she wasn’t. The court has spoken. Suck it.

[bob_co]

and the libs will seethe more.

[Tapioca_Dextrin]

@bob_co

Plame was not covert. There was no crime in the first place. She was covert, then she wasn’t.

:dubious:

Are you saying that she was covert before her cover was blown by Biggus Dickus and then not covert afterwards? Seems like a truism to me.

From CNN

The way the defendants handled criticism from Joseph Wilson “may have been highly unsavory,” the judge wrote, but “there can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism … by speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants’ duties as high-level executive branch officials.”

The judge seems to agrees that someone deliberately blew her cover, but they are protected under the old executive privelege thingy.

Of course, if you don’t believe the judge, you might believe this guy

President Bush on Thursday acknowledged publicly for the first time that someone in his administration likely leaked the name of a CIA operative, although he also said he hopes the controversy over his decision to spare prison for a former White House aide has “run its course.”

[GIGObuster]

@bob_co

Plame was not covert. There was no crime in the first place. She was covert, then she wasn’t. The court has spoken. Suck it.

You keep using that court decision. I do not think it means what you think it means.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/08/leak.armitage/index.html

“I feel terrible,” Armitage said. “Every day, I think, I let down the president. I let down the secretary of state. I let down my department, my family, and I also let down Mr. and Mrs. Wilson.”

-Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.

The court only said that Plame had no case on jurisdictional grounds, translation: wrong place to file a complaint.

I can think it was a rotten decision, but it is not reaching what you claim.

[Little_Nemo]

There was no crime in the first place.

The jury seemed to feel otherwise when it convicted somebody.

She was covert, then she wasn’t.

Well…yeah…that was why there was an investigation and a trial.

[LouisB]

OP, do you vote? In presidential elections? Just curious, that’s all.

[ElvisL1ves]

More evidence, if any were needed, of the fairness and balance of Great Debates. Truly *all * points of view are welcomed and discussed here without prejudice, regardless of their degree of articulation or depth of nuance.

[BobLibDem]

@elucidator

It also means that if you get married, the first night Cheney can come over and nail your wife.

If he tried, they could get him for assault with a dead weapon.

I’m sure the right will see this as vindication. It wasn’t. Having a case tossed on jurisdictional grounds is hardly cause for celebration.

[Mr.Moto]

The problem here is that government employees in general, and not just high ranking ones, generally are not held personally liable for things done in the course of their job. Now, if they commit crimes, they can certainly be punished criminally, but it is really hard to sue them.

I recall a case a few months back where a woman in Arlington County had her car badly damaged when a fire hose fell off of a fire truck. She tried to get the county to fix her car, and the county said no - the damage happened in the course of normal duties of the firefighters, and even if the hose was improperly stowed, immunity from suits still applied.

Same principle, even if the jurisdiction and degree are different. Plame will have a very hard time with this.

[Northern_Piper]

@ElvisL1ves

More evidence, if any were needed, of the fairness and balance of Great Debates. Truly *all * points of view are welcomed and discussed here without prejudice, regardless of their degree of articulation or depth of nuance.

Degree of articulation and depth of nuance are what makes it “Great”. For example, Mr. Moto’s post, pointing out the relevance of the general principle of personal immunity for civil servants, helps very much to put this particular debate in context. The links and comments provided by posters other than the OP similarly have helped to frame the debate.

The OP, on the other hand, is little more than a “Na-nah”, without even the benefit of a link to the article in question - fails the “cite” test, and is on par, in debating terms, with a post of “Bush sux!” from the other political side.

[Richard_Parker]

@Mr. Moto

The problem here is that government employees in general, and not just high ranking ones, generally are not held personally liable for things done in the course of their job. Now, if they commit crimes, they can certainly be punished criminally, but it is really hard to sue them.

I recall a case a few months back where a woman in Arlington County had her car badly damaged when a fire hose fell off of a fire truck. She tried to get the county to fix her car, and the county said no - the damage happened in the course of normal duties of the firefighters, and even if the hose was improperly stowed, immunity from suits still applied.

Same principle, even if the jurisdiction and degree are different. Plame will have a very hard time with this.

One distinction between a federal official and your local firefighter is the FTCA. I don’t know what Plame’s theory was in the case dismissed, but what about a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress?

[BobLibDem]

@Mr. Moto

I recall a case a few months back where a woman in Arlington County had her car badly damaged when a fire hose fell off of a fire truck. She tried to get the county to fix her car, and the county said no - the damage happened in the course of normal duties of the firefighters, and even if the hose was improperly stowed, immunity from suits still applied.

Perhaps they are and should be immune from unintentional damage caused in the course of normal duties. But the woman could sue for damages if the firemen surrounded her car and started working it over with fire axes, which is a little closer parallel to the Plame case.

[Gfactor]

Here is the actual opinion: https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2006cv1258-52

The Court:

1. Refused to recognize a *Bivens * action based on a number of factors; and

2. Held that she had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies under the Federal Tort Claims Act with respect to her common law claim for public disclosure of private facts.