Murtha named in defamation suit

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Pabster
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!

Well, I see you're still reading challenged as ever... or did you even read the article at the OP's link. It says:

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."

Sergent Wuterich (the plaintiff)'s own attorneys said Murtha got the information from Defense Department officials, and those officials are the ones who "deliberately provided him with inaccurate and false information." One could reasonably think that Ronald Dumsfeld's Defense Department would have better things to do than to lie to the ranking U.S. Congressman on the House Appropriations Committee and the Subcommittee on Defense.

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

I know your mother must have warned you that, if you didn't stop it, you'd go blind, but obviously, you didn't listen so just for you, I've put relevant items in bold type. Here's another, just to clear up your failure to read what I wrote. What I said was:

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

That means IF those who committed the killings in Haditha committed murder, and IF the sergeant was among the killers, then I believe he's blowing smoke out of his ass, and I hope he gets it booted to the next planet.

The word IF is the start of a conditional statement. So now, I'll say to you, IF you find that offensive, or IF you can't find anything but bluster and bullsh8 to attempt to defend our lying POS traitor of a President and his administration, you've got nothing to say, and you waste far too many words saying it. :thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown:

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Pabster
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!

Cry me a river. Your feigned outrage is all about politics and nothing else. Are you just as offended when people call OJ Simpson a murderer?

 

[zendari]

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.

Quote of Bush using the word treason in talking directly about another American?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: DonVito
Cry me a river. Your feigned outrage is all about politics and nothing else. Are you just as offended when people call OJ Simpson a murderer?

Here you go again, comparing apples to oranges.

What people think of OJ Simpson is 1) irrelevant to this thread; and 2) of no value as a court of law has found him not guilty.

These marines haven't even had their day in court yet. I'm amazed that you don't have the capability to recognize that.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Well, I see you're still reading challenged as ever... or did you even read the article at the OP's link. It says:

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."

Sergent Wuterich (the plaintiff)'s own attorneys said Murtha got the information from Defense Department officials, and those officials are the ones who "deliberately provided him with inaccurate and false information." One could reasonably think that Ronald Dumsfeld's Defense Department would have better things to do than to lie to the ranking U.S. Congressman on the House Appropriations Committee and the Subcommittee on Defense.

The whole point is, Harvey, it doesn't matter WHERE he got the damn information. He didn't need to come on national television and make war crimes accusations. Murtha isn't judge, jury, or executioner. Whether someone deliberately fed him false information is of no consequence. Murtha was the one who ran with it.

I know your mother must have warned you that, if you didn't stop it, you'd go blind, but obviously, you didn't listen so just for you, I've put relevant items in bold type. Here's another, just to clear up your failure to read what I wrote. What I said was:

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

That means IF those who committed the killings in Haditha committed murder, and IF the sergeant was among the killers, then I believe he's blowing smoke out of his ass, and I hope he gets it booted to the next planet.

Perhaps we'll find out when there is actually a trial?

The word IF is the start of a conditional statement. So now, I'll say to you, IF you find that offensive, or IF you can't find anything but bluster and bullsh8 to attempt to defend our lying POS traitor of a President and his administration, you've got nothing to say, and you waste far too many words saying it. :thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown:

What, pray tell, does Murtha's spouting off have to do with Bush or this administration? My god Harvey, you're really stretching it now.

 

[Zebo]

Murtha's a scum bag acting as judge, jury and executioner of these guys in the press. Innocent until proven guilty remember? This is like 6th grade civics.

Fom what I heard evidence is null and they won't be convicted but that did'nt stop a US congressman from ruining thier lives. That's when they should sue IMO - little early now.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: DonVito
Cry me a river. Your feigned outrage is all about politics and nothing else. Are you just as offended when people call OJ Simpson a murderer?

Here you go again, comparing apples to oranges.

What people think of OJ Simpson is 1) irrelevant to this thread; and 2) of no value as a court of law has found him not guilty.

These marines haven't even had their day in court yet. I'm amazed that you don't have the capability to recognize that.

I'd say it's directly relevant, in that OJ was widely regarded as guilty prior to his trial, and after his acquittal. The only reason you're disingenuously dismissing the analogy is that it undermines your faux outrage.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: DonVito
Cry me a river. Your feigned outrage is all about politics and nothing else. Are you just as offended when people call OJ Simpson a murderer?

Here you go again, comparing apples to oranges.

What people think of OJ Simpson is 1) irrelevant to this thread; and 2) of no value as a court of law has found him not guilty.

These marines haven't even had their day in court yet. I'm amazed that you don't have the capability to recognize that.

I'd say it's directly relevant, in that OJ was widely regarded as guilty prior to his trial, and after his acquittal. The only reason you're disingenuously dismissing the analogy is that it undermines your faux outrage.

Execpt for the part they havn;t been given a trial. signifigant because we saw all the evidence in the first case and none in the second to make an infomed opinion on ourselves. Neither has Murtha.

 

[tommywishbone]

The concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' left the US court system in the late 70's. The 1 million plus, being held in County jails waiting for trial, proves that point quite well.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: tommywishbone
The concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' left the US court system in the late 70's. The 1 million plus, being held in County jails waiting for trial, proves that point quite well.

It's does'nt prove any such thing. Detainment of the acsused is as old as America and even referenced in the BoR. Does not mean guilt. These soldiers are being detained. And for a US congressman who should know these concepts and cast guilt around is highly irresponsible. This is not some joe six pack in a forum accusing you of supporting terror this could ruin thier lives forever and definity taint a jury pool..

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Zebo
It's does'nt prove any such thing. Detainment of the acsused is as old as America and even referenced in the BoR. Does not mean guilt. These soldiers are being detained. And for a US congressman who should know these concepts and cast guilt around is highly irresponsible. This is not some joe six pack in a forum accusing you of supporting terror this could ruin thier lives forever and definity taint a jury pool..

You hit the nail on the head.

Kind of reminds me of that guy who was blamed for the Olympic Park bombing... Richard something or other. Didn't he get a nice settlement?

Murtha's conduct has been reckless and inexcusable. Period. Watching the chain gang defend him here is rather comical.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Kind of reminds me of that guy who was blamed for the Olympic Park bombing... Richard something or other. Didn't he get a nice settlement?

Murtha's conduct has been reckless and inexcusable. Period. Watching the chain gang defend him here is rather comical.

You're referring to Richard Jewell. Actually I wrote my law journal note about him, and about pretrial publicity generally. I probably have a copy of it rattling around somewhere if you're interested.

I don't think anyone here (I take it you're referring to me) is "defending" Rep. Murtha. I don't think, though, that anything he's said is slanderous, and I don't really believe his statements are likely to jeopardize the prosecution's ability to find a fair panel of members (a military "jury" is not actually called a jury, lending another layer of confusion to laypersons' understanding of the court-martial process).

If anything, military members tend to be pretty conservative, and certainly are not likely to take anything Murtha says at face value. Military court members are much better educated than most lay-juries (at least 2/3 of the panel will be officers, all of whom have college degrees and most of whom have Master's degrees), and are trained to follow instructions. As a prosecutor I was always completely closed-mouthed about pending cases, but personally I don't believe there's any good-faith basis for believing that the statements of Rep Murtha will prevent any court-martial panel from being impartial.

I think Murtha was in a bit of a conundrum - he felt (apparently appropriately) that DoD couldn't be trusted to investigate Haditha, and acted accordingly. I agree he made conclusory statements about guilt that were probably inartfully worded, but then again he's not an officer of the court. I certainly wouldn't use the word "reckless" - this is a member of the Marine Corps who wanted to help keep the Corps clean. It also turns out he was apparently right about what happened, but we shall see . . .

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: zendari

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.

Quote of Bush using the word treason in talking directly about another American?

I can't remember (or find) his exact words, and now that I think about it, "treason" wasn't one of them...but he said some pretty defaming things about the NYT after they published the NSA stories. And other Republicans said things far worse...

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Murtha's a scum bag acting as judge, jury and executioner of these guys in the press. Innocent until proven guilty remember? This is like 6th grade civics.

Fom what I heard evidence is null and they won't be convicted but that did'nt stop a US congressman from ruining thier lives. That's when they should sue IMO - little early now.

Man you guys are thin skinned...this is normal political crap. You act like this is some big shocking thing, when it's (unfortunatly) par for the course in politics. Hardly a day seems to go by without some government "leader" shooting his mouth off in some highly offensive way. Those of us on the left have had to deal with this crap from Republicans for years...perhaps the fact that you guys aren't used to it speaks the most to the viciousness gap between the right and the left in this country.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

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.

The evidence supports his claim. Get over it.

I love the way the right-wingers trot out the "innocent until proven guilty" rhetoric when they in fact support the illegal imprisonment of thousands without access to any legal counsel....
Why thinking people "debate" with these Bush talking point monkeys is beyond me.

 

[Thump553]

Even the lawsuit admits Murtha never even named the people he allegedly slandered. This may be the weakest, most baseless slander suit ever brought.

In the legal field, this is known as a SLAM lawsuit. It is the worst type of frivilous litigation, designed to intimidate those that would speak out against your interests by burying them in (basically unrecompensable) legal costs and diverting their time and energy to defending the suits rather than working opposing you. It is a technique frequently involved by large real estate developers against those that oppose their projects.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: zendari

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.

Quote of Bush using the word treason in talking directly about another American?

I can't remember (or find) his exact words, and now that I think about it, "treason" wasn't one of them...but he said some pretty defaming things about the NYT after they published the NSA stories. And other Republicans said things far worse...

Ann Coulter, maybe. But she isn't in government.

The most Bush said was that the actions of the NYT were "disgraceful", which is an opinion.

Besides, dailykos and conyers namecal just as well as anyone. And lefties taking it in stride? Bush has gotten more mud slung at him than anyone over the past few years.

 

[theeedude]

It's sickening how these (alleged) murderers are dragging Murtha into their trial. If they know that the DoD is the original source of the information, they should sue the DoD.

 

[zendari]

And just to clear up the utter bull that liberals are "thickskinned"....


Text

NEW YORK A Democratic congresswoman from Georgia is suing The Atlanta Journal-Constitution for libel.

Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney filed charges against the newspaper's editor Cynthia Tucker and publisher John Mellott for an editorial column that ran in the Sunday July 30 paper about McKinney?s alleged altercation with police, according to All Headline News.

McKinney?s attorney, J.M. Raffauf, said the column describes McKinney whacking a police officer with her cell phone, a charge McKinney denies.

The suit says that other facts were misstated including a reported suggestion by McKinney that President Bush had known about the September 11 terror attacks in advance, and had allowed the plot to unfold so that he and his friends could profit from the resulting wars.

The suits says that McKinney wants an "immediate retraction in writing these false and libelous statements" and "demands that your retraction and correction be accompanied by an editorial in which you specifically repudiate your libelous statements."




And this isn't just Joe Blow marine doing the suing, either, its a member of Congress.

 

[shadow9d9]

I'd have to suggest to some people here not to feed the trolls.. if people are not responding in an intelligent matter.. do not even bother continuing to try to explain things to them... you are just wasting your time.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
I'd have to suggest to some people here not to feed the trolls.. if people are not responding in an intelligent matter.. do not even bother continuing to try to explain things to them... you are just wasting your time.

I've been trying to do that of late. It's the only way to get them to correct their posting behavior or leave.

 

[Red Dawn]

I'd be willing to bet that DonVito is the only one in this thread who knows WTF he's talking about. The rest are just lining up to hurl insults at each other:laugh:

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: zendari

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.

Quote of Bush using the word treason in talking directly about another American?

I can't remember (or find) his exact words, and now that I think about it, "treason" wasn't one of them...but he said some pretty defaming things about the NYT after they published the NSA stories. And other Republicans said things far worse...

Ann Coulter, maybe. But she isn't in government.

The most Bush said was that the actions of the NYT were "disgraceful", which is an opinion.

Besides, dailykos and conyers namecal just as well as anyone. And lefties taking it in stride? Bush has gotten more mud slung at him than anyone over the past few years.

Myabe the NYT editors should go after Rep. Peter King instead:

But that didn?t stop Representative Peter King, chairman of the House Homeland Security committee, from wanting to get the cuffs out on the editors of The New York Times.

?We?re at war,? he said, ?and for the Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous.?

King said he would ask Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to ?begin an investigation and prosecution of The New York Times?the reporters, the editors, and the publisher.?

And for the record....Murtha was just giving his opinion on the information that was fed to him from the DoD (falsely I might add).

 

[RightIsWrong]

For the record, since I didn't see them here anywhere, here is what Murtha initially said:

Murtha, a vocal opponent of the war in Iraq, said at a news conference Wednesday that sources within the military have told him that an internal investigation will show that "there was no firefight, there was no IED (improvised explosive device) that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."

Now that the investigation has wound down, on what grounds does this marine have to stand on as far as libel? Murtha didn't name him personally and the investigation has basically found what he said to be accurate.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I'd be willing to bet that DonVito is the only one in this thread who knows WTF he's talking about. The rest are just lining up to hurl insults at each other:laugh:

And you are? :laugh: