Murtha named in defamation suit

[daniel49]

Be interseting to see how this all shakes out in the end.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co...rticle/2006/08/01/AR2006080101345.html

 

[Rainsford]

I'm not a big fan of Murtha's comments, but I figure if George W. Bush and the rest of the Republicans in government can get away with calling everyone traitors every 5 seconds...Murtha should be able to get away with this.

 

[RightIsWrong]

I thought that this part was kinda funny (not haha):

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.

Why go after Murtha if there is evidence that someone at DoD gave him false information?

 

[Pabster]

Good for them. Murtha is a disgrace.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I'm not a big fan of Murtha's comments, but I figure if George W. Bush and the rest of the Republicans in government can get away with calling everyone traitors every 5 seconds...Murtha should be able to get away with this.

When did Bush demonize our troops? He is the Commander in Cheif!

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

It's a pretty thin claim from a legal standpoint IMO.

My feeling is that the plaintiffs' attorneys are trying to set the stage for a defense based on the idea that if the Marines are prosecuted, it was done vindictively based on their slander claim (in fact another article I read contained a quote from one of the lawyers speculating that the Marines might be charged based on the filing of the suit). If that's what they have in mind, I regard it as a deeply faulty strategy based on these civilian attorneys' failure to understand the military justice system. Civilian attorneys frequently labor under serious misapprehensions about military justice in my experience . . .

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: zendari
When did Bush demonize our troops? He is the Commander in Cheif!

Murtha was the demonizer. Making widespread allegations with zero evidence. I see people complain all the time about the 'innocent until proven guilty' thing here in the USA. There's no excuse for Murtha's conduct.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I'm not a big fan of Murtha's comments, but I figure if George W. Bush and the rest of the Republicans in government can get away with calling everyone traitors every 5 seconds...Murtha should be able to get away with this.

When did Bush demonize our troops? He is the Commander in Cheif!

I didn't say he did, I said he spends an awful lot of time demonizing everyone else, especially journalists and anyone else who doesn't agree with him. If soldiers can sue Murtha because he said something about them they don't like, I think the rest of us should be entitled to sue Bush.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I didn't say he did, I said he spends an awful lot of time demonizing everyone else, especially journalists and anyone else who doesn't disagree with him. If soldiers can sue Murtha because he said something about them they don't like, I think the rest of us should be entitled to sue Bush.

Well go for it!

As to the first part, Murtha didn't just say something they didn't like. He accused them of committing war crimes.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: zendari
When did Bush demonize our troops? He is the Commander in Cheif!

Murtha was the demonizer. Making widespread allegations with zero evidence. I see people complain all the time about the 'innocent until proven guilty' thing here in the USA. There's no excuse for Murtha's conduct.

Man, you guys turn into a bunch of whiny little bastards when the name calling is directed your way, don't you? It's interesting from the other side of things isn't it?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: zendari
When did Bush demonize our troops? He is the Commander in Cheif!

Murtha was the demonizer. Making widespread allegations with zero evidence. I see people complain all the time about the 'innocent until proven guilty' thing here in the USA. There's no excuse for Murtha's conduct.

I hate to interrupt your little love-fest, but there was clearly substantial evidence of mass murder at Haditha when Murtha made his comments, and also evidence that the military chain of command had made efforts to cover the incident up. I imagine you also think Richard Ridenhour was un-American and deserved to be prosecuted.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I didn't say he did, I said he spends an awful lot of time demonizing everyone else, especially journalists and anyone else who doesn't disagree with him. If soldiers can sue Murtha because he said something about them they don't like, I think the rest of us should be entitled to sue Bush.

Well go for it!

As to the first part, Murtha didn't just say something they didn't like. He accused them of committing war crimes.

I don't want to sue Bush...they're just words. But while we're getting technical about who accused who of what, isn't "treason" a pretty serious crime as well?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: DonVito
I hate to interrupt your little love-fest, but there was clearly substantial evidence of mass murder at Haditha when Murtha made his comments, and also evidence that the military chain of command had made efforts to cover the incident up. I imagine you also think Richard Ridenhour was un-American and deserved to be prosecuted.

Have you seen this "evidence"?

Last I heard there hasn't been a trial for this "evidence" to be presented yet.

Man I love it when some people get their panties in a wad over this, all the while screaming "Innocent Until Proven Guilty!!!" out the other side of their mouth.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I don't want to sue Bush...they're just words. But while we're getting technical about who accused who of what, isn't "treason" a pretty serious crime as well?

You said you wanted the right to. Well, you have it. Go find yourself a lawyer.

And yes, treason is a serious crime. (And I know where you're going with it.)

 

[kage69]

Hrmm. This smacks of troops lending a hand in the PR of politics, like the troops that presented Rumsfeld with a ceramic plate that stopped a bullet (back when it came out that our guys weren't being issued enough body armor).

I think this Marine has bigger things to worry about than something Murtha said, like spending the rest of his life in prison. Bush going down in history as the first president to ever encourage our enemies ("Bring it on!") to attack us seems vastly more inappropriate to me, with certainly more serious ramifications. I guess that attitude coming from guys who avoided combat is fine, but when a combat veteran takes issue with a counter-productive war and possible cover-up, well then it's lawsuit time. As a former Marine himself, I seriously doubt it was Murtha's intention to specifically villify Mr. Wuterich. And as he said himself, what he was addressing was our presence and the pressure our guys have to deal with there.

Yep, it will be interesting to see where this goes...

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Have you seen this "evidence"?

Last I heard there hasn't been a trial for this "evidence" to be presented yet.

Man I love it when some people get their panties in a wad over this, all the while screaming "Innocent Until Proven Guilty!!!" out the other side of their mouth.

It seems to me you're the one getting your knickers in a twist.

What do you think of Richard Ridenhour - American hero or friend to the enemy?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I don't want to sue Bush...they're just words. But while we're getting technical about who accused who of what, isn't "treason" a pretty serious crime as well?

You said you wanted the right to. Well, you have it. Go find yourself a lawyer.

And yes, treason is a serious crime. (And I know where you're going with it.)

I'm not sure you DO see where I'm going with this. Liberals, for all the stereotypes about being a bunch of whiners, seem to take all the name-calling and allegations from the right in stride. Liberals don't like it, but they don't go around threatening to sue Bush or other Republican leaders for having more mouth than they do brains. Yet for some reason Murtha apparently crossed some line, and the conservatives are cheering the lawsuit on...even though were the situation reversed, I somehow don't think Pabster and friends would be quite so supportive.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: DonVito
What do you think of Richard Ridenhour - American hero or friend to the enemy?

You're comparing apples to oranges. Ridenhour had first-hand knowledge of his accusations because he was there. Murtha has zero knowledge about anything going on over there and for him to be making wild, baseless accusations is ridiculous.

An analogy might be seeing something with your own eyes, or hearing it "from a friend of a friend of a friend's wife" et al. Which would you put more faith in?

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I'm not a big fan of Murtha's comments, but I figure if George W. Bush and the rest of the Republicans in government can get away with calling everyone traitors every 5 seconds...Murtha should be able to get away with this.

When did Bush demonize our troops? He is the Commander in Cheif!

I didn't say he did, I said he spends an awful lot of time demonizing everyone else, especially journalists and anyone else who doesn't agree with him. If soldiers can sue Murtha because he said something about them they don't like, I think the rest of us should be entitled to sue Bush.

Sue away. Tie the courts up with more frivilous lawsuits
Hire Don vito he believes in you.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: DonVito
What do you think of Richard Ridenhour - American hero or friend to the enemy?

You're comparing apples to oranges. Ridenhour had first-hand knowledge of his accusations because he was there. Murtha has zero knowledge about anything going on over there and for him to be making wild, baseless accusations is ridiculous.

An analogy might be seeing something with your own eyes, or hearing it "from a friend of a friend of a friend's wife" et al. Which would you put more faith in?

Murtha had access to the same information the Pentagon has, and they are now saying there is evidence the Marines murdered civilians at Haditha. You make it sound as though he made this up out of whole cloth. This is a man who spent decades serving as a Marine himself - he of all people knows the stress of combat. He just doesn't want another My Lai.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Sue away. Tie the courts up with more frivilous lawsuits
Hire Don vito he believes in you.

Way to drag me into a discussion I had exactly nothing to do with. I am the one who is discouraging a frivolous lawsuit in this case, while Pabster lobbies in support of one. I am also, I am quite sure, the only member of this discussion licensed to practice in a military court or with any real-world experience with the military justice system . . .

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Good for them. Murtha is a disgrace.

 

[Harvey]

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.

If Murtha was relying in good faith on information provided by the Defense Department, this bozo has absolutely no case.

It's deeper than that. Today, an initial U.S. military probe report was released that supports allegations that American Marines deliberately shot 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha last November, a Pentagon official said Wednesday.

By Robert Burns, AP Military Writer | August 2, 2006

WASHINGTON --An initial U.S. military probe supports allegations that American Marines deliberately shot 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha last November, a Pentagon official said Wednesday.

The Marine Corps and Navy prosecutors are now reviewing the evidence to determine whether to recommend criminal charges. That decision may be weeks away, and the lawyers may ask investigators to probe further, two officials said.

They discussed the matter on condition they not be identified because the case -- among the most sensational of several involving Iraqi civilian deaths -- has not yet produced charges.

"It's fair to say that the majority of the work has been done," said a third official, Ed Buice, spokesman for the Naval Criminal Investigation Service that is leading the probe. "But it's impossible to predict how much longer the investigation will take. It is very much open and ongoing."

The case is open because prosecutors and officers in the chain of command of the Marines being investigated may consult with the naval investigation service even after any charges are brought.

A decision on whether to press charges ultimately will be made by the commander of the Marines' parent unit, the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force at Camp Pendleton, Calif. That currently is Lt. Gen. John Sattler, but he is to move to a Pentagon assignment soon. His successor will be Lt. Gen. James Mattis.

Investigators conducted a wide range of interviews with Marines in Iraq and with Iraqis in Haditha, but they failed to obtain permission to exhume the bodies of the 24 who were killed, two officials said. Nonetheless the probe did collect evidence from the Marines and from the scene of the killings.

The case is one of several involving allegations of unjustified killings of Iraqi civilians that have emerged this year, damaging the U.S. image abroad and triggering calls by some Iraqi leaders to end the arrangement under which U.S. troops are immune from prosecution by Iraqi authorities.

The Marines initially reported after the Nov. 19, 2005, killings at Haditha that 15 Iraqi civilians 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 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. That probe, which has not been made public, faults some officers for failing to pursue discrepancies in the initial reports about what happened in Haditha and for not launching an early investigation.

When asked about the matter at a news conference Wednesday, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the cover-up probe's report was 3,000-4,000 pages long and being reviewed by Army Gen. George Casey, the top commander in Iraq.

Regarding the criminal investigation, Pace described it as "ongoing" and said it would remain so until military authorities have reviewed its results as well as the findings and recommendations of the cover-up probe, "to make sure that every single possible cross-thread has been looked at."

Public attention on the Haditha case grew after Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., a former Marine, asserted on May 17 that he had learned from Marine Corps officials that innocent Iraqis had been killed "in cold blood."

Lawyers for Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, one of the Marines under investigation, argued in a lawsuit filed Wednesday in federal court that Murtha falsely accused Wuterich of murder and war crimes. The lawsuit maintains that Pentagon officials "who have briefed or leaked information to Mr. Murtha deliberately provided him with inaccurate and false information" and that the congressman subsequently "has made repeated statements ... that are defamatory."

Murtha said Wednesday he does not blame Wuterich for "lashing out."

"When I spoke up about Haditha, my intention was to draw attention to the horrendous pressure put on our troops in Iraq and to the cover-up of the incident," Murtha said.

Among the other recent cases of alleged deliberate killings of Iraqi civilians, seven Marines and one Navy corpsman have been charged with premeditated murder and other criminal acts in connection with the killing of an Iraqi man in Hamdania on April 26. Also, five soldiers and a former soldier have been charged in the alleged March 12 rape-slaying of an Iraqi teenager and the killings of her relatives in Mahmoudiya.
© Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

If the sergant who's suing Murtha was part of that, I hope he gets his ass blown out to the next planet.

Originally posted by: Pabster
Good for them. Murtha is a disgrace.

No, the disgrace is those lame apologists like you who still stick up for the Bushwhackos' lies that have already killed thousands of American troops and wounded tens of thousands more.

Murtha's got more courage than you'll ever be able to dream about in a lifetime. :thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown:

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: daniel49

Sue away. Tie the courts up with more frivilous lawsuits
Hire Don vito he believes in you.

Way to drag me into a discussion I had exactly nothing to do with. I am the one who is discouraging a frivolous lawsuit in this case, while Pabster lobbies in support of one. I am also, I am quite sure, the only member of this discussion licensed to practice in a military court or with any real-world experience with the military justice system . . .

Try to drum you up some work and not even a thank you.:brokenheart:

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Harvey
No, the disgrace is those lame apologists like you who still stick up for the Bushwhackos' lies that have already killed thousands of American troops and wounded tens of thousands more.

The disgrace is the keyboard commandos like yourself who are so hell bent on Bush bashing they can't see the forest from the trees. You're willing to set aside a basic tenet of our justice system (innocent until proven guilty) out of your political agenda, and that IS disgraceful.

I don't give a damn where Murtha claims he "got his information". His statements didn't even reference that they were merely allegations. He said it as though it was concrete fact. Kinda funny when a trial hasn't even begun yet!

Murtha's got more courage than you'll ever be able to dream about in a lifetime. :thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown:

I've grown accustomed to your usual insults, Harvey, so keep right at it. Don't forget to use big BOLD lettering next time.