Jump to content

Career Army Officer Sues Cheney And Rumsfeld


Dick Splash
 Share

Recommended Posts

Here's an unusual story and it will be interesting to see how it unfolds.

A career Army officer who was injured in the attack on the Pentagon on 9/11 is suing Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld for failing to issue a warning that American Airlines Flight 77 was about to hit the building despite receiving knowledge of its approach some 20 minutes in advance.

Story and lawsuit here.

Video interview here.

DS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not discounting this career Army officers (Actually enlisted E-4) injuries (and that of her child) as a result of the terrorist attack, but she sounds like a real piece of work, and well and truly deserving of anything (and everything) she receives as a result of this lawsuit.

Scorn and mockery...and that's about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good luck with that. Her lawyer must be a real ###### to have let her get this far.

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/blferes.htm

U.S. Supreme Court

FERES v. UNITED STATES, 340 U.S. 135 (1950)

340 U.S. 135

FERES, EXECUTRIX, v. UNITED STATES.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

SECOND CIRCUIT.* No. 9.

Argued October 12, 1950.

Decided December 4, 1950.

The United States is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries to members of the armed forces sustained while on active duty and not on furlough and resulting from the negligence of others in the armed forces. Pp. 136-146.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good luck with that. Her lawyer must be a real ###### to have let her get this far.
That kind of goes without saying...doesn't it?

Unfortunately the law offices of AmbulanceChasers-R-Us have branch offices everywhere.

Did you read that complaint...it is a textbook grift.

Either it was Dick, Don, Dick, and John Doe* blowing stuff up, commiting mass murder in order to start a war profiteers wet dream or... Or with some type of divining rod been able to predict and defend the target, whatever the target happened to be, when apparently even the hi-jackers weren't exactly sure of, or capable of finding.

And unfortunately, all they need to do is shop for the right judge to get this heard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The suit has merit. I for one would wonder why the HQ of our entire military complex wasn't given the warning to evacuate the pentagon. I find it a pretty hard pill to swallow when our leadership are responsible and knew of the attacks before hand and as they happened.

Either one or both happened;

1. our leadership was incompetent

2. our leadership didn't care

did all those lives lost from 9/11, the pentagon and the plane in PA. have to happen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The suit has merit. I for one would wonder why the HQ of our entire military complex wasn't given the warning to evacuate the pentagon. I find it a pretty hard pill to swallow when our leadership are responsible and knew of the attacks before hand and as they happened.

Either one or both happened;

1. our leadership was incompetent

2. our leadership didn't care

did all those lives lost from 9/11, the pentagon and the plane in PA. have to happen?

I'm guessing that either you didn't see Fletch's post, or that case law doesn't mean anything in your world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personnel cannot sue the US government if they were on active duty at the time of an accident or attack. When one signs on the dotted line and takes the oath, they cede certain rights. May not sound fair, but with what the government spends on training someone, not to mention housing and feeding (especially if one is not married), giving up a few "rights" isn't that bad really.

Most cities and towns function the same way. Cannot sue a city due to an employee of the city causing one harm in the course of his duties. Ask those who have been hit by city owned vehicles how much they got from the city to fix said vehicles or medical charges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it funny that none of these people want to sue bin laden.

My guess is this chick couldn't find a good way to fake a rape, so had to seek an alternative. (for those who've been in the military, you know that girl...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And unfortunately, all they need to do is shop for the right judge to get this heard.

You could be right, there are a few Judges that try and make Law rather than ruling on existing Law. Should they find a judge will to try and overturn FERES v. UNITED STATES, the Government will just appeal to a higher court and it will get overturned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And unfortunately, all they need to do is shop for the right judge to get this heard.

You could be right, there are a few Judges that try and make Law rather than ruling on existing Law. Should they find a judge will to try and overturn FERES v. UNITED STATES, the Government will just appeal to a higher court and it will get overturned.

I may be mistaken, but since the US Supreme Court set the precedent in Feres, wouldn't the same court be the only one that could overturn that ruling?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may be mistaken, but since the US Supreme Court set the precedent in Feres, wouldn't the same court be the only one that could overturn that ruling?

I hadn't thought of that when I replied, I think you may be right, but I'm not sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And unfortunately, all they need to do is shop for the right judge to get this heard.

You could be right, there are a few Judges that try and make Law rather than ruling on existing Law. Should they find a judge will to try and overturn FERES v. UNITED STATES, the Government will just appeal to a higher court and it will get overturned.

I may be mistaken, but since the US Supreme Court set the precedent in Feres, wouldn't the same court be the only one that could overturn that ruling?

Doesn't surprise me then. Uncle Sam is here to BEEEEEND you over

BUT!, it would seem she's going after the individuals, Cheney, rumsfeld and the general and NOT the government itself.

Let's just wait and see how this plays out :popcorn:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Interesting article I found shows that Feres was "ammended" at least once to allow us to sue in the case of the Privacy Act. It was done by a lower Federal Appeals court not the SC so it is possible this laywer does not need to shop around as there already is at least one court willing to challenge FERES.

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/polls/blsue.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting article I found shows that Feres was "ammended" at least once to allow us to sue in the case of the Privacy Act. It was done by a lower Federal Appeals court not the SC so it is possible this laywer does not need to shop around as there already is at least one court willing to challenge FERES.

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/polls/blsue.htm

Interesting find, Fletch. We'll see how this plays out. I'm sure that people holding certain .... views .... would love for this case to set a precedent and thereby make targets of various government officials on a whim. I happen to think that people holding such views should be given a one-way ticket to Iran, but that's just me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...