PDA

View Full Version : Murtha must testify in defamation case


off piste
September 30th, 2007, 03:12 PM
http:/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070928/ap_on_go_co/murtha_suit/ (http://http//news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070928/ap_on_go_co/murtha_suit/)

http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/us/nws/p/ap_small.gif
Murtha must testify in defamation case

By KIMBERLY HEFLING, Associated Press WriterFri Sep 28, 5:52 PM ET

A federal judge refused Friday to dismiss a defamation case against Rep. John P. Murtha and ordered the Pennsylvania Democrat to give a sworn deposition about his comments alleging "cold-blooded murder and war crimes" by unnamed soldiers in connection with Iraqi civilian deaths.
A Marine Corps sergeant is suing the 18-term congressman for making the charge, which the soldier claims is false. Murtha, who opposes the Iraq war, made the comment during a May, 2006 Capitol Hill news conference in which he predicted that a Pentagon war crimes investigation will show Marines killed dozens of innocent Iraqi civilians in Haditha in 2005.
Murtha's office declined to comment on the ruling. A Vietnam veteran and retired Marine Reserves colonel, Murtha has said his intention was to draw attention to the pressure put on troops in Iraq and efforts to cover-up the incident.
The Justice Department wanted the case dismissed because Murtha was acting in his official role as a lawmaker. Assistant U.S. Attorney John F. Henault said the comments were made as part of the debate over the war in Iraq.
U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer said the congressman might be right, but said she won't know for sure unless Murtha explains himself. She did not set a date for Murtha's testimony but said she would also require him to turn over documents related to his comments.
"You're writing a very wide road for members of Congress to go to their home districts and say anything they choose about private persons and be able to do so without any liability. Are you sure you want to do that?" Collyer said, adding later, "How far can a congressman go and still be protected?"
Collyer said she was troubled by the idea the lawmakers are immune from lawsuits regardless of what they say to advance their political careers.
Mark S. Zaid, the attorney for the plaintiff, Marine Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, said he wanted Murtha's deposition and limited documents from the congressman, including calendars and documents related to which reporters he spoke to.
Zaid said Murtha was not acting within his congressional duties and was instead trying to embarrass then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, with whom Zaid said Murtha had a personal dispute.
Collyer, who was appointed to the bench by President Bush, said the case wasn't about whether to recall troops from Iraq and she didn't "particularly care" about Murtha's views on the war. She said the law cares only about what Murtha intended when he made the comments.
Charges have been dismissed against four of the eight Marines who were initially charged with murder or failure to investigate the deaths in Haditha. A battalion commander has been recommended for a court-martial; a final decision is pending.
The investigating officer overseeing the Haditha case is expected to recommend soon whether Wuterich should stand trial. Wuterich, 27, of Meriden, Conn., is accused of unpremeditated murder in 17 of the killings.

SANITARY ENGINEER
October 1st, 2007, 02:33 PM
.....
Collyer said she was troubled by the idea the lawmakers are immune from lawsuits regardless of what they say to advance their political careers....


Justice Collyer isn't the only one who is fed up with loudmouthed lawmakers who stop at nothing to perpetuate their selfserving careers.

Slider
October 2nd, 2007, 12:06 PM
Um, he was right about lots of killing of civilains going on. Hard to see how telling the truth is self serving. And defamation seems pretty silly, since he didn't mention te fellow who brought the suit anywhere.

"A military investigation into the deaths of two dozen Iraqis last November is expected to find that a small number of marines in western Iraq carried out extensive, unprovoked killings of civilians, Congressional, military and Pentagon officials said Thursday." NYTimes May 26, 2006

This seems more like a judge who shouldn't be one.

Slider

SANITARY ENGINEER
October 2nd, 2007, 11:20 PM
Politicians who grandstand by calling someone a "coldblooded killer" and a "war criminal" (someone who has already been acquitted of the charges) is not the same as "Um, being right about lots of killing of civilians". I would expect Judge Collyer knows a bit more about the case (if not the law) than you.

So - Um - try to think things through a bit before jumping on the side of the priviledged few who think they can defame others with impunity for some votes.

Thanks

FriedRys
October 3rd, 2007, 08:58 AM
This case is rediculous, the country has no time for this crap, not when Rush Limbaugh is out there impuning the good name of our soldiers. Maybe Congress could hold a hearing.

BG
October 3rd, 2007, 06:43 PM
This case is rediculous, the country has no time for this crap, not when Rush Limbaugh is out there impuning the good name of our soldiers. Maybe Congress could hold a hearing.


Yes I agree, I think there should be a Congressional hearing for all opininionated comments of all talk radio hosts and all advertisements that are annoying, inflamatory or seem anti something.
"Golly i don't think i like what you said or how you said it, maybe we should poll the Congress to see what they think"
This country is in deep sh!T. We don't know what the f#ck end is up. God bless us all (like that will do us any good).

BG

Slider
October 4th, 2007, 10:26 AM
Murtha said there was "cold-blooded murder and war crimes" by unnamed soldiers in connection with Iraqi civilian deaths. And he was 100% right.

Who was he defaming?

Slider

Slappy
October 4th, 2007, 11:26 AM
:( :mad:

http://www.thenausea.com/usa-iraq.html


(18+ only site - very graphic content)

"If you feel a nausea after visiting our web we have accomplished our goal. Do not put the blame on us, we have not produced all this violence. It is better that you think twice to whom you vote or which government you support."

off piste
October 4th, 2007, 12:14 PM
Murtha said there was "cold-blooded murder and war crimes" by unnamed soldiers in connection with Iraqi civilian deaths. And he was 100% right.

Who was he defaming?

Slider

The "link" you provided to the NYT story is more than a year old. A search on Google News shows hits of the same vintage proclaiming these "crimes", and nothing beyond that point about these so-called murders.

SANITARY ENGINEER
October 4th, 2007, 02:44 PM
.....
Collyer, who was appointed to the bench by President Bush, said the case wasn't about whether to recall troops from Iraq and she didn't "particularly care" about Murtha's views on the war. She said the law cares only about what Murtha intended when he made the comments.
Charges have been dismissed against four of the eight Marines who were initially charged with murder or failure to investigate the deaths in Haditha. A battalion commander has been recommended for a court-martial; a final decision is pending.
The investigating officer overseeing the Haditha case is expected to recommend soon whether Wuterich should stand trial. Wuterich, 27, of Meriden, Conn., is accused of unpremeditated murder in 17 of the killings.

The Marines were acquitted.

What that fact means is that neither Congressman Murtha, nor Slider, nor anyone else for that matter has the right to make potentially defaming statements about said Marines.

I do not profess to know the whole story, I only know that a process was served (re. civilian murder by military in Iraq), and found a party not guilty of the charges. When anyone (in this case Murtha) comes along and makes public statements to the contrary, they expose themselves to a defamation suit. THAT is what Judge Collyer's interest is here, not what happened in Iraq. Believe it or not there are some penalty's for the wrong kind of 'free speech' as there should be.

S.E.

Mr_Cheeze
October 5th, 2007, 03:18 PM
Murtha is nothing more than a grandstanding jackass who is only a Democrat because he's a labor whore. His views on the war aside, it is a disgrace that this former Marine now goes out of his way to make statements that undermines the military just to play up to the popular anti-war sentiment. He is the worst kind of panderer.

Slider
October 7th, 2007, 10:55 AM
No one was acquitted. The four primary scumbags had the charges dropped for lack of evidence.

Why was the evidence gone? Because the military didn't investigate for 15 months. Victims buried, Islamic law doesn't allow exhumation.

Nobody says it didn't happen, not even the military. So, follow closely. Marines come into town, and when they leave, 24 peoplle are killed, including children, some in their homes.

Musta been the martians.

Slider

off piste
October 8th, 2007, 05:05 AM
<SNIP>

So, follow closely. Marines come into town, and when they leave, 24 peoplle are killed, including children, some in their homes.

Musta been the martians.

Slider


Hmmmmm,

when I Google "insurgents kill Iraquis", I get 1,790,000 hits.

Musta been Bush, and the Diebold/Haliburton Internet Control Machine.

Mr_Cheeze
October 8th, 2007, 11:22 AM
No one was acquitted. The four primary scumbags had the charges dropped for lack of evidence.

Why was the evidence gone? Because the military didn't investigate for 15 months. Victims buried, Islamic law doesn't allow exhumation.

Nobody says it didn't happen, not even the military. So, follow closely. Marines come into town, and when they leave, 24 peoplle are killed, including children, some in their homes.

Musta been the martians.

Slider

Until you're in a warzone, under orders to engage if fired upon, with bombs going off around you, I don't think anybody sitting at home reading second hand internet news (and not so much news) accounts of the hell that goes on over there, you or any of us certainly are in no position to judge or make sweeping accusations. Bottom line is, you really don't know sh*t about this marine or what happened.

What's particularly bothersome is how liberals almost seem to gloat whenever one of these stories comes out. Here's a newsflash for you: civilians die in war. Or would you have every soldier be held responsible for every civilian death?


This story, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/04/world/main3328739.shtml?source=mostpop_story , is more disturbing, I think. There was an attempt to coverup the Tillman death, as well. What the hell is going on in Afghanistan?

Slider
October 8th, 2007, 01:11 PM
Child dies in his house. Eyewitness reports say marines went house to house killing people. You draw the conclusion.

The issue goes a lot further than why the military was so inept in the investigation, right to how can we win this war. Killing civilains in cold blood won't exactly help enlist the locals, you know?

The only way to get a handle on it, if we do intend to "win" is to air this stuff out, fully. That's why anyone with a brain, and that includes conservatives, wants full disclosure.

Slider