Thursday, July 19, 2007
Good:
U.S. District Judge John D. Bates said that Cheney and White House aides cannot be held liable for the disclosure of information about Plame in the summer of 2003 while they were trying to rebut criticism of the administration's war efforts levied by her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. The judge said such efforts were certainly part of the officials' scope of normal duties.
"The alleged tortious conduct, namely the disclosure of Mrs. Wilson's status as a covert operative, was incidental to the kind of conduct that defendants were employed to perform," Bates wrote in an opinion released this afternoon...
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Valerie Plame Lawsuit Dismissed.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.solomonia.com/cgi-bin/mt4/mt-renamedtb.cgi/13103
2 Comments
Leave a comment to: Valerie Plame Lawsuit Dismissed
Comment Info and Policy:
1) You must have Javascript enabled in your browser in order to comment (blame the spammers). If you don't know what that is, you're probably fine.
2) HTML is on, so basic html should work. Raw links will be made auto-clickable, too, so even if you don't know html you can just paste in the link and it should work fine. Keep the "http://" in it.
3) Comments are generally unmoderated, which means I don't necessarily agree with the tone and tenor of everything posted. In fact, sometimes people post things they don't really mean just to make other people look bad. The internet is an anonymous place for the most part. That said...
4) I welcome you to post here. I'd love to have your input, agree, disagree or just offer a different data point, really. If I didn't want any participation, I'd turn off comments. Be aware, however, that this blog and the comments section exist for my entertainment. Therefore, I reserve ALL RIGHTS here, including the right to remove any or all comments on nothing more than a whim. Please don't even bother complaining. I'm the one providing the space and the free news and thought buffet. I don't owe anyone anything.
Anyone who posts here will be treated as my guest. That means I'm happy to be polite as a default, but if anyone is rude to the host they'll be unceremoniously shown the door.
It may pay to recall a famous line from the Tom Selleck magnum opus, Mr. Baseball: "Jack-san, you want Yoji's advice about the babes, you come to Yoji with respect."
5) Enjoy your stay!
, p.39
I have never posted here before, but I tend to really
like the material. For this post though, I think we need
to look at the whole sentence:
>Stateless Palestinians have long been a casus belli among
>Arab terrorists, although removing the injustice done to
>them by Israel's creation in 1948 has also long been in
>the interests of the US and Israel, especially since the
>1967 war that led Israel to take new territory.
Did the Arabs of Palestine who turned down a UN-offered
state in 1947 prefer to attack 200,000 civilian Jews
in Jerusalem? Yes. Therefore, was it not an "injustice"
that many of them lost their homes? Certainly one could
argue in favor of this point. But did the CSM state that
Israel's creation was an injustice? I don't think so,
the editors seem to be claiming that what happened to
(some) Palestinians when Israel was created was unjust.
It is possible that the editors believe that had Israel
been created without a refugee problem, then Israel's
existence would not be unjust.
More importantly, is "doofuses" really the plural of
"doofus?" Shouldn't it be "doofi?"
Whups, sorry, this comment was supposed to go w/ the CSM story, sorry !