And hopefully he will lose the defamation case against him.

A federal judge refused Friday to dismiss a defamation case against Rep. John P. Murtha and ordered the Pennsylvania Democrat to give a sworn deposition about his comments alleging "cold-blooded murder and war crimes" by unnamed soldiers in connection with Iraqi civilian deaths.

A Marine Corps sergeant is suing the 18-term congressman for making the charge, which the soldier claims is false. Murtha, who opposes the Iraq war, made the comment during a May, 2006 Capitol Hill news conference in which he predicted that a Pentagon war crimes investigation will show Marines killed dozens of innocent Iraqi civilians in Haditha in 2005.

Murtha's office declined to comment on the ruling. A Vietnam veteran and retired Marine Reserves colonel, Murtha has said his intention was to draw attention to the pressure put on troops in Iraq and efforts to cover-up the incident.

The Justice Department wanted the case dismissed because Murtha was acting in his official role as a lawmaker. Assistant U.S. Attorney John F. Henault said the comments were made as part of the debate over the war in Iraq.

I've got a real problem with the argument Henault made on Murtha's behalf. There is a provision of the constitution providing some limited immunity to members of Congress, but I think it is important to note what it says.

Article I, Section 6: The Senators and Representatives. . . 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 returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.

Murtha's comments were not made in the course of speech or debate -- they were made in a press conference, off the House floor and therefore so not meet the standard for such immunity under any legitimate reading of the text. If the argument advanced upon Murtha's behalf were to be accepted, any statement on any political issue made anywhere in the US (or the world) would be magically converted into "speech or debate in either House" -- thereby turning this limited immunity into a license to go forth and commit defamation against any private citizen or political opponent under the rubric of "debate" on a political issue. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has already spoken on this issue -- in Hutchison v. Proxmire, it ruled that the Speech of Debate Clause is limited in its scope.

Posted by: Greg at 12:48 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 436 words, total size 3 kb.