|
The War Profiteers - War Crimes,
Kidnappings, Torture and Big Money |
|
July 19th,
2007 - Valerie Plame’s Lawsuit Dismissed |
|
Valerie Plame’s Lawsuit
Dismissed By Matt Apuzzo Associated Press July 19, 2007; 4:37 PM Washington - A federal judge
dismissed former CIA operative Valerie Plame's lawsuit against members of the
Bush administration Thursday, eliminating one of the last courtroom remnants
of the leak scandal. Plame, the wife of former
Ambassador Joseph Wilson, had accused Vice President Dick Cheney and others
of conspiring to leak her identity in 2003. Plame said that violated her privacy
rights and was illegal retribution for her husband's criticism of the
administration. U.S. District Judge John D.
Bates dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds and said he would not
express an opinion on the constitutional arguments. Bates dismissed the case
against all defendants: Cheney, White House political adviser Karl Rove, former
White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and former Deputy
Secretary of State Richard Armitage. Plame's attorneys had said
the lawsuit would be an uphill battle. Public officials are normally immune
from such lawsuits filed in connection with their jobs. Plame's identity was
revealed in a syndicated newspaper column in 2003, shortly after Wilson began
criticizing the administration's march to war in Iraq. Plame believes the
leak was retribution and that it violated their constitutional rights. Armitage and Rove were the
sources for that article, which touched off a lengthy leak investigation.
Nobody was charged with leaking but Libby was convicted of lying and
obstruction the investigation. Bush commuted Libby's 2 1/2-year prison term
before the former aide served any time. "This just dragged on
the character assassination that had gone on for years," said Alex
Bourelly, one of Libby's lawyers. "To have the case dismissed is a big
relief." Plame's attorneys said they
were reading the opinion and had no immediate comment. While Bates did not address
the constitutional questions, he seemed to side with administration officials
who said they were acting within their job duties. Plame had argued that what
they did was illegal and outside the scope of their government jobs. "The alleged means by
which defendants chose to rebut Mr. Wilson's comments and attack his
credibility may have been highly unsavory, " Bates wrote. "But
there 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." © 2007 The Associated Press External link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/19/AR2007071901496.html |