Court Will Not Revive Plame Lawsuit Against Cheney, Libby, Armitage

WASHINGTON — 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 leak touched off a lengthy investigation that resulted in Libby's conviction for obstruction and lying to investigators. Jurors found that he told reporters about Plame and lied about it to the FBI and a federal grand jury. President George W. Bush commuted Libby's sentence before he ever served a day in prison.

Nobody was ever charged with the leak itself and Plame's lawsuit is one of the last remaining legal issues associated with the case.

The case is Wilson v. Libby, 08-1043.

Comments

[Timray]

this should lock up the Nobel Peace Prize......

[AtomicSplash]

It doesn't bother republicans that they threw national security under the bus to save their sorry lying a$$es

[connorin]

Armitage a holderover from the Clinton admin is hardly a republican or backer of W

[research]

Armitage is a loyal conservative and a found member of the PNAC neocon crowd, you liar!

[research]

1998, Armitage signed "The Project for the New American Century" letter (PNAC Letter) to President Bill Clinton. He's a loyal Neocon.

[gino618]

SO, someone please tell me - if your wife is some super-secret covert operative whose life may be in danger if she's ever revealed to work for the government.....

Why do you publish an op-ed in the NY Times - one of the most highly read newspapers in the world - which contradicts the President of the United States?

Did Joe Wilson honestly think that just because he and his wife have different names, that people can't do their own research? That someone, anyone with an interest, couldn't investigate him and follow his wife as she drove every day to Langely?

Why put yourself (and your family) under the spotlight?

[AtomicSplash]

ok, a former ambassador posts an op ed in the NYT that contradicts the president. Who in their right mind immediately thinks his wife works for the CIA?

[american-dolt]

Cheney is guilty of Treason.

[connorin]

"Armitage was the original source for a 2003 newspaper column identifying Plame as a CIA officer. "

Yeah that Cheney is guilty of treason because Armitage gave out Plame's name!

Meanwhile this was ok?: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mitchell-blatt/2009/06/22/nyt-will-name-cia-interrogators-not-captured-journalists

[JakeMontero]

somebody call a waaaaaaambulance.

[research]

Valerie was spying on the Iranian Nuclear program.

I guess Cheney didn't want us to know what Iran really is doing.

Cheney is a war criminal several times over.

[JoeJokester]

What, Valerie was disguising herself as an Iranian Scientist? Which GET SMART episode was THAT on?

[research]

do you know an good jokes?

[Villagelight]

Welcome to the real world, Valerie.

[NoSillyName]

Civil Suit?

[NoSillyName]

Disgusting.

What they did was ILLEGAL and dangerous.

But, oh well, if the Supremes say so.

Gimme a break.

[kareemachan]

Exactly.

[BigAl72]

So Treason is o.k. now?

[rattler99]

guess so - nobody prosecuted Sandy Berger for stealing Clinton memos from the archives

[marco01]

Uh, yeah he was prosecuted.

"Berger eventually pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material on April 1, 2005. Berger was fined $50,000 [16], sentenced to serve two years of probation and 100 hours of community service, and stripped of his security clearance for 3 years."

And it wasn't treason.

[JohnIII]

Maybe it was just a flimsy case.

[rattler99]

not flimsy - nonexistent - a waste of courts' time - they should be sued for court costs

[marco01]

Non existant? Maybe in winger fantasy world but Bush's former CIA Director Hayden (no lib he) confirmed Plame's status as a cover CIA agent. I think he would know.

http://news.aol.com/elections-blog/2007/03/16/cia-director-hayden-valerie-plame-was-covert-agent/

"This will be a bitter pill for some conservatives to swallow. CIA Director Michael Hayden personally reviewed and okayed Henry Waxman's opening statement for Valerie Plame's testimony today. Furthermore, Hayden took pains to set the record straight: Plame was indeed a covert agent up until the day Robert Novak revealed as much to the public."

Let me emphasize the juicy part in case your eyes glazed over - "PLAME WAS INDEED A COVERT AGENT"

[marco01]

Of course we know cons really don't care about the country. They place ideology over country.

[TheHandyman]

Do you keep your brain in a jar in the closet. So far you've shown no inclination to use it, just parrot old neocon right-wing nonsense!

[DustinTime]

They wouldn't hear the Cuban 5 case and now this...

A Court of Supreme Sellouts, folks.

[biglefty]

can you imagine what the republiklans would have done if Clinton outed a CIA operative? Can you say Treason?

[gino618]

They NY Times did..... where's your outrage for them?

[poster1122]

The lawsuit was never going to go anywhere.

What judge in his/her right mind is going to make the audacious claim that the Privacy Act was ever intended to strip the Executive Branch with its power to classify and declassify material. That's really what you would be saying if you allowed this lawsuit to proceed.

It is and has always been a fundamental power of the Presidency to decide what is classified and what is not. Period. That means he can release information because it's under that branches auspices that information was classified to begin with. That means Obama or any sitting President can choose to disclose that we are spying on China with so and so satellite or we had secret talks with Cuba or whatever, as his judgment sees fit.

Are you seriously proposing to strip away that basic and important power because you don't like the judgment used in this case?

[marco01]

But was it Bush who disclose Plame's covert status or Cheney (or some other actor) acting on his own?

My money's is on Bush not knowing and Cheney orchestrating the whole thing.

[poster1122]

Here's the rub. For the suit to be plausible, you would have to make a showing that Bush did not give Cheney the security clearance to handle this information. The problem with this argument is that it's pretty clear that Bush gave Cheney carte blanche and full access.

[ObamAtomic]

You are so wrong!!!!!!!
You have a right to your own wrong opinions! oh well!

[poster1122]

The Executive does not have the right to declassify information?! That's one of the most basic prerogatives of the office.

If Obama decided tomorrow to say that we will no longer have spy satellites over other countries as a matter of policy, he can reveal our assets. That's his prerogative. He'd catch hell for it, but he can still do it until the next President reverses it.

It's the same exact issue with the torture/abuse photos. It's up to the Executive to declassify or not. Congress cannot do it, no matter how much they scream. It is the responsibi­lity/power of the Executive Branch. Right now, Obama refuses. The left is trying to get him to change his mind. The ball to classify/declassify is totally in his court.

At least until/unless the laws regarding security clearances changes.

[rattler99]

what a bunch of uneducated airheads!

[GodBlessAmerica]

Well, yes, that is indeed a perrogative of the Chief Executive (and I read somewhere that W gave Cheney the carte blanche to declassify/leak as he saw fit; that's never happened before, I think).

BUT here's the two major rubs: by declassifying, Mrs. Wilson lost her career. That's a tort when you screw someone that badly in their career.

AND there's a major precedence: Monica Lewinski's "friend" sued President Clinton for violating the privacy act as well. And made out like a bandit. I'm sure the courts considered this question before with Clinton -- but of course came to a different conclusion. God I am glad those 8 years are over.

[DeloresT]

There's nothing "Supreme"about this court. It's a disgrace! I wonder: Can the couple file a financial law suit in a court of their "peers"?

[disgusted48]

justice denied yet again. hopefully kharma will prevail, and there will be several openings on the court in the next few years.