Marine sues Rep. Murtha

[Seeking Serenity]

Source: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

A Washington County Marine who was cleared in the 2005 Haditha incident in Iraq sued his congressman yesterday, saying U.S. Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Johnstown, slandered him and interfered with his right to a fair trial.

Justin Sharratt, 24, of Canonsburg, was one of eight Marines charged two years ago with the killing of Iraqi civilians during a firefight. Seven of the Marines were later cleared -- a prosecutor strongly argued that Mr. Sharratt was, in fact, innocent -- while the government is seeking to reinstate charges against the eighth.

Events in Haditha remain the subject of debate. Several civilians said they saw Marines kill bystanders, while investigators later discounted those claims, in some instances citing forensic evidence.

(snip)

Mr. Murtha's office yesterday did not respond to a request for comment.



Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08270/915218-52.stm

---

I don't see this going very far. Hard to sue a congressman for slander. I expect this to be dismissed long before going to trial.

[Davis_X_Machina]

1. If the statements..

..in question were made in the House, they're privileged.

No sale.

...shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same, and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place

[Seeking Serenity]

24. I think he made the statements to the press, so the

Speech and Debate Clause wouldn't apply.

I don't think so, anyway.

[hedgehog]

2. I think this is a dangerous step for the Marine to take unless

then evidence is overwhelming proof that he is innocent. Just as OJ was cleared in criminal court and convicted in a civil trial, this MArine may well find himself condemned in the court of public opinion.

The fact that Murtha was also a Marine involved in a civil war gives him the reputation for insight into similar events.

[StClone]

3. Good Luck Marine

This will not be good for anyone.

[pacalo]

4. The Marine should thank his lucky stars he was mercifully acquitted.

Who has something to gain by his going after Murtha?

[endthewar]

5. Agreed. He should be glad that he was found not guilty.

[EFerrari]

6. Exactly. How many 24 yr olds do you know that could go through

something like that, go through a prosecution AND go back and accuse a Congressman?

Who is behind this -- it isn't this kid.

[Pastiche423]

13. That's the 1st thing I thought about

He can't be too bright if he wants to keep this issue open. So who's holding his strings and why?

[EFerrari]

14. And, who has that kind of stamina at that age for an issue like this?

:shrug:

[WriteDown]

25. ?

A Marine?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

15. Maybe someone who is innocent and thinks that a man's name and reputation has some value.

[BrklynLiberal]

7. I cannot help but wonder which rightwing fanatic is footing the bill for this...

I would bet that some group of that ilk inspired the soldier to do this.

[Psephos]

8. Sounds like "truth to power" to me

Sharratt's got a brass pair in his regulation Hanes.

Murtha's a venal, old-style pol who's long past his sell-by date. I know he's almost unanimously supported here but I stand apart from the herd on this one.

[msanthrope]

9. Sounds to me like bullshit.....Murtha never mentioned Sharratt

by name, and Justin's just looking for a payout so his discharge can be more profitable. That fat frak could be in Iraq right now--speaking "truth to power." Instead he's here...giving stale advice the nightly news.

[Psephos]

10. whatever

[ohio2007]

11. congressman made his remarks in the course of his official duties

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08270/915218-52.stm
Is Murtha up for reelection or
will the two marines butt jarheads when he is out of office ?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

16. It's a congressman's duty to besmirch the name of an innocent veteran?

Is that official or just your opinion?

David

[happyslug]

18. Yes, Murtha is up for re-election but I suspect this is NOT against Murtha

Murtha is in a Solid Democratic District, extending from Green County (Heavy Democratic do to a lot of Coal Miners) Southern Washington County (Ditto) but Northern Washington County is becoming a Suburb of Pittsburgh, and as such heavily Republican. Technically the Plaintiff lives in Cannonsburg, a Suburb of Washington PA on the old road to Pittsburgh, but along how the suburbs have been extending since the 1980s.

Now when the Republicans in the State House redrew the Congressional Districts in 2000 they had a problem. Western Pa has been heavily Democratic since before the Civil War. The big exception to this rule prior to 1928 was the City of Pittsburgh itself. In the year the Democrats finally won the Mayor's office and by 1932 NO Republicans was on the City Council (and no republicans have been on the City Council since 1932). This reflected the fact the rural areas had always been Democratic in Western Pennsylvania AND the shift to the Democratic Party all Cities went through during the Great Depression and afterward.

After WWII most Republicans moved to the newer Suburbs, where they had a chance of being elected. thus the suburbs, while still Democratic, are more evenly divided between the parties then the City AND the old rural Coal mining areas. Thus the GOP dilemma in 2000, how do you make a GOP area out of this mess? The GOP did what it had done in 1980 and 1990 when it controlled the State Government, it used the latest computers to design a district with as many Republicans they could in it and still be "one district". In 1990 this resulted in a a Semi-Circle around Pittsburgh extending into Northern Washington County and Western Westmoreland Counties, In 2000 that was no longer possible do to population lost in the area so a district had to go, which meant a shift eastward of all the districts.

How the GOP did this was took Murtha District which had been centered on Johnstown and shifted as many Democratic areas into they could. He lost Eastern Westmoreland County and given Greene County AND the Monongahela Valley of Washington County (Heavy Democratic area), Murtha's district was extended to include heavier Democratic Washington PA and while as Indiana PA, but the areas north South (and in the case of the City of Washington West, in the Case of the Borough of Indiana East) so these ended up a little peninsula extending from his district. Furthermore they gave him the Kiskiminetas Valley, like the Monongahela Valley an area of old industry and heavily unionized and Democratic.

The 18th Congressional District is between Murtha's District and Pittsburgh was given the new Suburbs of Northern Washington County AND Western Westmoreland Counties, most of Indiana County (Rural non-coal mining areas) and the furtherest Suburbs in Allegheny County (County Seat is Pittsburgh). Even with these areas the District had more Democrats then Republicans but it was close enough for the GOP to think they could win it (and they still hold that seat).

Notice the City of Washington PA and the Borough of Cannonsburg are in Murtha's district, but north, south and West of that little dot, Washington County is in the 18th District. Murphy, the GOP congressman who present represents the 18th District is running again, and given how Washington County has become more GOP since 1990 (do to the expansion of the Pittsburgh Suburbs) he has a good chance, and I believe this is more to help Murphy then hurt Murtha. Murtha's district is about 60% Democratic, the chances of his Republican opponent winning is somewhere between slim and nil, but in the 18th District it is a different ballgame. I believe the plan is to paint Murtha with being anti-military and associate Murtha with Murphy's Democratic Opponent. Thus why this lawsuit came out NOW, it is to help Murphy get re-elected NOT to help defeat Murtha.

Murtha's 12th District:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Congressional_Districts#Twelfth_Congressional_District

18th District:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PACongressionalDistrict18.png


Stats on PA districts:

[PittPoliSci]

12. it's all a ploy.

murtha's up for reelection this year against some ex-marine turned lunatic. this is just someone trying to distort his good name and drum up sympathy for his opponent. this case won't even get off the ground.

[happyslug]

20. Murtha could come up that he is a Gay Communist and still win

No, this is NOT against Murtha, see my post on why this is to help Murphy NOT hurt Murtha.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

17. Just to be clear here's what Mr. "I may take a bribe" Murtha actually said.

in Time magazine, Murtha said:
“ It's much worse than reported in Time magazine. There was no fire fight. There was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood. And that's what the report is going to tell. Now, you can imagine the impact this is going to have on those troops for the rest of their lives and for the United States in our war and our effort in trying to win the hearts and minds.”

On 2 August, 2006, Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich filed a lawsuit against Murtha for character defamation during an ongoing investigation into the Haditha incident. Donald Ritchie, associate historian in the Senate Historical Office, said "that such defamation suits happen from time to time but that they tend not to go anywhere because of the constitutional protections members have."<30> Murtha noted his statements were based on a report prepared by the military in July.<31>

On 4 August, 2006, a Marine Corps spokesman was quoted, saying Murtha was not briefed until a week after his accusation of murder "in cold blood."<32><33>

On 11 July, 2007, The Marine Corps released the results of its further investigation in the criminal prosecution of the first Marine subjected to (or granted) criminal due process. The investigating officer (not the prosecutor) rebukes the government's "massacre" story. In his opinion, the Iraqis claiming to have seen the "murders" were so inconsistent and unreliable that the he recommended dropping all of the charges against the first Marine who has been prosecuted though that doesn't mean all the Marines would be cleared of charges. The investigator noted the potential employment of fabricated "massacres" by those seeking to achieve negative publicity and calls for troop withdrawal.<35>
Of the eight Marines initially charged, charges have been dismissed against six of the Marines and LT Andrew Grayson was found not guilty on all charges. SSG Frank Wuterich, charged with voluntary manslaughter, remains the only Marine still facing charges.

As of June 17th, 2008, no Marine involved in Haditha stands charged with murder. Representative Murtha has not withdrawn his statement claiming their crimes were murder.

Link here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Murtha



I've got no use for this lying piece of crap.

David

[happyslug]

19. Murtha has contacts within the Military, someone told him otherwise

First the "I may take a bride" was Murtha Arabscram involvement, he refused the direct money payment and told the so call "Arabs" to invest in his district instead, but never refused the actual bride. The problem for the prosecution was Murtha had a solid reason for his statement. As a Marine Office (He did make General, through I believe in the Marine Reserve but made Colonel in Active Service) he had been trained in dealing with Arabs. If you know anything about Arab Culture you can NOT refuse any gift, for that is an insult to the gift giver. What Murtha Apparently did was what his training told him to do, don't insult the Arab by refusing the bribe, instead say it is to early for any exchange of Presents or suggest another way for the Arab to give a gift to him. If that is the case, and I suspect it is, the Prosecutor would have had to defeat the testimony of several Generals and Admirals who underwent the same training and as a favor to Murtha would so testify. Without Murtha taking the money directly, Murtha had a good defense and thus the Prosecutor did not even indict Murtha. His action apparently reflected official US policy (unlike the other people involved who took the money).

As to this incident, the investigation dismissed the report of the Civilian witnesses, as did the Marines when it came up to trial. Remember even in the Marines it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the incident occurred. Thus if the Jury (of Military Officers) decided that the witnesses testimony without collaborating physical evidence did NOT prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt then the jury had to acquit (Which apparently happened, the Jury did NOT say the incident did NOT occurred, but without physical evidence the testimony of the Witnesses was NOT good Enough).

As one person point outed above, the same evidence that lead to a Jury to acquit OJ Simpson on the charge of Murder (i.e. reasonable doubt existed) lead another jury to found him liable (The test in a Civil Case is much lower, that the jury finds that it is more likely then not that the incident occurred). Given he is no longer in the Marines, (he is an Officer) something is up. Right now you can stay in given the shortage of lower ranking officers where in the 1990s it would have been up or out. The Marine is out, why I do not know, but it sound to me that his superiors believed the incident occurred and for that reason wanted him out. The Criminal part of the Military told them they could NOT court Martial him given the lack of physical evidence, but his superiors apparently believed the incident occurred. Just like the Civil Law differ from Criminal law, to ability to stay in the Military differs from being found guilty by a Court Martial. The refusal of the Marines to keep him in would be like a Civilian Jury finding him liable i.e. a lower standard of proof, his superiors believed it happened is all that is needed for them to NOT want to retain him. Thus why he is out of the Marines (He could have left for other reasons including being wrongfully court Martial, but we discussing the libel lawsuit NOT the Criminal charges).

Furthermore in any trial Murtha can ask the Civilian Iraqi Witnesses be brought in to testify (Or if not possible, their testimony at the criminal trial be brought in for this action). Given the different standard of Evidence in a Civil Trial AND the defense that opinion is protected under the First Amendment, I suspect there is a very good chance that Murtha can defeat this case at Trial, even with a Pittsburgh Jury (The Jury is in Federal Court, based in Pittsburgh) provided a Judge does not dismiss this action in a Summary Motion action based on the testimony of the Witnesses in the Criminal Case (i.e. based on what was said to the investigator, it is reasonable for someone to believe the incident occurred and being a true incident the case is dismissed for truth is an absolute defense in a Libel case).

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

21. None of that changes the fact that he's a dirtbag.

Democrat or not.

David

[happyslug]

22. Sorry, we like him, he makes sure his earmarks gets back to his district

And he has opposed this war and keeping troops in Iraq:

http://www.counterpunch.org/murtha07132006.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2005/11/iraq-051117-murtha01.htm
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07017/754325-84.stm
http://kdka.com/local/John.Murtha.Obama.2.763601.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/11/murtha-and-the-cost-of-th_n_85980.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/25/washington/25murtha.html
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Murtha_Presidents_Iraq_war_plan_requires_0418.html
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/02/22/the_democrats_iraq_civil_war.php

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

23. They say the same thing about Palin and earmarks.