• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

More Importantly: CACI Suing Rhodes/Piquant

D

dampier

CACI, a defense contractor allegedly implicating in the torture scandal in Iraq, has decided it didn't like Randi Rhodes discussing it on her show, so they are suing AAR parent and Rhodes for $10 million in a defamation suit.

This is publicity gold for Randi and Piquant/AAR, and informal discussions about a legal defense fund, as well as some major free speech interest groups are considering becoming involved in the suit.

Rhodes vs. the alleged torturers and evil private contractors....

Here is Rhodes statement on the suit:

"On this show, on August 25th and 26th, I discussed with you (our listeners) many issues relating to operations in the ongoing war in Iraq. And on the 25th of August, I read you materials about the treatment of prisoners in Iraq, including excerpts from Marjorie Cohn's interview with Army Reserve Brigadeer General Janis Karpinski, who is now retired as a Colonel, and you might remember that Janis Karpinski was in charge of the Abu Ghraib prison, where prisoners were tortured and mistreated by American soldiers. And in the course of my show, I may have mentioned CACI, a corporation, and on the 26th I talked about the war, and I had an interview with Cindy Sheehan. Remember that? Well, about a month after those broadcasts, CACI PT and CACI International, two multimillion-dollar companies started a lawsuit against me and Piquant, which is the company that owns Air America. In the lawsuit, which they started in federal court in Virginia, CACI PT and CACI International claim we committed defamation per se because I allegedly made 'a number of false and defamatory statements about CACI' on my show, on August 25th and 26th.

"CACI PT claims to be a corporation that 'specializes in intelligence solutions and has provided intelligence services, including interrogators, to the United States military in Iraq, pursuant to contracts with the United States.' CACI International, Inc. claims to be 'an international corporation providing high technology and professional services, specializing in systems integration, managed network solutions, and information assurance.' According to CACI International's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission that are posted on CACI's website, the company has about 1.6 billion dollars in revenues in fiscal year 2005. Now you can read more about these companies on their website, caci.com, if you like. These two CACI companies allege that Piquant and I defamed them when I made alleged statements about their work for the US government. They claim that I should pay no less than one million dollars in compensatory damages and no less than ten million dollars in punitive damages. Their lawyers in the suit are Steptoe & Johnson, a major Washington, DC law firm.

"As with all of the shows that I do for you, I prepare thoroughly before I get on the air, and for those shows in August, when I spoke about the events in Iraq, I relied on several sources, including reliable published materials, and I made many of these sources available to you on the website for my show, therandirhodesshow.com, and they are still available at that address. I spoke about these things and these events because they're important in the political life of this country. I believe they were newsworthy because of their importance to the war and the future of Iraq and because they involve disgraceful abuses of power. Nonetheless, in their lawsuit, CACI challenges my right to speak out on matters of public interest.

"So I'm fighting back. I'm going to dispute their allegations. I have an unfettered right to free speech protected by the First Amendment. This right includes my right to speak as I did on my show in August, and I believe there is no merit to CACI's allegations against me and Piquant. Moreover, among the many defenses to a defamation claim is the defense that truth is a complete defense. So I look forward to the progress of this lawsuit in which, during the discovery process, I anticipate that CACI will have to provide me with all information they have that disputes anything I said about CACI during my August 25th and 26th shows. And when that information is released, I believe that I, this company Piquant, and the truth will prevail. So now you know."
 
> CACI, a defense contractor allegedly implicating in the
> torture scandal in Iraq, has decided it didn't like Randi
> Rhodes discussing it on her show, so they are suing AAR
> parent and Rhodes for $10 million in a defamation suit.
>
> This is publicity gold for Randi and Piquant/AAR, and
> informal discussions about a legal defense fund, as well as
> some major free speech interest groups are considering
> becoming involved in the suit.
>
> Rhodes vs. the alleged torturers and evil private
> contractors....

Interesting. But Randi has on her talk show cap, so let's cut through the blather.

> Here is Rhodes statement on the suit:

> "As with all of the shows that I do for you, I prepare
> thoroughly before I get on the air, and for those shows in
> August, when I spoke about the events in Iraq, I relied on
> several sources, including reliable published materials, and
> I made many of these sources available to you on the website
> for my show, therandirhodesshow.com, and they are still
> available at that address. I spoke about these things and
> these events because they're important in the political life
> of this country. I believe they were newsworthy because of
> their importance to the war and the future of Iraq and
> because they involve disgraceful abuses of power.
> Nonetheless, in their lawsuit, CACI challenges my right to
> speak out on matters of public interest.

No it doesn't. CACI challenges the truth of Rhodes statements and asserts that it has been damaged by allegedly false or defamatory statements.

The fact that she relied on the published accounts is not prima facie evidence against the claim by CACI, but is a factor. She does not necessarily qualify for the "actual malice" test. CACI is not a public official, nor are they a public individual. This *may* (and I note this hasn't been proved) be a public issue--prisoner abuse is most likely a public issue. But that isn't the argument. The public issue would be CACI's involvement in interrogation. Whether that is sufficiently public will have to be litigated. This is the difference between reckless disregard for the truth and mere negligence. Repeating a falsehood published elsewhere, even if preceived as reliable, is actionable.

> "So I'm fighting back. I'm going to dispute their
> allegations.
> I have an unfettered right to free speech
> protected by the First Amendment.

Not really. You have a generally unfettered right to speech free from government intrusion based upon content (unless it is something like fighting words, criminal agitation, or obscenity), and a qualified right as it pertains to time, place, and manner.

But vis-a-vis a private citizen (which CACI is looked upon as under the law), there is no unfettered right. Especially with two private actors, the law is relatively restrictive when it comes to falsehoods uttered that damage reputations.

> This right includes my
> right to speak as I did on my show in August, and I believe
> there is no merit to CACI's allegations against me and
> Piquant.

Again, see above. Good rhetoric, but inaccurate. She has no right to the airwaves, nor a right to make baseless claims (if that is what they turn out to be).

> Moreover, among the many defenses to a defamation
> claim is the defense that truth is a complete defense. So I
> look forward to the progress of this lawsuit in which,
> during the discovery process, I anticipate that CACI will
> have to provide me with all information they have that
> disputes anything I said about CACI during my August 25th
> and 26th shows. And when that information is released, I
> believe that I, this company Piquant, and the truth will
> prevail. So now you know."

She should hope that truth prevails. Because unless she can prove that what she said was true, re-publishing falsehoods (by speech) is as actionable as the original publication. And if my hunch is right, she's looking at negligence as the element--not a higher mens rea.
 
"This is publicity gold for Randi and Piquant/AAR, and informal discussions about a legal defense fund, as well as some major free speech interest groups are considering becoming involved in the suit."

Really? I looked for a news story. Nope nothing at news.google.com"

Let’s check out CACI’s website. Nope nothing there either. www.caci.com (I tried the search function)

My point is not that it didn’t happen; I’m confident it did. It’s that lawsuits are so common as to not be news. I’m sure Randi Rhodes would like it to be news so she can mine "gold".

"Here is Rhodes statement on the suit:

"On this show, on August 25th and 26th, I discussed with you (our listeners) many issues relating to operations in the ongoing war in Iraq. And on the 25th of August, I read you materials about the treatment of prisoners in Iraq, including excerpts from Marjorie Cohn's interview with Army Reserve Brigadeer General Janis Karpinski, who is now retired as a Colonel, and you might remember that <font color=red>Janis Karpinski</font> was in charge of the Abu Ghraib prison, where prisoners were tortured and mistreated by American soldiers."

Karpinski's retirement follows her demotion from brigadier general to colonel after it was found that her dereliction of duty, among other causes, led to the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib.<P ID="signature">______________
"A man is about as big as the things that make him angry" - Winston Churchill

<a href="http://saltydog.5gigs.com">
The Salty Dog</a>
</P>
 
> She should hope that truth prevails. Because unless she can
> prove that what she said was true, re-publishing falsehoods
> (by speech) is as actionable as the original publication.
> And if my hunch is right, she's looking at negligence as the
> element--not a higher mens rea.

Oooh... Matlock is here. :)

Her point is that she intends to demand wide discovery, and perhaps expose a lot more about what CACI has been up to beyond what they are disclosing in press releases.

To speculate on the issues of the case and its resolution is wildly premature at this point. It's just an issue to come back to as the months progress.
 
> > She should hope that truth prevails. Because unless she
> can
> > prove that what she said was true, re-publishing
> falsehoods
> > (by speech) is as actionable as the original publication.
>
> > And if my hunch is right, she's looking at negligence as
> the
> > element--not a higher mens rea.
>
> Oooh... Matlock is here. :)

Seeksucker is so expensive. I do have white bucks though.

> Her point is that she intends to demand wide discovery, and
> perhaps expose a lot more about what CACI has been up to
> beyond what they are disclosing in press releases.

Well, she can demand that but she may not necessarily be able to use it. Since she's already expressed an intent to use this discovery for non-litigation purposes (i.e., use it on air), that's reason enough for CACI to press for a protective order. Dumb move on her part.

> To speculate on the issues of the case and its resolution is
> wildly premature at this point. It's just an issue to come
> back to as the months progress.
>

Exactly, too early. This is just my first impression. And I like to combat this "free speech" myth that lots of people have. Free speech is a tradition via-a-vis private citizens, but it is not an absolute or even legally required.
 
>
> Really? I looked for a news story. Nope nothing at
> news.google.com"
>
> Let’s check out CACI’s website. Nope nothing there either.
> www.caci.com (I tried the search function)
>
> My point is not that it didn’t happen; I’m confident it did.
> It’s that lawsuits are so common as to not be news. I’m sure
> Randi Rhodes would like it to be news so she can mine
> "gold".
>

think Dampier jumped the gun, A.A.R. insiders need to stick to the plan next time.

> "Here is Rhodes statement on the suit:
>
> "On this show, on August 25th and 26th, I discussed with you
> (our listeners) many issues relating to operations in the
> ongoing war in Iraq. And on the 25th of August, I read you
> materials about the treatment of prisoners in Iraq,
> including excerpts from Marjorie Cohn's interview with Army
> Reserve Brigadeer General Janis Karpinski, who is now
> retired as a Colonel, and you might remember that Janis
> Karpinski was in charge of the Abu Ghraib prison, where
> prisoners were tortured and mistreated by American
> soldiers."
>
> Karpinski's retirement follows her demotion from brigadier
> general to colonel after it was found that her dereliction
> of duty, among other causes, led to the prisoner abuse at
> Abu Ghraib.
>
 
> Exactly, too early. This is just my first impression. And
> I like to combat this "free speech" myth that lots of people
> have. Free speech is a tradition via-a-vis private
> citizens, but it is not an absolute or even legally
> required.
>

Gee, I think we know who you voted for . . . Ever hear of something called the First Amendment? Some of us consider it to still be valid, you know. Just a tradition? Not legally required? Where are those talking points coming from?

I'm surprised CACI even cared enough about a passing mention on the Randi Rhodes Show to sue. I doubt any of their clients listen. If Halliburton sued every time an AAR host insinuated things about them, their attorneys would pass out from heat exhaustion.
 
The Suit Citation, Found

> "This is publicity gold for Randi and Piquant/AAR, and
> informal discussions about a legal defense fund, as well as
> some major free speech interest groups are considering
> becoming involved in the suit."
>
> Really? I looked for a news story. Nope nothing at
> news.google.com"

From http://shorterlink.com/?CFP090 :

U.S. DISTRICT COURT IN ALEXANDRIA, VA.

CACI Premier Technology Inc., et al. v. Randi Rhodes, et al.

(No. 05-CV-01111-GBL-TCB, Sept. 23)

Assigned to Judge Gerald Bruce Lee. Diversity -- Libel, Assault, Slander. Demand: $1,000,000. Attorney for plaintiff: Joseph William Koegel Jr., Steptoe & Johnson, Washington, D.C.

<P ID="signature">______________
also known as tombetz.</P>
 
> No it doesn't. CACI challenges the truth of Rhodes
> statements and asserts that it has been damaged by allegedly
> false or defamatory statements.

Shouldn't they also want to sue Seymour Hirsch who has been reporting in way greater detail information related to this issue with the contractors. His new yorker articles and subsequent book also cover the same accusations.
 
> I'm surprised CACI even cared enough about a passing mention
> on the Randi Rhodes Show to sue.

It's really a SLAPP suit designed to silence her and scare others from bringing CACI to account for any involvement they might have in prisoner abuse and torture. It's also going to backfire. You will probably see every AAR host start talking about CACI's suit and raising money for a defense fund, which will probably lead to even more discussion about CACI.

There is a reason talk show people have liability insurance policies. It's not going to put AAR under - it just hands everyone a new issue.
 
> > Exactly, too early. This is just my first impression.
> And
> > I like to combat this "free speech" myth that lots of
> people
> > have. Free speech is a tradition via-a-vis private
> > citizens, but it is not an absolute or even legally
> > required.
> >
>
> Gee, I think we know who you voted for . . . Ever hear of
> something called the First Amendment?

Yes, I voted for George W. Bush. But it might surprise you how I feel about the First Amendment. If you ask, I'll send you my law school thesis on how the Supreme Court got Pacifica wrong in 1978, how the FCC is wrong in regulating broadcast indecency, and how the whole system needs to be scrapped and re-done. (Bet you didn't know, but Justice John Paul Stevens wants "levels" of speech subject to different protection.)

Yes, and I have studied it in-depth, plus taken a bar exam. I have heard of "something called the First Amendment". That is what I am talking about.

> Some of us consider
> it to still be valid, you know.

I consider it very valid. It is an eminently important right against state prohibition. It should be read broadly to protect as much speech as necessary against state action. Before shouting at me and assuming my feelings on the First Amendment, why not ask me first?

> Just a tradition? Not
> legally required?

I suggest you go back and re-read what I posted in its entirety. NOWHERE in the case law is there an unqualified right to free speech between two private actors. Ever been kicked out of a mall for being too loud? Or seen someone ushered out of a theatre for talking?

Even content can be regulated between two private actors. If you go to a Catholic high school, you can be expelled for speaking blasphemies. That is a content based restriction, and, yet, you have no action against that high school or Diocese--you are a private citizen, they are a private entity and they can regulate their own property and business as they wish. Not so if it was a public school and you weren't otherwise disruptive.

The First Amendment only applies to the state--it has no applicability, directly, against private citizens. But the courts, and society, have (quite rightly) respected a tradition of free speech. You can see that in our libel and slander laws: vis-a-vis purely private citizens and purely private acts, a plaintiff must show at least negligence to succeed in a libel suit. There is no strict liability in defamation. That is a traditional respect for free speech between two citizens.

See also: I cannot go on your property shouting slogans. You can have me removed, even if I'm not causing a ruckus (and I'll leave out the trespass matter for now). That infringes my "free speech," but you have every right to do so.

> Where are those talking points coming
> from?

The case law. No talking points here, guy. They're too short for me.

> I'm surprised CACI even cared enough about a passing mention
> on the Randi Rhodes Show to sue. I doubt any of their
> clients listen. If Halliburton sued every time an AAR host
> insinuated things about them, their attorneys would pass out
> from heat exhaustion.

True. But Halliburton is probably considered a public figure--harder for them to prove a claim than one by (putatively) private actor CACI.
 
> > No it doesn't. CACI challenges the truth of Rhodes
> > statements and asserts that it has been damaged by
> allegedly
> > false or defamatory statements.
>
> Shouldn't they also want to sue Seymour Hirsch who has been
> reporting in way greater detail information related to this
> issue with the contractors. His new yorker articles and
> subsequent book also cover the same accusations.
>

Interesting point. I imagine The New Yorker and Hirsch's publisher have more money than Piquant and/or Rhodes.
 
> think Dampier jumped the gun, A.A.R. insiders need to stick
> to the plan next time.

Please... the progressive community is never that organized. Keeping Democrats together is like herding cats. :)
 
Flea-bitten varmint

> > think Dampier jumped the gun, A.A.R. insiders need to
> stick
> > to the plan next time.
>
> Please... the progressive community is never that organized.
> Keeping Democrats together is like herding cats. :)
>

HAHAHA! I'm laughing because my girlfriend uses that phrase quite frequently because at home she actively TRIES to actually herd two outdoor cats (ferae naturae, we call them) and one cat who wishes he could be an all-day outdoor cat (Mr. Perfect she calls him--he is everything but).

And now we know your first name too!
 
> > > No it doesn't. CACI challenges the truth of Rhodes
> > > statements and asserts that it has been damaged by
> > allegedly
> > > false or defamatory statements.
> >
> > Shouldn't they also want to sue Seymour Hirsch who has
> been
> > reporting in way greater detail information related to
> this
> > issue with the contractors. His new yorker articles and
> > subsequent book also cover the same accusations.
> >
>
> Interesting point. I imagine The New Yorker and Hirsch's
> publisher have more money than Piquant and/or Rhodes.
>

The latter has the louder voice, plus greater capacity to whip up publicity as needed. AAR and Randi seem to thrive on this type of attention, no? CACI may have picked the incorrect target here.

- nate81<P ID="signature">______________
Nathan Obral
University Partnership Representative: LCCC Student Senate, Elyria, Ohio

Soon-to-be-webmaster - http://www.lcccradio.com</P>
 
> > Interesting point. I imagine The New Yorker and Hirsch's
> > publisher have more money than Piquant and/or Rhodes.
> >
>
> The latter has the louder voice, plus greater capacity to
> whip up publicity as needed. AAR and Randi seem to thrive on
> this type of attention, no? CACI may have picked the
> incorrect target here.

The New Yorker articles and the book have already been published. Seems to me that the lawsuit is aimed at shutting up Rhodes, not in getting damages. I've listened to several hours of AAR programming yesterday and today (including the top of Rhodes' show today) and heard nothing about CACI or its lawsuit.
 
Johnny,

My understanding is that almost anything can be litigated. In a nutshell, although CACI is within its rights (if a corporation has rights, another question) to sue, it will have to show that what Randi said was false and that she was negligent in doing so. That is a particularly high bar and, considering what was said, seems for the most part unreasonable...unless there is something we are missing...

Also, I take issue with the examples listed below. There is a fundamental difference between speaking blasphemies and lies against the Catholic church on the radio (a not uncommon event IMHO- catch the AM dial on a Sunday morning...) and doing so inside a Catholic church or school. Would the Church or school have the right to sue an individual for libel who did this at school? No- just the right to have them removed. Almost every example listed by you has a private property (and hence trespass) law angle. Would the Catholic church have the right to sue a protestant radio preacher for libel on the radio? The church could claim it is protected as a private individual (the Pope or local bishop) against libel- this is no more of a stretch than CACI claiming these rights. If the radio preacher can only claim protection against the federal government then litigation would seem strictly possible between the individuals. This would be a slippery slope indeed.

> > > Exactly, too early. This is just my first impression.
> > And
> > > I like to combat this "free speech" myth that lots of
> > people
> > > have. Free speech is a tradition via-a-vis private
> > > citizens, but it is not an absolute or even legally
> > > required.
> > >
> >
> > Gee, I think we know who you voted for . . . Ever hear of
> > something called the First Amendment?
>
> Yes, I voted for George W. Bush. But it might surprise you
> how I feel about the First Amendment. If you ask, I'll send
> you my law school thesis on how the Supreme Court got
> Pacifica wrong in 1978, how the FCC is wrong in regulating
> broadcast indecency, and how the whole system needs to be
> scrapped and re-done. (Bet you didn't know, but Justice
> John Paul Stevens wants "levels" of speech subject to
> different protection.)
>
> Yes, and I have studied it in-depth, plus taken a bar exam.
> I have heard of "something called the First Amendment".
> That is what I am talking about.
>
> > Some of us consider
> > it to still be valid, you know.
>
> I consider it very valid. It is an eminently important
> right against state prohibition. It should be read broadly
> to protect as much speech as necessary against state action.
> Before shouting at me and assuming my feelings on the First
> Amendment, why not ask me first?
>
> > Just a tradition? Not
> > legally required?
>
> I suggest you go back and re-read what I posted in its
> entirety. NOWHERE in the case law is there an unqualified
> right to free speech between two private actors. Ever been
> kicked out of a mall for being too loud? Or seen someone
> ushered out of a theatre for talking?
>
> Even content can be regulated between two private actors.
> If you go to a Catholic high school, you can be expelled for
> speaking blasphemies. That is a content based restriction,
> and, yet, you have no action against that high school or
> Diocese--you are a private citizen, they are a private
> entity and they can regulate their own property and business
> as they wish. Not so if it was a public school and you
> weren't otherwise disruptive.
>
> The First Amendment only applies to the state--it has no
> applicability, directly, against private citizens. But the
> courts, and society, have (quite rightly) respected a
> tradition of free speech. You can see that in our libel and
> slander laws: vis-a-vis purely private citizens and purely
> private acts, a plaintiff must show at least negligence to
> succeed in a libel suit. There is no strict liability in
> defamation. That is a traditional respect for free speech
> between two citizens.
>
> See also: I cannot go on your property shouting slogans.
> You can have me removed, even if I'm not causing a ruckus
> (and I'll leave out the trespass matter for now). That
> infringes my "free speech," but you have every right to do
> so.
>
> > Where are those talking points coming
> > from?
>
> The case law. No talking points here, guy. They're too
> short for me.
>
> > I'm surprised CACI even cared enough about a passing
> mention
> > on the Randi Rhodes Show to sue. I doubt any of their
> > clients listen. If Halliburton sued every time an AAR host
>
> > insinuated things about them, their attorneys would pass
> out
> > from heat exhaustion.
>
> True. But Halliburton is probably considered a public
> figure--harder for them to prove a claim than one by
> (putatively) private actor CACI.
>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom