U.S. District Judge John D. Bates dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds and said he would not express an opinion on the constitutional arguments. Bates dismissed the case against all defendants: Cheney, White House political adviser Karl Rove and former White House aide I. Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby.Uh, what happened to Armitage? That slippery son-of-a-gun gets out of everything!
But wait, here he is!
U.S. District Judge John D. Bates dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds and said he would not express an opinion on the constitutional arguments. Bates dismissed the case against all defendants: Cheney, White House political adviser Karl Rove, former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.The first version seemed strange--Matt Apuzzo of the AP has been very fair and would never leave out such a fact, So the exit question, as those Hot Air guys like to say, is this...why did the Guardian drop mention of the person who actually leaked her name? Don't strain yourself.
Headline at Huffpo:
Judge Dismisses Plame Civil Suit Against Cheney, Rove, And Libby"Headline at MSNBC:
Libby, Cheney, Rove civil suit dismissedBoth weren't as obvious as the Guardian, which simply truncated mention of Armitage altogether. They'd probably defend by citing space limitations, deadlines, major known names, etc. And admittedly it's not a huge deal, just another example of subtle bias.
From the decision:
As for the duo's tort claims, the Court referred them to the Federal Torts Claims Act which it says is the exclusive means of obtaining relief for such claims (relief available only against the government, not individuals) and they failed to avail themselves of their administrative remedies under that Act.For example, if an Air Traffic Controller allows two planes to get too close on a busy sector resulting in a crash the victims' families can sue for damages but they won't be suing the individual. To allow otherwise would invite instant chaos. There are exceptions in cases of negligence but such is usually decided by government lawyers upon a review of the employee's actions.
For example, in the case of the controller the government lawyers could decide the employee was negligent or reckless and deny a government defense, forcing him/her to hire their own lawyers. Otherwise, the government provides everything to protect employees from vindictive and frivolous lawsuits, as it should be.
Since they avoided that option it strongly suggests the preference was to go for the biggest possible media impact by naming names instead of the rather generic-sounding "Plame-Wilson versus the US Government" nomenclature describing a Tort claim.