Murtha To Be Sued
John Murtha is being sued by one of the marines he slandered when he declared them all "cold-blooded killers". This is a thing of beauty and I cannot wait to see how badly this one is going to singe Murtha's reelection bid.
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.
Now, the details are still not known completely on the cover-up investigation, however preliminary reports indicated that there was no cover-up. So Murtha is already caught in one lie. The fact that this marine is willing to take on Murtha of the latter's execrable remarks is a breath of fresh air. Read the whole article for the full story, but here's the one part that really caught my eye:
The move by Wuterich is rare, as statements made by members of Congress generally are protected under the "speech or debate" clause in Article I, Section 6, of the Constitution. But legal experts said the clause grants immunity only for what lawmakers say in legislative proceedings and does not apply to news releases, speeches and other public comments.
Rodney A. Smolla, dean of the University of Richmond Law School and a libel expert, said yesterday that Wuterich would have the burden of proving that he is innocent and that Murtha's statements were false, but he added that the quotations appear to be actionable in court. He said the suit shows that Wuterich probably thinks he did nothing wrong.
"Part of the subtext of this is it's a showing of confidence and a preemptive strike of sorts," Smolla said. "The congressman's statement does not sound as if it is merely hyperbole or opinion or name-calling. Instead, it conveys the idea that the Marines violated professional standards and perhaps the law."
I've said all along, since the first time I read Murtha's outrageous statements that he was badly out of line to do so. One hopes he gets soundly spanked in court for this one.
UPDATE: A commenter beat me to this before I could link it. An AP story just released a short while ago.
WASHINGTON – Evidence collected on the deaths of 24 Iraqis in Haditha supports accusations that U.S. Marines deliberately shot the civilians, including unarmed women and children, a Pentagon official said Wednesday.
Agents of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service have completed their initial work on the incident last November, but may be asked to probe further as Marine Corps and Navy prosecutors review the evidence and determine whether to recommend criminal charges, according to two Pentagon officials who discussed the matter on condition of anonymity.
The decision on whether to press criminal charges ultimately will be made by the commander of the accused Marines' parent unit, the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force at Camp Pendleton, Calif. That currently is Lt. Gen. John Sattler, but he is scheduled to move to a Pentagon assignment soon; his successor will be Lt. Gen. James Mattis.
The case is one of several involving alleged unjustified killings of Iraqi civilians that have emerged this year, damaging the military's reputation for humane treatment of civilians and triggering calls by some Iraqi leaders to end the arrangement under which U.S. troops are immune from prosecution by Iraqi authorities.
One has to question whether this unsourced story was released just after the news of the lawsuit or whether the lawsuit was announced in anticipation of the story. Regardless, the wording of the AP report is unusual as it says: "supports accusations that U.S. Marines deliberately shot the civilians, including unarmed women and children". That's an odd turn of phrase in this context and appears to be directly addressing Murtha's accusations not criminal charges. Something is odd about that, I think.
This also does nothing whatever to negate the fact that a separate report shows their was no coverup, either.
Other Links to this Post
-
FreePA.org » Blog Archives » Murtha to be held accountable — August 2, 2006 @ 8:25 am
-
Flopping Aces — August 2, 2006 @ 10:14 am
-
PartisanTimes.com — August 2, 2006 @ 12:31 pm
-
The Right Nation — August 2, 2006 @ 2:24 pm
By Scott W. Somerville, August 2, 2006 @ 7:12 am
This is REALLY fascinating, as a legal matter. My initial reaction was, “He’ll claim the Speech or Debate Clause,” but you’re right–that only covers what you say on the House floor.
By Conservative Liberal, August 2, 2006 @ 8:16 am
Breaking news, here is the AP version (posted 14 minutes ago):
Aug. 2 – Evidence collected on the deaths of 24 Iraqis in Haditha supports accusations that U.S. Marines deliberately shot the civilians, including unarmed women and children, a Pentagon official said Wednesday.
Agents of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service have completed their initial work on the incident last November, but may be asked to probe further as Marine Corps and Navy prosecutors review the evidence and determine whether to recommend criminal charges, according to two Pentagon officials who discussed the matter on condition of anonymity.
The decision on whether to press criminal charges ultimately will be made by the commander of the accused Marines’ parent unit, the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force at Camp Pendleton, Calif. That currently is Lt. Gen. John Sattler, but he is scheduled to move to a Pentagon assignment soon; his successor will be Lt. Gen. James Mattis.
The Marines initially reported after the Nov. 19, 2005 killings that 15 Iraqi civilians at Haditha had been killed by a makeshift roadside bomb and in crossfire between Marines and insurgent attackers. Based on accounts from survivors and human rights groups, Time magazine first reported in March that the killings were deliberate acts by the Marines.
A criminal investigation was then ordered by the top Marine commander in Iraq, Maj. Gen. Richard Zilmer.
A parallel investigation is examining whether officers in the Marines’ chain of command tried to cover up the events.
This lawsuit is DOA–the truth is an absolute defense against slander, and it appears that Murtha was speaking the truth, both about the Marines involved, and the fact that there was a coverup.
By Geek, Esq., August 2, 2006 @ 8:34 am
Well, it’s only slander if it isn’t true.
Of course, who cares whether that Marine actually is a war criminal. I mean, he’s suing a Democrat, so he must be all right.
By FrauBudgie, August 2, 2006 @ 8:43 am
I’d love to see alot more torte suits along these lines. Remember — we live in a country where a woman got 3 million dollars for spilling hot coffee on herself.
By Gaius, August 2, 2006 @ 8:51 am
I saw that AP article. Note a few things. It is based on anonymous sources. It specifically is worded differently than has been the case in earlier leaks: “supports accusations that U.S. Marines deliberately shot the civilians, including unarmed women and children” but does not include any indication of charges.
Don’t you wonder about the specific timing of this article right after the suit hits the news?
By Conservative Liberal, August 2, 2006 @ 9:25 am
I know it’s off-topic, but someone else brought up the McDonalds coffee lawsuit. From http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm I got this information:
McFacts about the McDonalds Coffee Lawsuit
Everyone knows what you’re talking about when you mention “the McDonald’s lawsuit.” Even though this case was decided in August of 1994, for many Americans it continues to represent the “problem” with our civil justice system.
The business community and insurance industry have done much to perpetuate this case. They don’t want us to forget it. They know it helps them convince politicians that “tort reform” and other restrictions on juries is needed. And worse, they know it poisons the minds of citizens who sit on juries.
Unfortunately, not all the facts have been communicated – facts that put the case and the monetary award to the 81-year old plaintiff in a significantly different light.
According to the Wall Street journal, McDonald’s callousness was the issue and even jurors who thought the case was just a tempest in a coffee pot were overwhelmed by the evidence against the Corporation.
The facts of the case, which caused a jury of six men and six women to find McDonald’s coffee was unreasonably dangerous and had caused enough human misery and suffering that no one should be made to suffer exposure to such excessively hot coffee again, will shock and amaze you:
McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald’s had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee – that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.
McFact No. 2: McDonald’s knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries – more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation – and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.
McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries – third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.
McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn’t have brought the lawsuit against McDonald’s had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.
McFact No. 5: A McDonald’s quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn’t think it was possible.
McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald’s was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald’s had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)
McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.
McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald’s consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.
The most important message this case has for you, the consumer, is to be aware of the potential danger posed by your early morning pick-me-up. Take extra care to make sure children do not come into contact with scalding liquid, and always look to the facts before rendering your decision about any publicized case.
The woman didn’t get 3 million dollars. She was originally awarded nearly that much, but the award was reduced on appeal to under a half million dollars. McDonalds was serving coffee at a temperature 20 degrees higher than other places, a temperature that causes severe burning in 2-7 seconds, and they refused to pay the wonan’s medical bills.
This was not a frivolous lawsuit.
Sorry for the off-topic post, but I thought it’s important to correct some misinformation.
By Conservative Liberal, August 2, 2006 @ 9:29 am
Gaius,
The timing doesn’t puzzle me, as the first phase of the investigation seems to be either complete or nearly complete (I’ve seen it described both ways).
One could also question the timing of the lawsuit–that it was timed to try to put into question the results of the investigation.
By Gaius, August 2, 2006 @ 9:31 am
See the update – it does raise that point.
By Conservative Liberal, August 2, 2006 @ 9:33 am
I’ve found a longer AP article, that discusses the separate probe into the possible coverup:
A parallel investigation is examining whether officers in the Marines’ chain of command tried to cover up the events. The probe, which has not been made public, faults some officers for failing to pursue obvious discrepancies in the initial reports about what happened in Haditha and for not launching an early investigation.
This contradicts your statement that preliminary reports indicate that there is no coverup.
By Conservative Liberal, August 2, 2006 @ 9:37 am
I agree that Murtha’s language could have been clearer–he should have used the word “alleged”, rather than making it sound like the allegations had been proven in court.
On the other hand, those who dismissed his allegations may also have been jumping the gun.
As poorly worded as Murtha’s statements were, I think they served a useful purpose in putting the heat on the military to conduct a thorough investigation.
By Gaius, August 2, 2006 @ 10:06 am
No, it says some officers may not have done enough or questioned enough. It does not allege a coverup. That word indicates intent.
The military does a thorough job without John Murtha. In fact it would be better worded as in spite of John Murtha.
By Conservative Liberal, August 2, 2006 @ 10:17 am
Gaius, how many people served prison time for the My Lai massacre?
Answer that, then explain to me how that shows that the military does a thorough job of investigating possible war crimes.
By Gaius, August 2, 2006 @ 10:24 am
Ok, enough. My Lai was a long time ago, in different circumstance and a completely different army. The left’s insistance that eveything is Vietnam becomes very tiresome. The official report on My Lia was very thorough. Neither you, nor I know why the prosecutions were as they were.
By Geek, Esq., August 2, 2006 @ 10:26 am
Well, if the WaPo summary of the lawsuit is accurate, the Marine’s lawyers may have pled themselves right out of court.
“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.” ”
If they’re alleging that the DoD lied to Murtha, who then repeated what the DoD said, then that pretty much exculpates Murtha as far as defamation is concerned.
By Conservative Liberal, August 2, 2006 @ 10:27 am
I understand that My Lai was a long time ago. It’s also when Murtha served in combat, so it’s likely that it shaped where he was coming from.
What evidence do you have that the military has changed in how it investigates and prosecutes war crimes? Abu Ghraib? So far, only low-ranking members of the military have been prosecuted.
By Gaius, August 2, 2006 @ 10:34 am
Your ideology is showing. You assume there just has to be higher level involvement.
The military was already investgating abu Ghraib before one of the soldier’s lawyers leaked the pictures.
Wrong, Geek. Might want to consult a lawyer. Reporting false inforamtion as fact does not shield the person. It is still libel.
By Conservative Liberal, August 2, 2006 @ 11:37 am
Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller was sent to Iraq to “gitmoize” Abu Ghraib, and he told officers there “to treat the prisoners like dogs.” That says to me there is higher involvement.
Why aren’t the DoD officials also being sued? This lawsuit seems to be politically motivated.
By Conservative Liberal, August 2, 2006 @ 11:52 am
From Fox News:
LONDON — The American general who was in charge of Iraq’s Abu Ghraib (search) prison claimed she was being made a scapegoat for the abuse of detainees, and said her successor once told her that prisoners should be treated “like dogs.”
In an interview with British Broadcasting Corp. radio broadcast Tuesday, Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski (search) said Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller (search) told her last autumn that prisoners “are like dogs, and if you allow them to believe at any point that they are more than a dog then you’ve lost control of them.”
[snip]
Karpinski said that during a visit to Iraq in September, Miller — still the commander at the Guantanamo Bay prison — spoke of wanting to “Gitmoize” Abu Ghraib by applying the Cuban facility’s regimented detention and interrogation techniques.
“He talked about Gitmoizing in terms of what the (military police) were going to do; he was going to select the MPs, they were going to receive special training,” she said.
“That training was going to come from the military intelligence command,” Karpinski added, noting that the troops under her command had no training in such interrogation techniques.
Okay, that’s not a liberal fantasy that higher-rankiing officers were involved in the abuse at Abu Ghraib, it’s another General speaking. Yes, she may have had reason to deflect attention away from herself, but here’s another story that lends credence that Maj. Gen. Miller was involved in the abuse:
An Army general who was in charge of the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay prisons has refused to testify against two soldiers accused of siccing dogs on Iraqi detainees.
Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller on Tuesday invoked the military’s version of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in the prosecutions of Sgts. Michael Smith and Santos Cardona. The two say they simply followed orders.
Miller’s lawyer, Maj. Michelle Crawford, said he refused to testify because he had answered similar questions already in congressional hearings and other abuse cases.
But experts said Miller likely fears prosecution for ordering the use of dogs or he would help the soldiers by testifying. “What’s he afraid of if he’s already answered the questions?” said Geoff Corn, a former Army prosecutor.
By Gaius, August 2, 2006 @ 12:00 pm
You believe it is so, that colors your perception of what you read in the media. One very simple explanation – there is not enough evidence to prosecute. In which case you would not hear about it because they would not want to tip their hands.
But you automatically assume that the military is refusing to go after the higher-ups.
By Gaius, August 2, 2006 @ 12:12 pm
I should check my IP logs more frequently. I hate getting in a comment exchange with a sockpuppet for a banned commenter.
By Blackhawk, August 2, 2006 @ 8:53 pm
Man, go to work for a day and look what happens. I missed the puppet show. Hafta start figuing out that Tivo thing…
Is bashing sockpuppets as much fun as Whak-A-Mole, or does it just get tiring?
I saw over at Ace’s that they have started using some new-fangled ID thing that gets stamped with your post (it’s the ‘new comment thingy’). But it looks like some folks could still get around it. I ain’t smurt enough to figur it out. I can barely handle the static IPs we use at work.
By Gaius, August 2, 2006 @ 9:16 pm
Yeah, CL is the same guy I banned as “former righty” after the last egregeous ad hominem. I tried a registration thing, but it killed trackbacks, too.