| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: WoT | |
| Appeals Court: Marine can't sue Murtha | |
| 2009-04-15 | |
| A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that Rep. John Murtha cannot be sued for accusing U.S. Marines of murdering Iraqi civilians "in cold blood," remarks that sparked outrage among conservative commentators. The appeals court in Washington dismissed a defamation lawsuit brought by a Marine who led the squad in the attack. The judges agreed with Murtha that he was immune from the lawsuit because he was acting in his official role as a lawmaker when he made the comments to reporters. Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich of Meriden, Conn., claimed Murtha damaged his reputation by saying the squad he was leading engaged in "cold-blooded murder and war crimes" in Haditha, Iraq, on Nov. 19, 2005. On to Scotus
| |
| Posted by:Nimble Spemble |
| #11 Lardass Murtha is an eloquent argument for term limits for Congress. |
| Posted by: Kofi Flomotch5556 2009-04-15 21:35 |
| #10 The rule is actually a good one, even if slime like Murtha get to hide behind it. Think of all the scurrilous lawsuits the left would have filed against Bush. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2009-04-15 19:44 |
| #9 If he was talking in an official role, it was treason since he aided an enemy in the field of battle. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2009-04-15 16:31 |
| #8 Using the "Congress is in session" defense, just like LBJ did to get out of drunk driving and speeding charges. |
| Posted by: AlmostAnonymous5839 2009-04-15 14:28 |
| #7 Murtha will not lose an election, because he is a master cheat. Because they have an open primary, in previous elections, he has had Democrats run on the Republican primary ticket, then told his followers to vote for them instead of the real Republican. The winning Democrat would then not campaign against Murtha. He also believes in unlawful cheating as well. A though he hates the military, he fully supports the defense contractors in his district as a quid pro quo for them supporting him. Any who refuse he puts out of business. No, the only ways he will ever be put out of office is either if he is financially ruined, convicted of a felony, or they have to scrape his decaying carcass out of the chair. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2009-04-15 14:08 |
| #6 xb, there is still one way to contrain government left. |
| Posted by: Hellfish 2009-04-15 12:22 |
| #5 Just more evidence that convinces me we're at the point of a "governmental singularity" - a point beyond which we, the people, can no longer constrain out government in any meaningful way. |
| Posted by: xbalanke 2009-04-15 09:11 |
| #4 Finding a suitable opponent... They have. It doesn't make any difference. The votes in his district want the income it brings in and doesn't give a crap about the quality of their representative. They have no shame. They're tribal. He'll die in office. Then the payback will begin as their rep won't have a day of seniority and all the business flees to the district of the next rep with the key seat in Congress. "Official role" in on the floor of the House. Nothing more, nothing less. Just as lawyers get way with outlandish accusations within the confines of the court. Anything else violates the base concept of equality before the law. Four legs good, two legs better. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-04-15 08:52 |
| #3 They had a "suitable replacement" last november. He lost. |
| Posted by: Butch Omamp7794 2009-04-15 08:25 |
| #2 Wow - what this is basically saying is that a congressman is above the law. They can make any claim, any accusation, any slander at all anywhere and for any reason and have it part of their 'official role'. Remember Sack-o-Shit was on a national television show - not on the senate floor. It was expressing Its opinion and not speaking for the Senate. This sets a very bad prescient for future campaigns and give the incumbent an immense advantage. As for finding a replacement. Good Luck. He can call them rednecks and they will still vote for him. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2009-04-15 08:23 |
| #1 Some folks depend on technicalities to survive. Since when is making unfounded accusations against the armed forces a lawmaker's duty? Ponder the ramifications here. |
| Posted by: gorb 2009-04-15 01:02 |