| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Tag Heuer" |
| Date: |
18 May 2007 11:35:00 AM |
| Object: |
How To Immunize A ***** - Now Seriously Folks! |
RFI - Does VP ***** Cheney have absolute immunity from prosecution?
Okay does he, or doesn't he? This is the question involving *****
Cheney's presumed "executive privilege," and or conversely "absolute
immunity," in the civil case involving the Wilsons now ramping up in a
U.S. federal district court:
/
" . . . The lawyers said any conversations Cheney and the officials
had about Plame with one another or with reporters were part of their
normal duties because they were discussing foreign policy and engaging
in an appropriate "policy dispute." Cheney's attorney went further,
arguing that Cheney is legally akin to the president because of his
unique government role and has absolute immunity from any lawsuit.
U.S. District Judge John D. Bates asked: "So you're arguing there is
nothing -- absolutely nothing -- these officials could have said to
reporters that would have been beyond the scope of their employment,"
whether the statements were true or false?
"That's true, Your Honor. Mr. Wilson was criticizing government
policy," said Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, deputy assistant attorney general
for the Justice Department's civil division. "These officials were
responding to that criticism."
Erwin Chemerinsky, a Duke University law professor who is representing
Wilson and Plame, said the leak was no typical policy debate.
President Bush himself said that revealing Plame's identity could be
illegal conduct and a firing offense, he told Bates.
Chemerinsky said that after Plame's cover was blown, the couple feared
for their safety and their children's safety and Plame lost any
opportunity for advancement at the CIA.
"This isn't a case where the government said mean things about Mr.
Wilson. This is about revealing the secret status of his wife to
punish Mr. Wilson," Chemerinsky said. "In the end, this is egregious
conduct that ruined a woman's career and put a family in danger."
Bates, who expressed doubts about arguments on both sides, said he
will rule in the coming weeks whether to dismiss the case . . ." -
http://tinyurl.com/28g9ts
/
First of all we need to consider the Hon. John D. Bates' decision to
review just where the plaintiffs and the defendants stand in terms of
whether it was an act of "policy" or that of malicious intent by those
named in the complaint. Bates by the way was appointed to the bench
by the late Chief Justice Rhenquist and whose experience in matters
involving civil rights and the Constitution is comprehensive.
Furthermore, with regard to the vice president, the issue involving
immunity cannot be more "murkier."
However, we need to take a closer look at Butz v. Economou (1978)
http://tinyurl.com/2fsjp3 for precedence, and that I am certain, Judge
Bates will consider in the volumes in establishing further precedence
in whatever is ruled.
In the 1978 case it was ruled that the defendant, , Economou, 'a
commodities dealer sued these officials for $32 million claiming they
had proceeded against him because he was a critic of department
policies,' and where, " . . . Rehnquist's minority opinion suggests
the majority standards exposed officials excessively to frivolous
suits since ingenious lawyers would have no difficulty in recasting
claims in constitutional terms. In Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982) the
Court rejected a claim by President Richard Nixon's aides of absolute
immunity, but modified the Economou standard by eliminating the
subjective test that required a hearing of evidence as to the decision
maker's attitudes, conduct, and such. The remaining test—that the
official has immunity unless no reasonable decision maker could deem
the action lawful—facilitates summary judgment on frivolous complaints
.. . ." - http://tinyurl.com/2ymrjl
And when it comes to personal "civil rights" while in the presumed act
of treason, this standard must be answered. For to this point and to
'frivolously' dismiss the merit of this case or uphold Cheney's
presumed "absolute immunity" stands as a stark contrast to what the
Supreme Court has ruled in the past, and that which states that it is
not a some given, but that which is accorded by virtue of complaint
itself.
Replies are welcome to this point. Thank you.
"If somebody committed a crime, they will no longer work in my
administration." - George W. Bush, clearly moving the goal post, July
19, 2005
http://tagheuerblog.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
