Exonerated Marine to sue Rep. Murtha

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ^ | September 25, 2008 | Dennis B. Roddy

[Iron Munro]

One of the Marines cleared in the killings of Iraqi civilians in the town of Haditha plans to sue his congressman today for statements he says defamed him and other members of his squad.

Former Marine Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt, 24, of Canonsburg, will file a civil lawsuit against U.S. Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Johnstown, who was widely quoted two years ago saying that eight Marines carried out a cold-blooded killing of 24 civilians in the Iraqi town on Nov. 19, 2005.

[El Gato]

That I would look at.. just one of a thousand reasons to gladly feed LARDASS to the Wolves!

Wolves have standards. So maybe feed him to the hyenas, who are much less discriminating.

[El Gato]

It would still have to be proved Murtha knew he was lying.

Or should have known.

[El Gato]

That's a good find.Murtha better get an asbestos jockstrap, cause his nuts are toast.

2. The Speech or Debate Clause does not protect transmittal of information by individual Members of Congress by press releases and newsletters. Pp. 123-133.

(a) There is nothing in the history of the Clause or its language suggesting any intent to create an absolute privilege from liability or suit for defamatory statements made outside the legislative Chambers; precedents support the conclusion that a Member may be held liable for republishing defamatory statements originally made in the Chamber.
...
(c) The newsletters and press release were not privileged as part of the "informing function" of Members of Congress to tell the public about their activities. Individual Members' transmittal of information about their activities by press releases and newsletters is not part of the legislative function or the deliberations that make up the legislative process; in contrast to voting and preparing committee reports, which are part of Congress' function to inform itself, newsletters and press releases are primarily means of informing those outside the legislative forum and represent the views and will of a single Member. Doe v. McMillan, supra, distinguished. Pp: 132-133. 3. Petitioner is not a "public figure" so as to make the "actual malice" standard of proof of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 , applicable. Neither the fact that local newspapers reported the federal grants to petitioner for his research nor the fact that he had access to the news media as shown by reports of his response to the announcement of the Golden Fleece Award, demonstrates that he was a public figure prior to the controversy engendered by that award. His access, such as it was, came after the alleged libel and was limited to responding to the announcement of the award. Those charged with alleged defamation cannot, by their own conduct, create their own defense by making [443 U.S. 111, 113] the claimant a public figure. Nor is the concern about public expenditures sufficient to make petitioner a public figure, petitioner at no time having assumed any role of public prominence in the broad question of such concern. Pp. 133-136. Pp. 127-130.

I doubt these Marines would be considered public figures, so the "acutal malice" standard would not apply in this case.

[SandRat]

I’d prefer an old fasioned drumming out of the service in dishonor complete with his having to walk down a guantlet of Marines to the main gate; who did an about face as he passed each pair.