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.
"The alleged means by which defendants chose to rebut Mr. Wilson's comments and attack his credibility may have been highly unsavory," Bates wrote. "But there can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism, such as that levied by Mr. Wilson against the Bush administration's handling of prewar foreign intelligence, by speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level Executive Branch officials."
What's wrong with this picture? Could it be that there is a fundamental difference between engaging in public debate to rebut critics and conspiring to violate the law by deliberately outing a covert operative for purposes of political retribution, and then committing perjury to cover up the first criminal act?
Naaa. Unsavory, maybe, but within the normal job desription of the Vice President's office. I'm glad we cleared that up.
Good thing we have this separation of powers thingy so that our various branches of government can keep one another in check. Otherwise, you know, there could be abuses and the potential for unchecked and unaccountable concentrations of power.
No comments:
Post a Comment