Friday, July 14, 2006

Valerie Plame & Joe Wilson Sue all the President's Men

In the civil suit (complaint here) filed recently in Federal District Court, attorneys for Plame and Wilson argue that a bevy of constitutional rights have been violated by Cheney, Rove, and Scooter Libby. It seems that even if every factual allegation is true, there are likely no legally-cognizable theories of relief.

Two thoughts that I have from my quick read are thus:
1) Does a CIA Agent have a Fifth Amendment property right in her classified status not being revealed for public consumption? This seemed like Plame's weakest claim.
2) Do political officials not have the right to rebut directed charges against their veracity and political objectives by discrediting the credibility of their attackers? This seems like Rove/Cheney/et al's best defense. Namely when Wilson hit the "Meet the Press circuit" blasting Bush, could not Bush's people respond by placing Wilson's experience in "context"? Playing other than nice does not equal constitutional right violation. (I should also that Cheney may have official immunity for any of his acts. This would naturally be his best defense.)