Murtha is going to be deposed in the slander suit against him.

It's about time that he was held accountable for his vicious demagoguery. Being a Congressman doesn't give you license to vilify troops in arms without basis.

Heh. Discovery's a bitch.

Better stock up on popcorn. :-D

Don't question Colonel Murtha's patriotism!**

** Character, honor, sanity? Certainly ... just not his patriotism

That would be the same Murtha who earned the Bronze Star with Valor device, two Purple Hearts, the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, and the Navy Distinguished Service Medal.

That would be the same Murtha who earned the Bronze Star with Valor device, two Purple Hearts, the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, and the Navy Distinguished Service Medal.

Yes, it would.

Do you have a point, Anonymous Moron? Does getting medals somehow excuse all future behavior?

this suit is unconstitutional, it's covered under the ocngressional
speech and debte clause

(The case should be dismissed on the face

Lee Harvey Oswald was a Marine just like Murtha.

Benedict Arnold was a highly decorated and well regarded General even.

Past performance is not necessairly indicitive of future performance.

There may be hope even for anonymous strawman building retards.

Anonymous moron gets slapped down by "the truth". How fitting.

Remember the top U.S. fighter ace of the Vietnam War, Duke Cunningham? Where is that congressman now? Oh, right -- he's in prison!

Past honor does not excuse present dishonor.

Speech and debate does not protect Congressman when they slander private citizens, particularly when they attempt to deny those citizens due process under the law. Maybe, anonymous, simply heard that there are constitutional issues, and didn't realize it was Murtha doing the violation.

Brad:

First, Cunningham's a Republican. Therefore, any "achievements" he had were probably fake anyway. Only Dems serve.

Second, Cunningham doesn't vociferously oppose the war. Therefore, he doesn't actually love or support the troops. Only anti-war folks actually support the troops.

"Members .--This clause represents ''the culmination of a long struggle for parliamentary supremacy. Behind these simple phrases lies a history of conflict between the Commons and the Tudor and Stuart monarchs during which successive monarchs utilized the criminal and civil law to suppress and intimidate critical legislators. Since the Glorious Revolution in Britain, and throughout United States history, the privilege has been recognized as an important protection of the independence and integrity of the legislature.'' 380 So Justice Harlan explained the significance of the speech-and-debate clause, the ancestry of which traces back to a clause in the English Bill of Rights of 1689 381 and the history of which traces back almost to the beginning of the development of Parliament as an independent force. 382 ''In the American governmental structure the clause serves the additional function of reinforcing the separation of powers so deliberately established by the Founders.'' 383 ''The immunities of the Speech or Debate Clause were not written into the Constitution simply for the personal or private benefit of Members of Congress, but to protect the integrity of the legislative process by insuring the independence of individual legislators.'' 384

The protection of this clause is not limited to words spoken in debate. '"

anonymous, you are truly a scuzz-bucket. Your selective quotation shows that you've never had even a passing acquaintance with intellectual honesty.

IN THE VERY SAME LINK, the authors of the article point out that even press releases and newsletters from members are UNPROTECTED when the issue is one of "allegedly defamatory remarks," because they were not held to be "essential to the deliberations of the legislative body nor part of the deliberative process."

Indeed, you cut off the quote right when it clarified what was meant beyond "words spoken in debate"

“Committee reports, resolutions, and the act of voting are equally covered, as are ‘things generally done in a session of the House by one of its members in relation to the business before it.”’385

It's this sort of utter intellectual dishonesty that makes you the worthless piece of fecal matter that you are.

For those interested in reading the whole context of anonymoron's quote, here's the link:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1frag21_user.html

The rest of that was far too nuanced for the autistic so I thought
I would stick to the more simple parts