WA POST: Plame's Suit Against Top Officials Dismissed, CREW: Appeal expected.

[L. Coyote]

Plame's Suit Against Top Officials Dismissed
By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 20, 2007; Page A05
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/19/AR2007071901395.html?hpid=moreheadlines

A federal judge yesterday dismissed a lawsuit filed by former CIA officer Valerie Plame and her husband against Vice President Cheney and other top officials over the Bush administration's disclosure of Plame's name and covert status to the media.

U.S. District Judge John D. Bates said that Cheney and the others could not be held liable for the disclosures in the summer of 2003 in the midst of a White House effort to rebut criticism of the Iraq war by her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. The judge said that such efforts are a natural part of the officials' job duties, and, thus, they are immune from liability.

.........

Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and one of the Wilsons' lawyers, said yesterday that they expect to appeal the ruling.

"While we are obviously very disappointed by today's decision, we have always expected that this case would ultimately be decided by a higher court," Sloan said in a statement. "We disagree with the court's holding and intend to pursue this case vigorously." .......

[Kagemusha]

1. Why would it be a natural part of their duties?

Since when has exposing CIA agents been part of official duties? Since when?

[L. Coyote]

2. Reasonable grounds for appeal. It is actually a crime. What an idiot, not?

[countmyvote4real]

3. WTF? Has NSA spying compromised the judge?

Are diapers or something else in the way here?

I am just saying. Something seems off here.

[L. Coyote]

4. JUDGE BATES: Laws omit the possibility of civil lawsuits for violations

Judge throws out Plame's lawsuit
By Richard B. Schmitt, Times Staff Writer
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-ex-plame19jul20,1,4818906.story

...........

Without offering an opinion on the merits of the case, Bates said it was barred by other statutes that Congress had enacted to cover instances of alleged harm to CIA operatives and other federal employees.

"The court finds that, under controlling Supreme Court precedent, special factors — particularly the remedial scheme established by Congress in the Privacy Act — counsel against the recognition of an implied damages remedy for plaintiffs' constitutional claims," the judge ruled.

Bates also wrote that he was concerned about "creating a private right of action for the disclosure of covert identity," and that such lawsuits could "inevitably require judicial intrusion into matters of national security."

Lawyers for Cheney and the other defendants had argued in court filings that the lawsuit would be "inimical" to the ability of the executive branch to protect national security information. ...........

[Kagemusha]

5. THAT is a legitimate argument.

This BS about outing a CIA agent being a normal part of duties is not.

[L. Coyote]

6. And Cheney argued on grounds of protecting information ????

"the lawsuit would be "inimical" to the ability of the executive branch to protect national security information" seem like a counter argument, given they were leaking it!