Plame's suit dismissed

[Stanley Burrell]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/19/cia.leak/index.html

Judge tosses out ex-spy's lawsuit against Cheney in CIA leak

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit by outed spy Valerie Plame Wilson and her husband against Vice President Dick Cheney and other top Bush administration officials.


A judge threw out the lawsuit by ex-spy Valerie Plame Wilson and husband Joseph Wilson.

Plame had accused members of the Bush administration of leaking her identity.

U.S. District Judge John Bates ruled that the lawsuit raises "important questions relating to the propriety of actions undertaken by our highest government officials" -- but in a 41-page decision, Bates found the Wilsons failed to show the case belongs in federal court.

Valerie Wilson's identity as a CIA operative was exposed in July 2003 after her husband, former U.S. ambassador Joseph Wilson, publicly challenged a key argument in the Bush administration's case for the invasion of Iraq.

The exposure led to a criminal probe that led to the conviction in March of Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on charges of perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to federal agents investigating the leak.



I personally believe that if the exposure of an intelligence official's identity that jeopardizes national security is held below federal court par, whereas stupid kids hitting a mailbox in the boondocks with a wooden bat calls for a federal decree, that this has to be one of the most obvious politically motivated non-verdicts that could possibly be hashed out by a courtroom with inevitable ties to this administration.

[Gan]

DENIED.

(failed to show cause)



Judge Bates was appointed United States District Judge in December 2001. He graduated from Wesleyan University in 1968 and received a J.D. from the University of Maryland School of Law in 1976. From 1968 to 1971, he served in the United States Army, including a tour in Vietnam. Judge Bates clerked for Judge Roszel C. Thomsen of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland from 1976 to 1977 and was an associate at Steptoe & Johnson from 1977 to 1980. He served as an Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Columbia from 1980 to 1997, and was Chief of the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney's Office from 1987 to 1997. Judge Bates was on detail as Deputy Independent Counsel for the Whitewater investigation from 1995 to mid-1997. In 1998, he joined the Washington law firm of Miller & Chevalier, where he was Chair of the Government Contracts/Litigation Department and a member of the Executive Committee. Judge Bates has served on the Advisory Committee for Procedures of the D.C. Circuit and on the Civil Justice Reform Committee for the District Court, and as Treasurer of the D.C. Bar, Chairman of the Publications Committee of the D.C. Bar, and Chairman of the Litigation Section of the Federal Bar Association. He was a member of the Board of Directors of the Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs. In 2005, he was appointed by Chief Justice Rehnquist to serve on the U.S. Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management. In February 2006, he was appointed by Chief Justice Roberts to serve as a judge of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/bates-bio.html

I bolded the part requisite for conspiracy theorists...

[Parkbandit]

I personally believe that if the exposure of an intelligence official's identity that jeopardizes national security is held below federal court par, whereas stupid kids hitting a mailbox in the boondocks with a wooden bat calls for a federal decree, that this has to be one of the most obvious politically motivated non-verdicts that could possibly be hashed out by a courtroom with inevitable ties to this administration.

I will translate for those who don't speak Ssstanley.

"I am pissed that this didn't go to court and the only reason it didn't is that Bush is evil."

[Tsa`ah]

Bush appointee ... what do you expect.

[Warriorbird]

I imagine this will be appealed for a while and eventually fail with the conservative Supreme Court.

More about attention than the money, anyway.

[TheEschaton]

Is it for a failure to show cause? The sentence I read said "a failure to show it belongs in federal court."

Which, of course, is ridiculous. Jurisdiction aside, even if both Plame and EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THE ADMINISTRATION are not diverse citizens (IE, from Virginia, for example), this seems to be a question of federal law. This seems like it is perfect for federal court. Especially since it involves matters of national security.

Failure to show cause is something entirely different, Gan.

Of course, it could be CNN just fucking up what the decision is actually saying.

[Kembal]

There was something insane in the judge's reasoning in the decision that I read...let me see if I can pull it up:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19854878/


While Bates did not address the constitutional questions, he seemed to side with administration officials who said they were acting within their job duties. Plame had argued that what they did was illegal and outside the scope of their government jobs.

"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."

Huh? The judge seems to be saying that it's perfectly ok to out CIA operatives in order to rebut criticism.

[Valthissa]

This seems like it is perfect for federal court.



.



opinion here

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2006cv1258-52

the judge disagrees with you (at least until they exhaust other remedies).

A trial would be interesting. Probably more upside for Democrats.

C/Valth

[TheEschaton]

Ah yes, cause the word of a judge can never be wrong. Especially Supreme Court Justices.

[TheEschaton]

Some quotes from the decision:


Defendants have challenged each of these Bivens claims on qualified-immunity grounds. Under general qualified-immunity principles, government officials are "shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

Errr....yeah, they have no immunity since they violated clearly established statutory/constitutional rights.

The rest of the decision is basically like "We can't offer a remedy if there's some sort of Congressional Act which deals with this, because if Congress doesn't offer a civil remedy in that act, they obviously meant never to have one..."

OF course, this overlooks that the two acts the defendants (Libby, Rove, Cheney) offer, are acts which criminalize the release of this information, in support of the idea that Congress meant to not offer a civil remedy.

Think of the arrogance of this: The defendant's argue that their actions, which are criminalized by statute, are not dispositive of civil remedies because said criminal statutes do not mention civil remediies. They basically say, "Hey, we did this illegal thing. But the statute that makes it illegal, prevents us from being sued, because you know what, Congress didn't think to put a provision in it about the victims suing those criminals. Nevermind that criminal statutes never talk about civil remedies, CIVIL STATUTES DO THAT, AND OH, THERE IS NONE, SO THE COURT CAN MAKE ONE UP UNDER BIVENS."

Goddamnit, that decision is a mindfuck.

[Gan]

I suppose they can always appeal. :shrug:

Or not, since it was never brought to trial.

[TheEschaton]

You can appeal 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss.

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

Bush has outwitted them again. God, he IS an evil genius!

[Gan]

Bush is DR. EVIL!!!