Outing CIA Agent Was "Official"+Gov Employees Who Engage In Questionable Acts CANNOT Be held Liable!

WTF!!!-we are screwed-there will be NO justice!!!, kpete

Outing CIA Agent Was "Official"

Appeals court upholds CIA leak lawsuit dismissal

By Andy Sullivan

...................

Appeals court upholds CIA leak lawsuit dismissal s,

The court ruled Cheney and the others were acting within their official capacity when they revealed Plame's identity to reporters.

Government employees who engage in questionable acts, such as abusing prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay facility or engaging in defamatory speech, cannot be held individually liable if they are carrying out official duties, the court said.

"The conduct, then, was in the defendants' scope of employment regardless of whether it was unlawful or contrary to the national security of the United States," Appeals Court Chief Judge David Sentelle wrote in the opinion.

more at:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080812/pl_nm/usa_cheney_plame_dc_2

You know what I'd do, if I were President Barack Obama? I'd waive all FOIA exceptions and open the goddamned books on the last eight years.

Of course, ten minutes later I'd be dead, but so would a few thousand traitorous Americans.

They can still be indicted for crimes committed while in office. Wait until after the election,and you'll see.

I keep saying to myself that Congress is treating these folks as what they are: murderous criminals with dangerous weapons. I tell myself they're leaving them an exit because nobody wants to find out what they're willing to do if they're cornered.

But if they walk, and keep walking, I think it's all over, because sooner or later they'll come back.

:hide: :yoiks: :patriot:

:shrug:

I guess what Benedict Arnold did wasn't "official."

In July 1780, Arnold sought and obtained command of the fort at West Point. He already had begun a year-long correspondence with General Sir Henry Clinton in New York City through Major André and was closely involved with Beverley Robinson, a prominent loyalist in command of a loyalist regiment. Arnold offered to hand the fort over to the British for £20,300 (Close to 1.1 million US Dollars in 2008 terms) and a brigadier's commission.<15> He chose West Point for its strategic importance. The Americans had been using its position to prevent British ships from moving northward from New York City up the Hudson and connecting with British forces in Canada - a move that would have split the north from the south.<16><17><18><19><20> His plans were thwarted when André was captured September 23, 1780 with a pass signed by Arnold. André was carrying documents that disclosed the plot and which incriminated Arnold; André was later hanged as a spy.

Wikipedia

The one thing that comes from this, is that no one will ever claim that America is a democracy which other countries should aspire to be.

:hi:

BFF of the BFEE. 'Nuff said.

When a government can do what it likes under the guise of "official duties", regardless of whether those actions are contrary to established law, then what you have, my friends, is tyranny.

But many of us already knew that.

Bad call on Sentelle's panel decision, but not the last word.

All stooges and thugs are officially "above the law" if they work for da boss. . . .

it sets up 2 sets of laws in this country: one for normal Americans, in which the laws are stacked against them; and another set for government officials, in which laws simply do not exist when they act in some official capacity. Disgraceful.

this ruling expands exponentially on the disproven Nixonian theory of 'if the President does it, then it's inherently legal'. Cheney got his biggest wet dream with this ruling.

Different levels of laws or liability (accountability) for the ruling class.

Conservative tool & BFEE operative of the first order:
http://www.salon.com/news/1998/02/04news.html

On the D.C. Court of Appeals, Sentelle voted to overturn the convictions of Oliver North and John Poindexter, along with Judge Laurence Silberman. He was one of the judges responsible for appointing Kenneth Starr to replace Robert B. Fiske as lead independent council to investigate President Bill Clinton.


ALSO...


Judge Sentelle concurred with Judge Arthur Raymond Randolph, relying on Johnson v. Eisentrager, to uphold the Military Commissions Act's suspension of habeas corpus for enemy combatants as constitutional. Judge Judith Ann Wilson Rogers dissented.

Something like, "If the President does it, then it's not a crime" ?

Please be on Keith Olberman 2-nite, Dean and/or Turley. Please, please, please!

Joe Wilson's suit has been dismissed?

Protege of Jesse Helms, initially appointed by Reagan (who he named his daughter after).
Moved up to take Scalia's position as henchman by Rehnquist.

Virtually NO experience when he was handpicked by the GOP to be their "judicial hatchet man", who could "provide judicial cover" for the GOPs political machinations - he was chosen because he was a true believer who was a big republican fundraiser in the NC backwoods.

Now we have this unqualified, right-wing freak in complete control of our Constitution!

The cases he has "provided cover" for are mind-blowing!

Are there any judges on our side who the RW accuse of bending justice our way? I know the age old complaints from the wingers about 'activist judges' but are there really any out there who tow the liberal line and are willing to twist the law into a pretzel to do it the way guys like Sentelle and Scalia do?

The other side of the ideological spectrum has no known equivalent - I mean, what exactly would those duties entail, really?

Liberal, by definition, is in the interest of personal liberty (liber = "free" in Latin).
Liberals believe in exposition of truth, blind justice (as evidenced by their patron goddess - my namesake).

But damn, right about now I'm wishing we did!

We have got to correct this sinking ship, poste haste.

I suspect it still comes up zero but I like to be prepared for the inevitable, deeply philosophical 'you guys do it, too' comments from my wingnut acquaintances.

freedoms / rights, or (as this judge did by ruling AGAINST Habeus Corpus), recognition of same.

Liberals / progressives are interested in preserving individual freedoms, expansion of liberty and broad recognition of same.

Conservatives, by definition, are interested in limiting, curtailing, "conserving" those same fundamental rights by use of law.

It's a very basic difference in definition.

But to bring it back to your original question - NO - we on the "left" don't have any noteworthy, individual judges who have done the politically opposite of the right-wing - we don't have judges who grant unconstitutional freedoms (an oxymoron - see Ninth & Fourteenth Amendments).

and come to any conclusion not consistent with extreme right-wing ideology, the right wingers call it "legislating from the bench", "activist judges", "inserting their own opinion instead of interpreting the constitution", etc.

so, in that sense, yes. remember, "you're either with us or against us", right?

between 74 to 85 he was a sitting judge. first for the state of NC then on the U.S. district court. He was appointed in 87 to the U.S. Court of appeals.

:mad:

If they were acting in a official capacity, they would have have had Dana Perino deliver the news at a press conference, not create the illusion that it was SUPPOSED to be classified infomation!

:shrug:
rocknation

What are the definitions of "little people"? Often it's thought of as those at the base of any pyramidal structure, but it also means anyone who has another with authority over them (for those at mid-levels of the pyramid), so ultimately, "little people" means anyone that is not at the very topmost peak of hierarchy.

You are a "little person" if you follow any other's rules.

That's what this three-judge panel seems to be saying.

They have found New Lows

I really miss the America I grew up in

The America I volenteered to Defend

The America proud of it's "and Justice for All"

Guess that question has now been answered.

this is a joke, right?

not good enough for nazis, but good enough for republicans!

his record.

Sandy: I want you to kill every gophers on the golf course!

Carl Spackler: Correct me if I'm wrong Sandy, but if I kill all the golfers, they're gonna lock me up and throw away the key...

Judge Smails: Killing the golfers is in your scope of employment regardless of whether it is unlawful.

Because Pugs just wan-na have fu-un.
Oh, Pugs just wan-na have fu-un!

If you should happen to inadvertently send a "dual use item" to an officially restricted person, here is your airtight defense:

"The conduct, then, was in the defendants' scope of employment regardless of whether it was unlawful or contrary to the national security of the United States," Appeals Court Chief Judge David Sentelle wrote in the opinion.

I certainly would not recommend anyone knowingly violate these laws but if should happen to you, here is a straw to clutch at.

or the DOJ says it's legal to do, it's legal

no matter how illegal

WTG, America!

Impeachment remains our ONLY moral, patriotic option.

If you are still making any excuse or wasting effort on anything else -- including (genuflect) The Sacred National Election Horserace -- then you (yes, you personally) are part of the problem, not the solution.

--

And I really fucking believe it.

We are no longer a nation of laws. Rather, we are now as much as ever a nation of rulers. Meaning that the rulers, by Nixonian definition, are the law of the land and therefore incapable of being held culpable for their crimes, either though legal gymnastics or lack of will by other branches of government such as Congress. This is the new Bush America. And just because Bush's approval ratings are in the tank does not mean this new paradigm of our government will change anytime soon.

The only way laws ever govern is when the rulers think they govern. Our rulers have stopped thinking it, and therefore our laws have become meaningless as boundaries for the most powerful in our society. The recent news about how Justice Department personnel will not be held accountable for indisputably illegal activity is a perfect example. As is telecomm immunity, as are Bush's signing statements, as is Bush's detainment of people regardless of laws and judicial verdicts, as is the fact that Bush, Cheney, et al will never be held accountable for their crimes as long as they live.