SCOTUS will not revive Plame's lawsuit

[WilliamPitt]

Court will not revive Plame's lawsuit
2 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court will not revive a lawsuit that former CIA operative Valerie Plame brought against former members of the Bush administration.

The court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from Plame and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

A lower court last year threw out the lawsuit in which Plame and Wilson accused former Vice President Dick Cheney and several former high-ranking administration officials of revealing her identity to reporters in 2003. Plame and Wilson said that violated their constitutional rights.

The lawsuit named former presidential adviser Karl Rove; Cheney's former top aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby; and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said that Plame and Wilson did not meet the legal standard for constitutional claims, in part because the lawsuit hinges on alleged violations of the Privacy Act — a law that does not cover the president or the vice president's offices.

Armitage was the original source for a 2003 newspaper column identifying Plame as a CIA officer. At the time, her husband was criticizing the Bush administration's prewar intelligence on Iraq and had become a thorn in the side of the White House. Rove also discussed Plame's employment with reporters.

The rest: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jLX1wcOViCU3IX3XN1xnGQfgIFkwD98VQGS80

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. Do they have any recourse now?

This is disgusting.

:-(

[WilliamPitt]

2. Nope.

:grr:

[snappyturtle]

3. Never thought SCOTUS would hear it. MORE proof that the government

is not 'for' the people.

edit: Now if Plame/Wilson were a corporation it probably would be heard.

[AndyA]

4. So I guess outing a covert CIA agent during a time of war is OK?

It used to be treason, now it's OK, based on this decision. No harm, no foul, right?

If anyone finds the ethics and values that used to represent the United States of America, please return them to their rightful owners, the people of the United States.

[librechik]

8. in case you were still curious about who is really in charge in the US

It's NOT the folks who would hesitate to out one of their own CIA agents because it's treason.

It's the folks who don't give a shit--or would do it just to avoid embarrassment.


Is the US still a genuine nation ruled by representatives of the people?

I say NO

[KansDem]

5. Is this another of their "our ruling is not to be used as precedence" decisions?

As in Bush v. Gore?

Who bought them off?

[MA Redux]

6. What?

A belated Merry Fitzmas to you

[omega minimo]

7. Is that the SCOTUS that appointed Bush pResident plus 2 Bushco appointees?

:thumbsdown: