Marine Sues Murtha for Defamation

JaJae · 08-02-2006, 03:21 PM

Marine sues congressman for defamation - Yahoo! News

Marine sues congressman for defamation

By KIMBERLY HEFLING, Associated press Writer 48 minutes ago

A Marine Corps sergeant under investigation in connection with the deaths of 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha is accusing Rep. John P. Murtha (news, bio, voting record) of defaming him in public comments about the case.

Lawyers for Frank D. Wuterich, 26, argue in a suit filed Wednesday in federal court that Murtha falsely accused Wuterich "of cold-blooded murder and war crimes" — although they acknowledged during a news conference that Murtha named Wuterich's squad, but not Wuterich personally, when speaking with reporters.

Murtha, D-Pa., issued a statement Wednesday saying he doesn't blame Wuterich for "lashing out."

"When I spoke up about Haditha, my intention was to draw attention to the horrendous pressure put on our troops in Iraq and to the cover-up of the incident," said Murtha, a 16-term congressman who was campaigning for re-election Wednesday in his hometown of Johnstown, Pa.

The suit maintains that Pentagon officials "who have briefed or leaked information to Mr. Murtha deliberately provided him with inaccurate and false information" and that the congressman subsequently "has made repeated statements .... that are defamatory" to Wuterich and his fellow Marines.

The suit accuses Murtha of spreading "false and malicious lies" about Wuterich and his squad that were "intended to serve his own private purpose and interests" and that Murtha's comments "have been reproduced by countless third parties throughout the world."

It says many of Murtha's remarks were made outside his "scope of employment as a congressman." Murtha, a former Marine and decorated Vietnam War veteran, has been a leading proponent of withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq.

The claim for libel and invasion of privacy seeks damages to be determined, but not less than $75,000.

Mark Zaid, an attorney for Wuterich said during a news conference that the suit was not about money or politics.

"This case ... is about truth, honor and accountability and Congressman Murtha, who we believe has acted out of his scope as a congressman," Zaid said.

The suit details Wuterich's account of what happened on Nov. 19, 2005, in Haditha, a story he has told through his lawyers previously.

Wuterich maintains several civilians were killed when his squad pursued insurgents firing at them from inside a house after a roadside bombing that killed one Marine. He describes a house-to-house hunt that went wrong in the midst of a confusing battlefield, but has denied through his attorneys any vengeful massacre.

Wuterich and three other Marines from his 3rd battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, are under investigation by the Naval Criminal Investigation Service. A parallel investigation is looking at whether officers at higher levels in the chain of command covered up the facts.

No one has been charged in the case.

A Pentagon official told The Associated Press Wednesday that evidence collected on the deaths of 24 Iraqis in Haditha supports accusations that U.S. Marines deliberately shot the civilians, including unarmed women and children.

The court case was first reported late Tuesday on The Washington Post's Internet site.

This was bound to happen. I've said it all along... Murtha is too quick to call our servicemen guilty of crimes. Now it's biting him in the ass. Before he starts opening his mouth he better learn the facts. He shouldn't be able to run around like has been defaming our marines before he has any concrete evidence or a guilty verdict.

TheMrs · 08-02-2006, 03:53 PM

To be the devil's advocate here....

Lawyers for Frank D. Wuterich, 26, argue in a suit filed Wednesday in federal court that Murtha falsely accused Wuterich "of cold-blooded murder and war crimes" — although they acknowledged during a news conference that Murtha named Wuterich's squad, but not Wuterich personally, when speaking with reporters.

To be blunt - if Wuterich's lawyers were so concerned about these sorts of statements from Murtha - then they should have gotten a gag order.

/shrugs

Phantom · 08-02-2006, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by TheMrs

To be the devil's advocate here....

To be blunt - if Wuterich's lawyers were so concerned about these sorts of statements from Murtha - then they should have gotten a gag order.

/shrugs

I don't think a court can gag the general public - only people involved in the case.

TheMrs · 08-02-2006, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by Phantom

I don't think a court can gag the general public - only people involved in the case.

They can put a gag order on the media.

No media - no avenue for Murtha.

imind · 08-02-2006, 04:14 PM

i don't see how this case has any merit. he never named him specifically, and his lawyers ackowledge that pentagon offs

"...briefed or leaked information to Mr. Murtha deliberately provided him with inaccurate and false information"

granted, nobody is guilty until proven otherwise, but lets assume that some of his unit are found guilty, as will probably happen.

so, given the above, where is the case?

Concept · 08-02-2006, 04:14 PM

Murtha's loud mouth has finally caught up to him. He made too many convictions on ambiguous charges.

I believe he was planning to run for the House Majority Leader position if the Democrats won the majority in the House of Representatives? He's too aggressive against our armed forces; he needs to verify certain things before speaking out against them.

WickedLou9 · 08-02-2006, 04:49 PM

Thats a ridiculous lawsuit. They would have to prove that Murtha specificaly meant to harm the sargent and that he knew what he was saying was false.

not a chance in hell.

JaJae · 08-02-2006, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Thats a ridiculous lawsuit. They would have to prove that Murtha specificaly meant to harm the sargent and that he knew what he was saying was false.

not a chance in hell.

For defamation all you have to do is prove someone falsely damaged to your reputation. Murtha could be found guilty if he can prove his reputation has been injured because of what Murtha said and if what Murtha said was false.

I don't think Murtha will be found guilty, but hopefully it'll teach him a lesson about putting his foot in his mouth. His shit has gone on long enough.

imind · 08-02-2006, 05:32 PM

His shit has gone on long enough.

please provide examples of said 'shit'.

i've heard that a sub-group of the swift boat veterans will be attacking him soon.

JaJae · 08-02-2006, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by imind

please provide examples of said 'shit'.

Example

imind · 08-02-2006, 05:40 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Example

well done.

no, seriously, he did nothing wrong in this instance, as its looking more and more like its true. yeah, he should have waited, but wtf? is it really that bad? should we censor those that should be speaking of these events, events of great import to our country?

Ardentfrost · 08-02-2006, 05:59 PM

Originally Posted by imind

well done.

no, seriously, he did nothing wrong in this instance, as its looking more and more like its true. yeah, he should have waited, but wtf? is it really that bad? should we censor those that should be speaking of these events, events of great import to our country?

That doesn't mean they should be allowed to... what's that word? where you print/say stuff that isn't true just to ruin someone's reputation? damn, why does that word escape me at the moment.

kinggovernor · 08-02-2006, 06:02 PM

Originally Posted by imind

well done.

no, seriously, he did nothing wrong in this instance, as its looking more and more like its true. yeah, he should have waited, but wtf? is it really that bad? should we censor those that should be speaking of these events, events of great import to our country?

that is not censorship

Ardentfrost · 08-02-2006, 06:03 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

That doesn't mean they should be allowed to... what's that word? where you print/say stuff that isn't true just to ruin someone's reputation? damn, why does that word escape me at the moment.

SLANDER!!! god, finally

motivez · 08-02-2006, 06:04 PM

Murtha and all Congresspeople are protected against stuff like this I thought?

Ardentfrost · 08-02-2006, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Murtha and all Congresspeople are protected against stuff like this I thought?

Dude, if congressmen can slander people with no fear of recourse, that is pretty fucked up

kinggovernor · 08-02-2006, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Murtha and all Congresspeople are protected against stuff like this I thought?

It says many of Murtha's remarks were made outside his "scope of employment as a congressman."

.

motivez · 08-02-2006, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Dude, if congressmen can slander people with no fear of recourse, that is pretty fucked up

There's some clause, I can't remember what it's called, but basically they're protected from being sued over speeches they give.. etc

I'll see if I can find it

imind · 08-02-2006, 06:27 PM

It says many of Murtha's remarks were made outside his "scope of employment as a congressman."

anyone have any examples of the above?

kinggovernor · 08-02-2006, 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by imind

anyone have any examples of the above?

Lawmaker: Marines deliberately killed Iraqis - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com