« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Plame's Hope for Civil Suit Dashed Again
Valerie Plame lost an appeal when the U.S. Court of Appeals rejected her request for a civil suit against the Bush administration.
From the AP:
A federal judge dismissed the case last year on largely procedural grounds. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld that ruling Tuesday.
The lawsuit accused Vice President Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, among others, as naming Plame to reporters as a CIA operative in 2003.
Advertisement
The court ruled that she would need to raise her case under the Privacy Act of 1974.
Under the Privacy Act, she could recoup reasonable attorney fees & other litigation costs reasonably incurred during the case. Actual damages sustained by the individual not less than $1000.00.
Those found guilty of mishandling (leaking) of her information, could by found guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not more than $5000.00.
This is her objection, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, & Dick Cheney are not subject to the suit. They would only be liable for a combined total of $15,000.00 of fines if found guilt in a criminal case.
Therefore recouping damages from those indiviuals who committed the transgression(s), would not be available to her.
August 12, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry a couple of typos to correct:
3rd para word "by" should read "be".
4th para word "guilt" should read "guilty".
August 12, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
From the ruling:
Government employees who engage in questionable acts, such as abusing prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay facility or engaging in defamatory speech, cannot be held individually liable if they are carrying out official duties, the court said.
"The conduct, then, was in the defendants' scope of employment regardless of whether it was unlawful or contrary to the national security of the United States," Appeals Court Chief Judge David Sentelle wrote in the opinion.
Sovereign immunity. And a taste of how the Guantanamo abuses will go down if they are ever tried.
August 12, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
She should talk to Bugliosi. That guy knows how to find the angle. He'd be agreat AG.
August 12, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting, how the judges appointed by Reagan and Bush formed the opinion, with the judge appointed by Clinton dissenting, in part.
August 12, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Politicizing to Judiciary as a RegaNaziCorp tactic goes WAY back...(from Wikipedia):
On the D.C. Court of Appeals, Sentelle voted to overturn the convictions of Oliver North and John Poindexter, along with Judge Laurence Silberman. He was one of the judges responsible for appointing Kenneth Starr to replace Robert B. Fiske as lead independent council to investigate President Bill Clinton.
In 2007, in Boumediene v. Bush, 375 U.S. App. D.C. 48, Judge Sentelle concurred with Judge Arthur Raymond Randolph, relying on Johnson v. Eisentrager, to uphold the Military Commissions Act's suspension of habeas corpus for enemy combatants as constitutional.
This is McCain's idea of a great jurist.
August 12, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very apt Cal, in effect the old defense, "I was only following orders", is now legitimate.
August 12, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Treason is within the scope of government employment.
Treason but not reason.
August 12, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink