General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: So the DOJ acknowledges that the Bush War Criminals are guilty of crimes! [View all]Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)is astounding.
"The refusal to defend them is an admission of guilt."
There has been no "refusal to defend". The plaintiff has been advised that according to
the 1982 Supreme Court decision in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982), citing that that the President of the United States has civil immunity for actions taken while in office, she has named the wrong defendant(s) in her suit.
Pointing out that the plaintiff will therefore have to refile naming the correct defendant is in no way an admission of guilt, nor a refusal to defend. It is part of the legal procedure which must be followed when a plaintiff attempts to sue someone who is NOT, by law, able to be sued.
Do I think the Bush gang are guilty of war crimes? Yes, I do. But my believing that does NOT make them guilty in law - only a judge can make a determination of guilt, and it would have to be based on provable FACTS, not my personal beliefs.
"That is why the DOJ is asking for immunity for these War Criminals, because their crimes are laid out very carefully in the Complaint."
There are no "crimes" set out in the plaintiff's pleadings. What is set out is a list of "actions" on the part of the named defendants which, the plaintiff alleges, led to her personal damages. The suit asks for compensation for those damages - it does not, and CANNOT, ask for a finding of guilt or innocence on criminal charges.