Redstate

Let's see if the Speaker rushes to protect the "privileges" of a Democratic congressman in hot water once again.

then he is not guilty of defamation, since he could not have known what he was saying was false.  

But the Congressman dearly wants the information he got not just to be true, but to be the tip of an iceberg.

So either Murtha gets this thrown out somehow, or he gets to choose whether to say he lied or to divulge who lied to him.

It's a nice move.  Some Marine Corps lawyer just showed some guts.

He wants the Israelis to sit still so Hezbollah's kidnap squads can do their job.

I actually think its more basic then that.  I think what they are trying to do is get Murtha to provide evidence that the DoD fed him this information.  

If he cant he's screwed. If he took information and twisted it, hes screwed. If the DoD did infact mislead him somehow, he's branded a dupe and the DoD gets to nail its leaker.

My bet............

Murtha got some info, twisted it to serve his purpose and now he is going to have to defend himself in court along with the DoD memo/leaker.

That's what I wanted to say.  Even though the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, by saying that Murtha was fed false information they put the ball back in his court.  It does risk having the suit dismissed, however, since it is not defamatory to pass along false information if you believe it to be true.  

 How do I get my reputation back ? This is the plea of everyone who gets legally libeled by the press. Ever since the media started to converge on single shared narrative of events with no dissent or introspection, the ability of anyone to fend off its  unwelcome spotlight has vanished. Richard Jewel, the soldiers of haditha, anyone who the media has set its sights on has pretty much one hope, that they do such a lousy job that the exoneration has to be as big news as the smear.

 Murtha started a meme he knew the press wanted to hear. No one could think, he wasn't perfectly aware the press wanted to believe our troops were in the wrong. His statements gave the press what they wanted to hear and raised his prominence. The soldiers he wronged now have an unwelcome fame that nothing will ever rid them of.

 Ultimately the only good that will come from this is if the press is held to a higher standard. Absent malice is just not good enough.

Murtha started a meme he knew the press wanted to hear. No one could think, he wasn't perfectly aware the press wanted to believe our troops were in the wrong. His statements gave the press what they wanted to hear and raised his prominence. The soldiers he wronged now have an unwelcome fame that nothing will ever rid them of.

For a moment there I thought I was back in 1972, but after a quick check of the hairline and waistline I realized that there's a WORLD of  difference between "Kerry" and "Murtha".  

For instance, one begins with the letter "K", and the other...

What has troubled me most about the Haditha story is that none of the Marines under investigation have been charged and they have been neither restricted in their movements nor ordered into pre-trial confinement. Very unusual behavior when one is accused of killing "innocent civilians in cold blood" and could shortly be on trial for their life. The phrase "flight risk" comes to mind.

The second troubling aspect of this story is who, if anyone, told Murtha that the killings were in "cold blood" and why they would say such a thing. Setting aside for the moment the possibility that Murtha's tale was true and SSG Wuterich is simply picking this legal fight, which he knows he will lose, in order to muddy the waters, there are two possibilities.

First, and given the process thus far the most likely, is that Murtha was simply lying.

Congressman John Murtha, D-Pa., a former Marine, was briefed on the Haditha investigation by Marine Corps Commandant Michael Hagee. Murtha said Sunday, "The reports I have from the highest level: No firing at all. No interaction. No military action at all in this particular incident. It was an explosive device, which killed a Marine. From then on, it was purely shooting people."

Implicit in this is that General Hagee is the source of the allegations. When The New Republic rises to defend Hagee against a perceived "swiftboating" (presumably this means that Hagee acted in a duplicitous or dishonest manner and was exposed but the truth was too inconvenient for his partisans to accept, at least that would be my definition of "swiftboating") we find:

The paper confirmed that Hagee had briefed Murtha and seven other representatives and senators last month about the Haditha probe. But what exactly Hagee told those congressmen is as yet unknown.

I leave it to the reader to decide what the odds are of eight members of Congress having access to inflammatory material like that which Murtha has purveyed and keeping their mouths shut.

While senior Marine officers are going to be reluctant to pick a fight with a senior appropriator, CENTCOM did issue a sort of soft denial:

No official investigation report has been released by the Pentagon and a spokesman for Murtha was unable to add to the congressman's remarks.

"I do not know where Rep. Murtha is obtaining is information," said Lt. Col. Sean Gibson, a spokesman for Marine Corps Forces Central Command in Tampa, Fla. "Thoroughness will drive the investigation."

The other possibility is more unpleasant to contemplate. That at some point the Marine Corps chain of command (witness the implication that GEN Hagee was the source for Murtha's claim), or the Army chain of command (witness the strange tale of the investigation below), made a post facto decision to crucify a handful of young Marines in response to what was perceived as a terrible public relations problem once TIME magazine intimated they were going to run with the story.

An acquaintance of mine, a senior USMC colonel, notes that what is notable about this incident is that the actions of some very junior Marines are being investigated by Army general (MG Eldon Bargewell) and that investigation was ordered by LTG Peter Chiarelli who is commander of the Multi-National Corps-Iraq and XVIII Airborne Corps. The Marine units in Iraq are only under the operational control, responsibility for administrative actions such as promotions or military justice is retained by the USMC.

This decision can be read in a number of different ways, 1) CENTCOM felt that the Marines were being set up to take a fall for the failings of the Marine chain of command and stepped in to stop this or 2) CENTCOM wanted to make an example of the Marines and stepped in to ensure the investigation would produce the correct results or 3) confidence in the ability of the Marine chain of command to impartially investigate the incident was fatally compromised and CENTCOM stepped in to preserve the integrity of the investigation. I'll leave the choice of conspiracy to you.

All this aside, it looks like Mr. Murtha may get the chance to face a more persistent questioner than Chris Matthews.

Zaid said the filing is designed partly to force Murtha to disclose what information he received from the Defense Department and the Marine Corps commandant to form his opinion, essentially trying to speed up the discovery process in a potential criminal trial.

"This case is not about money; it's about clearing Frank Wuterich's name, and part of that is to identify where these leaks are coming from," Zaid said in an interview. "Congressman Murtha has created this atmosphere that has already concluded guilt. He's created this environment that really smells, and he's the only one who has done that."

The move by Wuterich is rare, as statements made by members of Congress generally are protected under the "speech or debate" clause in Article I, Section 6, of the Constitution. But legal experts said the clause grants immunity only for what lawmakers say in legislative proceedings and does not apply to news releases, speeches and other public comments.

Rodney A. Smolla, dean of the University of Richmond Law School and a libel expert, said yesterday that Wuterich would have the burden of proving that he is innocent and that Murtha's statements were false, but he added that the quotations appear to be actionable in court. He said the suit shows that Wuterich probably thinks he did nothing wrong.

wait a second.  Apparently that doesn't apply to Marines.  Sorry Mr. Murtha, you are definitely guilty.

  to understand Art.1, Sect.6.  The unspecified but omnipresent expert is a kind of priesthood in America, elevated to the altar by MediaBoobs to add substance to their usually mindless ruminations.

      Though there's no telling what happens to the immunity defense once a federal judge gets his hands on it, particularlly if he is a democratic appointee.

      It is almost inexplicable why DOD would lay out a blanket murder scenario prior to trial,something that, even if believed, could have been treated obliquely and minimized.

Does Valerie Plame do part time work for that agency?  Or was Murtha informed on a confedential basis?  Did the old guy feel he was misled and after a couple of shots of J Daniels decide he was going to be caped crusader?

      Murtha is capable of garbling a breakfast menu and I'd like to know more about the briefing.

By putting the investigation into the Army's hands, the charge of "cover up" is lessened if the Marines in question are exonerated.

Get him for every penny he has...

This should Definitely help his opponent...

Ex-Marine in Rep. Murtha's case. I would think the rank and file Jarhead (my late father included) would probably tell you the congressman has ex-communicated himself from the Corps.

honk your horn on that one.

He excommunicated himself from the Corps the first time he said "cut and run", though of course he didn't use those words.

He joins that nutjob Carville in the Disgrace to the Corps Club.  It's a very small group considering the millions who bear the title

Marine

the Marine Corps Ball in a long, long time.  I'm pretty sure he would require some serious Secret Service protection to show up at 8th & I.

Time for Murtha to be replaced.  Her website is here and she has the lawsuit along with Murtha's call for the Israeli's to cut and run on the front page.

I am familiar with the Haditha incident, but had no idead who Wuterich was until now.  I wonder if he'll just bring himself more attention, not less, by going through with this suit.

READY! FIRE! APPLAUSE! AIM?-NAAAH!

Marines said linked to Haditha slayings

ASSOCIATED PRESS

August 2, 2006

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060802-015524-8104r.htm

1:31 p.m.

    Evidence collected on the deaths of 24 Iraqis in Haditha supports accusations that Marines deliberately shot the civilians, including unarmed women and children, a Pentagon official said today. snip.....

As another blog said: Bad Timing Award. To file suit accusing Murtha of lying right before your own investigative service agrees with Murtha, at least in part.

It's sad, but the throw-away comment from Streiff (Setting aside for the moment the possibility that Murtha's tale was true and SSG Wuterich is simply picking this legal fight, which he knows he will lose, in order to muddy the waters, ) now appears to be true?  What a sad day for the country and the Marines.  Regardless of one's position on the war, the occupation, or their prosecution, no one will come out looking good in this.  :(

there is no case closed.

No one has ever claimed the shootings were anything but deliberate. The claim is that the shootings were combat, not murder.

Read a little bit before jumping in.

As I said to your compadre, reading is always a good thing. It is even better to be vaguely familiar with the case.

The Marines involved have never claimed the killings a) didn't happen or b) were accidental. Their claim was that it was combat. Nothing here changes that.

1. Nice first post...
   
   
2. If the "case" you are referring to is the accusation against the Marines, it is not closed.  It isn't even charged yet.  
   
   
3. If the "case" you are referring to is the lawsuit against Murtha, it's not closed either.  First of all, we don't actually know what Murtha was told by the Marine Corps CoC.  If in fact the information was presented in a classified briefing, Murtha should lose his security clearance at a minimum, whether his charge was accurate or not.
   

I'm willing to bet that if the situation here were a little different, like a white mayor was out saying that an inner-city black suspect in a murder case was guilty even before the grand jury had returned an indictment let alone the man was convicted by a jury of his peers you would be screaming about discrimination and denial of due process.

You should be ashamed to be breathing the same air that those Marines breathe.  Put your head back where it was before your account was approved.

I have no "compadre" here, but I am saddened to see you do a "you and them like you" based on a theoretical alignment of viewpoints. We're not all the enemy here, you know.

The article that I read said Evidence collected on the deaths of 24 Iraqis in Haditha supports accusations that Marines deliberately shot the civilians, including unarmed women and children  If I understand your comment correctly, than the Marines contention would be that the "deliberate" shooting was still part of combat, and not unjustified.  If this correct?

The article certainly doesn't make it sound as if "deliberately shot the unarmed civilians" counts as part as combat, but maybe that's what you feel is still up in the air?  If this is so, however, why would they be considering criminal charges?  I'm sorry streiff; I don't see how this is anything but bad news for the Marines involved.  I know you get a bit hot under the collar, so let me assure you this is an honest question: How does this news support the accused Marines' contention?

back to the use of English here and to the story under consideration.

If you haven't followed it you should read up before jumping in.

The Marines haven't been arrested or charged, you will note, however, in the two or three other incidents under investigation the Marines or soldiers involved have been ordered into pre-trial confinement because of probable cause that a crime had been committed.

The Marines claim they took hostile fire from some houses and cleared those houses with automatic rifle fire and grenades. Sounds deliberate to me.

Note the lack of reference in the part of the report that has been leaked to the idea of probable cause that a crime has been committed.

Once the report is filed, GEN Casey still has to decide whether to prefer charges and appoint an Article 32 officer to decide if the charges merit court martial.

Will the Republican leadership rush to defend Rep. Kline? If this lawsuit is legit, why isn't his name listed next to Murtha's?

>>If this lawsuit is legit, why isn't his name listed next to Murtha's?

It is up to the plaintiff to decide who to sue, and the plaintiff can make that decision on any basis.  The extent of the damage - how widely disseminated the remarks have been - is an obvious one to apply.  But, quite simply, in a tort action you don't have to sue if you don't want to.  This is not a criminal case.  If two people conspire to commit a crime the prosecutors will be expected to prosecute both.  If two people do you a civil wrong you can sue one or both as you wish.  You can let one of them off because you like their smile.

So what is it about this lawsuit that you think might not be 'legit'?  And why is that impacted in any way by whether or not an action is being initiated against another defendant.  (Who, by the way, would not be co-defendant unless the statement was jointly issued.  He would be a defendant in another action).

for the clarification.  Obviously, I've read the story, since I am quoting from it, but anyway: I appreciate you stating your viewpoint.  So it's kind of negative proof: since other Marines in similar situations were put in pre-trial confinement, and these weren't, it's a better sign that in this case there is no(t enough) evidence of a crime.  That's good news.