Murtha must tesfity for slandering our troops

[JaJae]

Murtha must testify in defamation case

By KIMBERLY HEFLING, Associated Press Writer
Fri Sep 28, 5:52 PM ET

A federal judge refused Friday to dismiss a defamation case against Rep. John P. Murtha and ordered the Pennsylvania Democrat to give a sworn deposition about his comments alleging "cold-blooded murder and war crimes" by unnamed soldiers in connection with Iraqi civilian deaths.

A Marine Corps sergeant is suing the 18-term congressman for making the charge, which the soldier claims is false. Murtha, who opposes the Iraq war, made the comment during a May, 2006 Capitol Hill news conference in which he predicted that a Pentagon war crimes investigation will show Marines killed dozens of innocent Iraqi civilians in Haditha in 2005.

Murtha's office declined to comment on the ruling. A Vietnam veteran and retired Marine Reserves colonel, Murtha has said his intention was to draw attention to the pressure put on troops in Iraq and efforts to cover-up the incident.

The Justice Department wanted the case dismissed because Murtha was acting in his official role as a lawmaker. Assistant U.S. Attorney John F. Henault said the comments were made as part of the debate over the war in Iraq.

U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer said the congressman might be right, but said she won't know for sure unless Murtha explains himself. She did not set a date for Murtha's testimony but said she would also require him to turn over documents related to his comments.

"You're writing a very wide road for members of Congress to go to their home districts and say anything they choose about private persons and be able to do so without any liability. Are you sure you want to do that?" Collyer said, adding later, "How far can a congressman go and still be protected?"

Collyer said she was troubled by the idea the lawmakers are immune from lawsuits regardless of what they say to advance their political careers.

Mark S. Zaid, the attorney for the plaintiff, Marine Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, said he wanted Murtha's deposition and limited documents from the congressman, including calendars and documents related to which reporters he spoke to.

Zaid said Murtha was not acting within his congressional duties and was instead trying to embarrass then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, with whom Zaid said Murtha had a personal dispute.

Collyer, who was appointed to the bench by President Bush, said the case wasn't about whether to recall troops from Iraq and she didn't "particularly care" about Murtha's views on the war. She said the law cares only about what Murtha intended when he made the comments.

Charges have been dismissed against four of the eight Marines who were initially charged with murder or failure to investigate the deaths in Haditha. A battalion commander has been recommended for a court-martial; a final decision is pending.

The investigating officer overseeing the Haditha case is expected to recommend soon whether Wuterich should stand trial. Wuterich, 27, of Meriden, Conn., is accused of unpremeditated murder in 17 of the killings.

The question here what do you think about the underlined statements? How far should our congressmen be allowed to go when it comes to slandering our troops, or just about anyone?

Now the judge was appointed by Bush which I'm sure is going to be an issue. But I think she makes a very fair and partisan point when she says what he said isn't as important as why he said it. Murtha's defense is that he was acting in the role of a lawmaker. I think that's a pretty hard sell. I think the intention of his getting on TV was to point out a negative atrocity in Iraq to make Bush and Company and the war look bad. And if that's the case he should be subjected to the same laws you and I are subjected to. He should not get a pass on this as he has many other times in the past. I really hope this goes to trial and Murtha gets the public humiliation he deserves.

[Stylerod]

I'm biased, but I think she is right when she says

"You're writing a very wide road for members of Congress to go to their home districts and say anything they choose about private persons and be able to do so without any liability. Are you sure you want to do that?" Collyer said, adding later, "How far can a congressman go and still be protected?"

It's a great point and can't be ignored.

Murtha keeps hiding behind the fact that he was a Marine. I guess he thinks that gives him the right to say any lie about the military he wants. I say it doesn't.

[JaJae]

From day one I said, give the marines the benefit of the doubt. Innocent before proven guilty, yaddie yadda. If found guilty, punish them swiftly and harshly. It was actually fairly unpopular at the time. I remember certain members reaming me out for it. Saying I'm a Bush sackrider, this and that. I tried calling out the hypocrisy between private citizens innocent until being proven guilty and was told the military is a different standard, go figure.

As time has progressed, most of those people have laid off that view quite a bit. A lot of them still seem to think they were all guilty regardless of their verdicts. Regardless of people's personal beliefs on this issue, those soldiers were cleared of charges. And Murtha severely violated their basic constitutional rights to a fair trial and other status quo rights such as innocent until proven guilty. He needs to take responsibility for his actions. He did his little hit job to get at Bush and the Republicans. Now that it's blown up in his face he needs to take responsibility for it, something he's managed to weasel out of in quite other cases of ethics and morality lately.

[WickedLou9]

Where did he say these things?

There is actually a rule that on the floor of congress you have absolute immunity from slander and defamation. Maybe that's why he said he was acting in the role of lawmaker.

Also, was there any damage caused by what he said? The marine could sue but would have to proove actual economic damages. It's a case of "so what" ? Yes he said those things but so what? There were no damages. They may have been distasteful or ill advised or whatever you want to call it. But we do have freedom of speech. The answer to someone saying things you don't like is not less speech, it's more.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Where did he say these things?

I believe it was Matthews on MSNBC. He got himself an interview on an opinion show and just started slandering. Cause I recall Matthews asking about Mai Lai or some shit and Murtha being like it's the same thing.

It had nothing to do with Congress or lawmaking. It was purely political. I'm not sure if that was the first time he got on TV and made the claims, but they were all done to the media and not to lawmakers... even after the military asked him to stop running to the media with his half-story claiming the solders were guilty before an investigation was complete.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Murtha keeps hiding behind the fact that he was a Marine. I guess he thinks that gives him the right to say any lie about the military he wants. I say it doesn't.

Like John Kerry?

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Where did he say these things?

There is actually a rule that on the floor of congress you have absolute immunity from slander and defamation. Maybe that's why he said he was acting in the role of lawmaker.

I am not familiar with that rule. Would that apply to what is said on the floor as official business of record or anything you say while durring session? I would back that rule on the floor, but not anything that is said to some reporter or observer!

[kinggovernor]

He needs to be reminded what "Semper Fi" means

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I believe it was Matthews on MSNBC. He got himself an interview on an opinion show and just started slandering. Cause I recall Matthews asking about Mai Lai or some shit and Murtha being like it's the same thing.

It had nothing to do with Congress or lawmaking. It was purely political. I'm not sure if that was the first time he got on TV and made the claims, but they were all done to the media and not to lawmakers... even after the military asked him to stop running to the media with his half-story claiming the solders were guilty before an investigation was complete.

If he said it on TV than he isn't immune.. however I still don't see what damages anyone could recover. It's not like that soldier was denied a job because of it or lost some income or something. His feelings were hurt. Boo hoo. That's what comes with the freedom of speech. Sometimes people say things that you don't like. If his constituents didn't like it they would vote him out next time.
A lawsuit has absolutely no place here.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

If he said it on TV than he isn't immune.. however I still don't see what damages anyone could recover. It's not like that soldier was denied a job because of it or lost some income or something. His feelings were hurt. Boo hoo. That's what comes with the freedom of speech. Sometimes people say things that you don't like. If his constituents didn't like it they would vote him out next time.
A lawsuit has absolutely no place here.

He's immune only if acting as a lawmaker/legislature, not if he had other motives. The prosecution is arguing he slandered the troops simply because he had a vendetta against certain politicians, which would make it illegal. It's not the venue that matters, it was his intent behind it. He now has to defend why he said it, where he got his information from and show it wasn't because he was a hitman with an agenda for the Democratic party.

[6SpeedTA95]

I think that the judge has hit the nail on the head. It depends completely on his intent. He does have immunity on the floor as he should. However, to go on TV and spout such crap for political gain is indeed slander. It will be interesting to see what happens here.

You can not slander an entire group of soldiers for political gain can you?

Having said all that, I have a lot of trouble swallowing this from a 1st amendment perspective. I think the judge is ok in getting a feel for what he was thinking but does that ultimately mean the court will have to act as the "thought" police in this case and get inside Murtha's head? If so I am not cool with that because the truth is none of us know what he was really thinking. And if he was thinking I'm going to say this for political gain where does freedom of speech come in? Why don't they just vote him out if his constituents are tired of this shit?

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

If he said it on TV than he isn't immune.. however I still don't see what damages anyone could recover. It's not like that soldier was denied a job because of it or lost some income or something. His feelings were hurt. Boo hoo. That's what comes with the freedom of speech. Sometimes people say things that you don't like. If his constituents didn't like it they would vote him out next time.
A lawsuit has absolutely no place here.

Because slander, or libel, is illegal? And since it's a civil issue that means $$$ and not jail time.

A type of defamation. Slander is an untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person's reputation or standing in the community. Because slander is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement. If the statement is made via broadcast media -- for example, over the radio or on TV -- it is considered libel, rather than slander, because the statement has the potential to reach a very wide audience.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I think that the judge has hit the nail on the head. It depends completely on his intent. He does have immunity on the floor as he should. However, to go on TV and spout such crap for political gain is indeed slander. It will be interesting to see what happens here.

You can not slander an entire group of soldiers for political gain can you?

Having said all that, I have a lot of trouble swallowing this from a 1st amendment perspective. I think the judge is ok in getting a feel for what he was thinking but does that ultimately mean the court will have to act as the "thought" police in this case and get inside Murtha's head? If so I am not cool with that because the truth is none of us know what he was really thinking. And if he was thinking I'm going to say this for political gain where does freedom of speech come in? Why don't they just vote him out if his constituents are tired of this shit?

Your first amendment rights don't exist if your speech goes against another person's constitutional rights. As a political authority, Murtha should not have addressed the nation on the guilt factor of these marines. He told us and the world they were guilty over and over again before there was even an investigation. Hell, even Michael Jackson got better treatment than that.

Some have gotten off their charges despite his slander, but not before their names, faces and reputation were thrown through the gutter and disgraced to the entire world.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Because slander, or libel, is illegal? And since it's a civil issue that means $$$ and not jail time.

But it's not punitive. You can only recover actual damages from what I understand. IT no different than if I came on here and said bad things about someone else that were not true. What actual damages did that soldier incur that he would need to sue to recover? unless there are actual reprocussions of that speech than there is nothing to recover.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

But it's not punitive. You can only recover actual damages from what I understand. IT no different than if I came on here and said bad things about someone else that were not true. What actual damages did that soldier incur that he would need to sue to recover? unless there are actual reprocussions of that speech than there is nothing to recover.

No, you can get punitive damages from slander and libel... especially if you were improperly accused of a crime.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

But it's not punitive. You can only recover actual damages from what I understand. IT no different than if I came on here and said bad things about someone else that were not true. What actual damages did that soldier incur that he would need to sue to recover? unless there are actual reprocussions of that speech than there is nothing to recover.

Sure there is. The soldier was called a murderer in front of millions by Murtha. You think that goes un-noticed by his friends, family, co-workers etc? Youdon't think it harmed his reputation in any way? And since it's going to court I guess a judge will decide what kind of fines to levy Murtha for lying to America for his own selfish reasons.

[WickedLou9]

I"m telling you this won't go anywhere. Slander is almost impossible to prosecute and because we are dealing with 1st ammendment rights, they place a much higher level of proof on the person making the claim than they do for other things. The reason is that whenever you rule against someone who has slandered another person, it has the potential to have a chilling effect on free speech. You don't want people afraid to speak out from fear that they might be sued for slander. There have to be really clear intentions with clear and obvious reprocussions to win a slander case. How do you think the national enquirer has gotten away with almost never being sued for libel? They have been sued successfully ONCE in thier entire history and the penalties that were levied were a joke.

Do I personally think that Murtha should have said what he said? No. I think it was in poor taste. But I don't think that he should be sued. I certainly don't think that a lawsuit will be successful. That soldier was not personally slandered. Murtha did not mention his name his unit, his divison, nothing. He spoke in general terms about soldiers that have commited crimes in Iraq. How can that soldier show that Murtha meant specifically him and that because of what he said, he lost his good reputation? I doubt that he actually lost any thing. Certainly nothing you can place a dollar amount on.

[WickedLou9]

http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-sourc...s/slander.html

United States slander laws are less plaintiff friendly than the laws of other democratic countries. This is in large part due to the protections offered to US citizens by the first amendment of our constitution. The first amendment guarantees free speech rights to all citizens, and therefore restricts the legal options available to those who are aggrieved by this speech. Both federal and state laws do, however, provide protections to those who are the victims of slander.
....
....
The defendant is a slander case has many potential points in his favor. A slander case may be dismissed if the injurious statements were stated as opinion rather than fact; if they are deemed "fair comments and criticisms"; if they do not actually do injury to the plaintiff's reputation; or if the statements were true. The plaintiff in a slander case must also prove that the defendant acted negligently or with malice in order to win a case.