Murtha Gets Served

John "Our troops have become the enemy" Murtha needs a lawyer.

All those Meet the Press appearances, and spouting all those unsubstantiated claims finally have come back to bite him.

From The Washington Post:


Marine Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich

A Marine Corps staff sergeant who led the squad accused of killing two dozen civilians in Haditha, Iraq, will file a lawsuit today in federal court in Washington claiming that Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) defamed him when the congressman made public comments about the incident earlier this year.

Attorneys for Frank D. Wuterich, 26, argue in court papers that Murtha tarnished the Marine's reputation by telling news organizations in May that the Marine unit cracked after a roadside bomb killed one of its members and that the troops "killed innocent civilians in cold blood." Murtha also said repeatedly that the incident was covered up.

Murtha argued that the questionable deaths of 24 civilians were indicative of the difficulties and overpowering stress that U.S. troops are facing. The congressman, a former Marine, has been a leading advocate for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq.

I always thought that Murtha's arguments were odd.

In one breath, he would be slamming the troops for committing atrocities. Then, he would quickly excuse their behavior by citing it to be an outgrowth of Bush's "lies" and "failed policies."

In the court filing, obtained by The Washington Post, the lawyers say that Murtha made the comments after being briefed by Defense Department officials who "deliberately provided him with inaccurate and false information." Neal A. Puckett and Mark S. Zaid, suing for libel and invasion of privacy, also wrote that Murtha made the comments outside of his official scope as a congressman.

So, the lawsuit claims that Defense Department officials fed Murtha false information.

Were those officials expecting Murtha to blab it to the media, which, of course, he did? Were they counting on him being their useful idiot?

I'd like to know where Murtha got his information. The DOD leakers that the eager Murtha depended on are of the worst sort -- leakers of lies.

...The suit could have interesting legal ramifications because Wuterich and the other members of his squad have not been charged and have not received any official investigative documentation about the Nov. 19 incident. A Naval Criminal Investigative Service investigation is expected to determine possible charges this summer, said officials familiar with the case.

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."

It's an interesting approach to get to the source of the leaks.

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.

Just as members of Congress suspected of wrongdoing should not be allowed to have their offices serve as safehouses, I don't think members of Congress should be considered above the law when it comes to libel.

The charges that Murtha made about Wuterich and other Marines on Sunday talk shows certainly weren't part of any legislative proceeding. That "speech" shouldn't be protected under Article I, Section 6, of the Constitution.

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.

Wuterich probably knows he did nothing wrong.

"Part of the subtext of this is it's a showing of confidence and a preemptive strike of sorts," Smolla said. "The congressman's statement does not sound as if it is merely hyperbole or opinion or name-calling. Instead, it conveys the idea that the Marines violated professional standards and perhaps the law."

That's exactly how I read it, too.

Wuterich, through his attorneys, has maintained his innocence and has said that the Marines killed two dozen people that day because they were engaged in a firefight with suspected insurgents. He told his lawyers that he and other Marines used grenades and rifles to clear two houses they thought were hostile. Another Marine's detailed account of the incident, obtained by The Post, corroborates Wuterich's version.

What happened at Haditha isn't as clear cut as the media made it out to be back in May.

For instance, TIME virtually declared the Marines guilty in its story, "The Shame of Kilo Company."

The lib media really need to get their "rush to judgment" issues under control.

Donald Ritchie, associate historian in the Senate Historical Office, said that such defamation suits happen from time to time but that they tend not to go anywhere because of the constitutional protections members have. He said the most famous case was in 1979, when the Supreme Court ruled that Sen. William Proxmire (D-Wis.) was not protected when he made defamatory statements to constituents in a newsletter.

"The Supreme Court has suggested that speech and debate has limits to it, and that makes people vulnerable in certain areas," Ritchie said.

I don't see the Court's decision as making "people vulnerable in certain areas."

I look at it from the perspective of the victim, not the elected official.

I see it as a matter of protecting individuals from abuses and defamatory statements from Murtha-types.

Being elected to Congress should not give a person free rein to damage someone's reputation.

What makes Murtha's libelous comments particularly hideous is the fact that he served as a Marine. Obviously, he rejects the "once a Marine, always a Marine" mindset.

Before Murtha is a Marine, he is a self-serving politician and an egomaniac. He threw the ideals of Semper Fi and pride and honor by the wayside in order to inflate his own celebrity.

I'm glad that Wuterich is filing suit to clear his name, and Murtha will have to answer for the odious statements that he has so freely tossed about for months now.

I wonder if Murtha's supporters, and Murtha himself, will attack Wuterich for suing.

Will they try to discredit him?

I imagine they will.

When the Lefties go afer Wuterich, just remember that they support the troops. Honest, they do.
__________________________________

More leaks from the DOD--


HADITHA REPORT COULD IMPLICATE MARINES

WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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, a Pentagon official said Wednesday.

Agents of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service have completed their initial work on the incident last November, but may be asked to probe further as Marine Corps and Navy prosecutors review the evidence and determine whether to recommend criminal charges, according to two Pentagon officials who discussed the matter on condition of anonymity.

This story by AP military writer Robert Burns seems to be in direct response to the lawsuit filed by Wuterich.

Reread the first paragraph.

This UNNAMED Pentagon official/leaker says that there is evidence supporting the claim that U.S. Marines murdered civilians.

That sounds pretty damning. Read further and you find that it's not a done deal at all.

Two UNNAMED Pentagon officials/leakers say that more probing may be needed as evidence is reviewed. It hasn't been determined yet whether criminal charges will be filed.

If that's the case, it's obviously not a slam dunk.

The story goes on to give an overview of the Haditha incident, as well as the investigation into a possible cover-up.

The operative word in this story is COULD -- "Haditha report COULD implicate Marines."

At first, I got the impression that the report showed there was evidence that indicated charges were definitely coming down. That was a false impression. The article is misleading. I think it's intentionally misleading.

The Pentagon leakers are clearly trying to counter the charges in Wuterich's suit.

The sickening thing is Robert Burns willingly takes their side and AP obliges by putting out a non-story story in an effort to deflect attention from the real story -- Murtha is getting served.