mikkey 0 #1 May 18, 2005 Has any of you guys seen George Galloway's testimony in front of the US Senate's sub-committee? I don't like the guy - but it was highly entertaining - shit he was feisty. Must say he got some good punches in and made some points that must have hurt. Example: When he refuted that he had been a supporter of SH, he stated that he had met SH exactly the same number of times Rumsfeld had and the difference was that Rumsfeld was selling weapons to SH. Here is some more info: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4553601.stm--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #2 May 18, 2005 The guy's an arse. But he's in the right here; very much so. The Senate has behaved deplorably by making the statements they have about him. If they were to publish their reports in the UK Galloway would jump up and down on them with our libel laws and walk away with another couple of million just like he did after the Telegraph made similar allegations based on the SAME documents! Seriously – the Senate are relying on documents which have already been tested in court and have failed to come up to proof. I can't believe the Senate is actually trying to rely on documents which when analyzed show... get this... the whole of the document is in 1 typeface except for Galloway's name. That entry is in a different typeface, at a different angle to the rest of the document, in a lighter shade of ink and was entered at a later date, before the document was finally photocopied. Now I'm sorry, but if your only piece of evidence will not stand up in court then you cannot go round making accusations about someone that will ruin their career. That is slander and defamation and if the Senate pushes I wouldn't be surprised if Galloway goes on to collect his 3rd damages payout in a row in relation to these same allegations. (Christian Science Monitor also paid out to him for libel after they admitted relying on forged documents in making essentially the exact same claim as the Senate now makes). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CornishChris 5 #3 May 18, 2005 I'm with you both. I have no time for the guy except in this stance and how he played Paxman on the night of the election. Politics would be substantially more amusing with more people like him in it. Good on him for going to the states, he should take this all the way. Amazed that after two succesful libel actions based on this evidence the senate bothered to pursue it. CJP Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #4 May 18, 2005 ditto.. the man is a plonka... but he's our plonka! I almost crashed the car when I heard his remarks about the number of times that he and Rummy met SH.... and why.... classic stuff ... Give them hell Mr Galloway (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #5 May 18, 2005 I'm disappointed in the Senate. Mr. Galloway was quite feisty. Had I been a Senator and he mentioned the Rumsfeld analogy, I would have asked him if the #444 meant anything to him and if he had bothered to watch the news during 1979/1980/1981. One has to wonder why the Senate sub-committee acted as they did. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mcarchangel 0 #6 May 18, 2005 Of course the difference between the American libel laws and those of the U.K. is that in America truth is a defense, and in the U.K., it is not. Meaning in the U.S. if the bad things you say about a person are true, you are not guilty of libel. In the U.K. it does not matter if what you say is true. That was the problem the Telegraph ran into. It was more a problem that they said something bad about Galloway, it did not matter that it was true.------------------------------------------------------- "These are the old days, the bad days, the all-or-nothing days. They're back! There's no choice left, and I'm ready for war." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #7 May 18, 2005 Sadly you are talking arse. Truth is a complete defense to any form of Libel action in the UK. Trust me on that one. The problem the Telegraph ran into was that its only evidence for the allegations it made was this one document. That, in case you haven't guessed, is the same document the Senate now relies upon. The Senate also appears to have confused themselves over the status of the documents used by the Christian Science Monitor... who subsequently admitted that their documents were forged and paid out to Galloway again for libel. The document the Senate is waiving around is such weak evidence that it did not stand up in court. When Galloway challenged the Senate to provide any further evidence of their claims they were unable to do so. If Galloway were to take the Senate to court in the UK for libel, from the information that is in the public domain, it is more than likely that he would win. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuteless 1 #8 May 18, 2005 More power to Galloway. I think its great to see someone stand up to the arrogance of the US Senate. Good for him. Trouble is, many Americans cant stand hearing the truth. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mcarchangel 0 #9 May 18, 2005 I'm a law student who has just finished my Torts class. Which was taught by a professer from the U.K. by the way. One of the subjects we covered was defamation (i.e. libel and slander). He said that U.K. common law did not recognize truth as a defense and that was the way the courts handled it. Now maybe my British law professer was wrong about British law. It's possible. But I'm thinking he probably has a better grasp of the law than most. So I'll go ahead and talk out of whatever body part I choose.------------------------------------------------------- "These are the old days, the bad days, the all-or-nothing days. They're back! There's no choice left, and I'm ready for war." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freekflyguy 0 #10 May 18, 2005 Quote Had I been a Senator and he mentioned the Rumsfeld analogy, I would have asked him if the #444 meant anything to him and if he had bothered to watch the news during 1979/1980/1981. You have lost me with this one, care to explain?? BuzzIt's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #11 May 18, 2005 Man I'm glad I didn't have your professor back when I did the first of my law degrees. Did your tort class given by a UK professor explain what a Barrister is? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #12 May 19, 2005 Think Iranian hostage crisis, dude. 444 is the # of days our embassy staff was held hostage. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,643 #13 May 19, 2005 QuoteI'm a law student who has just finished my Torts class. Which was taught by a professer from the U.K. by the way. One of the subjects we covered was defamation (i.e. libel and slander). He said that U.K. common law did not recognize truth as a defense and that was the way the courts handled it. Now maybe my British law professer was wrong about British law. It's possible. But I'm thinking he probably has a better grasp of the law than most. So I'll go ahead and talk out of whatever body part I choose. Could be you weren't paying attention. Strange, but wierd stuff happens when half the students in the class are below average.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #14 May 19, 2005 What happened here should be a lesson to any US politician who dares challenge a U.K. politician in a live environment. We have some dummys but the more famous characters are routinely formidable, and Galloway is certainly a character. American congressmen have it damned easy, they're rarely asked tough questions or have to think on their feet. If it ever looks like they might be they just won't show up. Confronting Galloway ain't like a soft soap interview on the Dianne Sawyer show. The shouldn't have let him get away with half the bullshit he pulled, but then again I have no respect for these publicity hounds abusing committees to further their own selfish agendas either. At least with a Soviet show trial people were wise to the false veneer of propriety. Americans and their press seem to lap up these politicized soap operas like they were weren't the product of a panel of corrupt old farts jockeying for sound bites. I suspect Galloway had diplomatic immunity, so he could dish out as good as he got, you or I might have been silenced under threat of being hauled out in chains in contempt. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ScottishJohn 25 #15 October 25, 2005 BUMP US Sennate claims Galloway lied under oath http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4374534.stm Mr Galloway denies claims he profited from Iraqi oil deals George Galloway has rejected claims he lied under oath to the US Senate committee which accused him of receiving oil cash from Saddam Hussein. The Respect MP ridiculed the senators' claims during a hearing in May. Now they say fresh evidence links him and his estranged wife to Iraq's oil-for-food programme. Mr Galloway and his wife both deny the allegations. Mr Galloway said: "I am ready to fly to the US today... to face such a charge (perjury) because it is simply false." The US Senate committee claims to have found £85,000 in Iraqi oil money in the bank account of his estranged wife Dr Armineh Abu-Zayyad. The MP could face criminal charges if he is found to have given false testimony to the committee on 17 May. 'Smoking gun' During that combative performance he defended himself against accusations by senators that he received credit to buy Iraqi oil. They have been cavalier with any idea of process and justice so far, but I am still willing to go to the US and I am still willing to face any charge of perjury before the senate committee George Galloway One of the main allegations raised by the senate sub-committee was that Mr Galloway received oil allocations with the assistance of Fawaz Zureikat. Mr Zureikat, who was chairman of the Mariam Appeal set up by Mr Galloway to help a four-year-old Iraqi girl with leukaemia, has strongly denied making any arrangements linked to oil sales on behalf of the MP. The senate committee's new report accuses Mr Galloway of personally soliciting and being granted eight oil allocations totalling 23 million barrels from the Hussein government between 1999 and 2003. I have never solicited or received from Iraq or anyone else any proceeds of any oil deals, either for myself or for my former husband Dr Amineh Abu-Zayyad It also says that his estranged wife received £85,000 in connection with one allocation of oil. The committee alleges that at least £252,000 was funnelled to the Mariam Appeal through several allocations. Republican Senator Norm Coleman, chairman of the committee, said documents it had uncovered were "the smoking gun". 'Cavalier' attitude He said that Mr Galloway had "been anything but straight" with the committee and he had sent a report to the US Department of Justice and to British authorities. Mr Galloway, who has denied all suggestions he profited from told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "The specific allegation against me is that I lied under oath in front of a senate committee. "In this case the remedy is clear - they must charge me with perjury and I am ready to fly to the US today, if necessary, to face such a charge because it is simply false." Perjury in the US carries a penalty of up to five years in prison and a £140,500 fine. The Bethnal Green and Bow MP also launched an attack on the senate investigators. "They have been cavalier with any idea of process and justice so far, but I am still willing to go to the US and I am still willing to face any charge of perjury before the senate committee," he said. Libel damages In the committee's report Dr Abu-Zayyad is specifically quoted denying she received any money. Asked whether she or Mr Galloway had benefited from Iraq oil sales, she said in writing: "I have never solicited or received from Iraq or anyone else any proceeds of any oil deals, either for myself or for my former husband." BBC Washington correspondent Justin Webb said the latest developments meant the senators' confrontation with Mr Galloway had "reached a new and more serious stage". Mr Galloway has always denied funds from the sale of Iraqi oil were funnelled through the Mariam Appeal. In December, Mr Galloway won £150,000 in libel damages from the Daily Telegraph over its separate claims he had received money from Saddam's regime. The paper is currently awaiting the result of its appeal against that ruling. Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk_politics/4374534.stm Published: 2005/10/25 14:13:13 GMT---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you think my attitude stinks you should smell my fingers Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Newbie 0 #16 October 25, 2005 Not that my comments will add much to this interesting discussion, but what the hoo, i'm going to make them anyways... DING DING seconds out, round 2! "Skydiving is a door" Happythoughts Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #17 October 25, 2005 I wonder if they're trying to rely on documents that have already been proven to be forgeries like they did last time? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #18 October 25, 2005 QuoteI wonder if they're trying to rely on documents that have already been proven to be forgeries like they did last time? Well, as we are learning, perjury is just a technicality and not that important anyway... wait, is he off the opposition party? BURN HIM!!! Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #19 October 25, 2005 George... tell their senate to F.R.O (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #20 October 25, 2005 I don't know what you're talking about. I talked to George Galloway just the other day, and all he was really concerned about was a new parachute tracking thingy. Iraqi oil deals indeed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #21 October 25, 2005 Hitchens continues to work to expose Galloway: http://slate.msn.com/id/2128742/?nav=navoa Although it's a bit closer to gloating this time around. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites artistcalledian 0 #22 October 25, 2005 george made them look like pillocks before, he'll do it again ________________________________________ drive it like you stole it and f*ck the police Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites cloudseeker2001 0 #23 October 26, 2005 Quotegeorge made them look like pillocks before, he'll do it again HAHA! Yes, he made them look like total ass! Go George! "Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance, others mean and rueful of the western dream" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ColdDuck 0 #24 October 27, 2005 I dont think his theatrics are going to save him this time. The evidence against him is pretty sound. Senator Norm Coleman, the U.S. Senator heading one of many invesitgations into the OFF scandal and the staff members of the PSI Committee have put together a compelling case against Mr. Galloway. Oh wait, this must be part of that vast right wing conspiracy! "Insurance should called In case shit happens, if shit don't happen shouldn't I get my money back?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites miked10270 0 #25 October 27, 2005 I'll go with the rest of the Brits here. "Gorgeous George" comes across as the archetypal slimy amoral politician... But he is VERY GOOD at what he does and he has an ability to marshall ALL the facts at his fingertips. Bear in mind that he's survived, and even thrived in the political arena without any formal party support for quite a few years. George has survived numerous scandals & accusations and has ALWAYS won out of it. Yes, his sense of the theatrical is excellent, but British Courts really confine their theatrics to the gowns, briefcases and wigs - their decisions are based on fact & cogent argument. At the moment, he's continuing to beard the senate investigations and they couldn't play a better straight man to George's publicity machine if they were paid! Let's be blunt. George trounced them before - they came across as arrogant idiots. Now they say they "have a great case against him & he'd better not show his face in the states again"... But they won't give any real details of the new evidence! Sure, there's been accusations, but nothing to back them up. Meanwhile, Goerge is saying he's quite willing to fly over - RIGHT NOW - and the Senate isn't inviting him! I'll bet that if he flew over cold then he wouldn't be admitted to the US! I'll also bet that the evidence is the result of some congressional staffer trying to help his boss. I'll bet that this Senate hearing will be nearly as good as the time they went for Paul Robeson in the 1950's Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post 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. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. 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. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
artistcalledian 0 #22 October 25, 2005 george made them look like pillocks before, he'll do it again ________________________________________ drive it like you stole it and f*ck the police Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cloudseeker2001 0 #23 October 26, 2005 Quotegeorge made them look like pillocks before, he'll do it again HAHA! Yes, he made them look like total ass! Go George! "Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance, others mean and rueful of the western dream" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ColdDuck 0 #24 October 27, 2005 I dont think his theatrics are going to save him this time. The evidence against him is pretty sound. Senator Norm Coleman, the U.S. Senator heading one of many invesitgations into the OFF scandal and the staff members of the PSI Committee have put together a compelling case against Mr. Galloway. Oh wait, this must be part of that vast right wing conspiracy! "Insurance should called In case shit happens, if shit don't happen shouldn't I get my money back?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #25 October 27, 2005 I'll go with the rest of the Brits here. "Gorgeous George" comes across as the archetypal slimy amoral politician... But he is VERY GOOD at what he does and he has an ability to marshall ALL the facts at his fingertips. Bear in mind that he's survived, and even thrived in the political arena without any formal party support for quite a few years. George has survived numerous scandals & accusations and has ALWAYS won out of it. Yes, his sense of the theatrical is excellent, but British Courts really confine their theatrics to the gowns, briefcases and wigs - their decisions are based on fact & cogent argument. At the moment, he's continuing to beard the senate investigations and they couldn't play a better straight man to George's publicity machine if they were paid! Let's be blunt. George trounced them before - they came across as arrogant idiots. Now they say they "have a great case against him & he'd better not show his face in the states again"... But they won't give any real details of the new evidence! Sure, there's been accusations, but nothing to back them up. Meanwhile, Goerge is saying he's quite willing to fly over - RIGHT NOW - and the Senate isn't inviting him! I'll bet that if he flew over cold then he wouldn't be admitted to the US! I'll also bet that the evidence is the result of some congressional staffer trying to help his boss. I'll bet that this Senate hearing will be nearly as good as the time they went for Paul Robeson in the 1950's Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
