Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW): Plaintiff's Response to Court of Appeals Decision in Wilson Civil Suit
|
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 12, 2008
11:58 AM
|
CONTACT: Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)
|
| |
|
Plaintiff's Response to Court of Appeals Decision
in Wilson Civil Suit
|
| |
|
WASHINGTON - August 12 - Today, in a split decision, Chief Judge David Sentelle, writing for the majority of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of Joe and Valerie Wilson’s civil suit against Vice President Cheney, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and Richard Armitage. The court agreed with the opinion of District Court Judge John Bates that top White House officials cannot be sued for deliberately leaking the identity of covert CIA operative Valerie Wilson to retaliate against Joe Wilson for publishing an op-ed that undermined the Bush administration’s rationale for going to war with Iraq. The court of appeals found that the only remedy available to the Wilsons is the Privacy Act, even though it does not apply to White House officials and can provide the Wilsons absolutely no remedy. Judge Judith Rogers dissented, finding that a constitutional remedy should be available when there is no other alternative.
Melanie Sloan, counsel to the Wilsons, said “we are disappointed with today’s ruling and are considering all of our appellate options. It is simply unacceptable for top government officials to be unaccountable for such a gross abuse of their power. Here, not only did these officials cause untold harm to two individuals who honorably served their country, they also jeopardized our national security for short term political gain. Courts must be available to remedy precisely this kind of harm to ensure such conduct is neither condoned nor repeated.”
The opinion can be found here.
The separate First Amendment case by Valerie Wilson and her publisher concerning unconstitutional censorship of public domain information remains pending in the United States of Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York, with oral argument likely to occur prior to November 2008.
###
|
|
Printer Friendly Version
E-Mail This Article
