Judge John D. Bates of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia rejected former CIA employee Valerie Plame's (joined by her husband, Joe Wilson) claims for damages from Vice President Cheney, former Cheney staffer Scooter Libby, White House political adviser Karl Rove, and former State Department deputy Richard Armitage, who she blamed for leaking her CIA identity. The 41-page opinion grants the government's motions to dismiss (both 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)) and so for the purpose of the ruling assumes the validity of the fable filed by Plame and Wilson. Still, and after painstaking review of the various laws and decisions (principally, the 1971 Bivens case), Judge Bates concluded that neither the Privacy Act (slip op. at 18-27) nor the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (id. at 27-29) authorized a private right of action to recover from government officials. Echoing my long-standing fears, Bates -- a Vietnam Vet, ex-Ken Starr deputy and Bush 43 appointee -- also was concerned (slip op. at 33) that such suits "will inevitably require judicial intrusion into matters of national security."
Plame and Wilson vowed to appeal:
"This case is not just about what top government officials did to Valerie and me." Wilson said in a statement. "We brought this suit because we strongly believe that politicizing intelligence ultimately serves only to undermine the security of our nation."Wilson's comments qualify as a JOTD--this is the same Joe Wilson who bragged to WaPo uber-editor Bob Woodward that his wife was a CIA employee, "leaked" a phony account of his mission to Niger in a mendacious NY Times Op-Ed, briefly parlayed his fifteen minutes of fame into advising candidate John Kerry and -- just this week -- endorsed Hillary Clinton. As Best of the Web's James Taranto says, "We agree that politicizing intelligence undermines national security. So why'd Wilson do it?"
Judge Bates' opinion is logical and consistent with Supreme Court and Circuit precedent--it will be upheld (Wilson's lawyers appealed to the DC Circuit on Friday); disputes over government policy should be settled by elections, not suits. Still, I would have reached the same result via different reasoning. Simply put, both Plame and Wilson are liars. And liars shouldn't be able to extort money from those who exposed them, see slip op. at 39 (footnote omitted):
[T]here can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism, such as that levied by Mr. Wilson against the Bush Administration's handling of prewar foreign intelligence, by speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level Executive Branch officials. Thus, the alleged tortious conduct, namely the disclosure of Mrs. Wilson's status as a covert operative, was incidental to the kind of conduct that defendants were employed to perform.Of course, no one at Kos understands that. Indeed, lefty nut-cases are in full treason mode--in such circles, outrage being an adequate substitute for reason or law.
MORE:
A first-rate editorial in Saturday's NY Post:
Judge John Bates' 41-page decision shouldn't surprise anyone.MORE & MORE:
The former CIA operative and her ex-diplomat husband, who've become the darlings of the anti-war Bush-bashing crowd, sued Vice President Dick Cheney; his onetime chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby; White House political operative Karl Rove, and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage in connection with the leaking of Plame's name to columnist Robert Novak.
They claimed a political conspiracy was hatched at the top levels of the White House to discredit Wilson for his criticizing the administration's pre-war Iraq policy - and that "outing" Plame violated the couple's constitutional rights.
But the judge cited several reasons why the lawsuit shouldn't go forward - including the fact that these officials are legally immune from such suits, and that it was filed under an inapplicable act.
Judge Bates also made some substantive, non-technical points. Key among them: "Speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level Executive Branch officials."
In other words, none of those named in the suit violated the couple's privacy by discussing them with reporters.
Actually, there are reasons why Plame and Wilson took a legally dubious route with this lawsuit, instead of using the more applicable Privacy Law: Courts have ruled that the White House is exempt from that law, and Cheney & Co. were the couple's prime targets. . .
In the end, Joseph Wilson, in his criticism of the administration, was guilty of exactly what he charged the White House of doing: politicizing intelligence.
From Free Frank Warner:
3 comments:
Excellent addition to the discussion.
The "full treason mode" comes from the firm belief that it is Bush and the neocons who are the enemy.
AVI:
Yes; specifically, they would rather lose the war on terror than allow Bush and the neocons to win, even if Western Civ. has to die.
It is such an awful accusation for us to make, and I have refrained from it for until recently. But I find no other explanation for the comments. The rationalization is that because they want what is best for America, they are simply taking action to improve the republic. But that is insufficient, for it is an excuse as easily used by evil men as by good.
Post a Comment