NationStates Jolt Archive

The US senate has accused Galloway of lying about his wife's involvement in the "oil for food" fiasco. You might remember Galloway as the irresponsible moron who gave a speech before representatives of Arab nations that described the war in Iraq as westerners raping the arab's daughters. Anyway, here's the story on the possible perjury.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4373764.stm

He might be a prat, but at the same time he did put on a great show in front of the Senate.

I personally hate George Galloway - he gives a bad name to the left in Britain. However, I am equally suspicious of the accusers. America does have a tradition of trying to give anyone on the left a bad name, justified or not, and interfering in foreign countries when they believe the left are becoming too powerful. Seems a bit coincidental that they would target the first and only Respect party MP out of everyone in parliament.

Neither outcome would suprise me.

Though Galloway may be a bit evil, it's very entertaining hearing him speak. It's times like these that I think televised trials might actually be a good idea.

He might be a prat, but at the same time he did put on a great show in front of the Senate.Oh yeah...

He was awesome.

I loved to see the very uncomfortable expressions on the faces of the NeoCon senators (like If they were being sodomized)...It was awesome...

I say we ask him to testify before Congress...again :D

He might be a prat, but at the same time he did put on a great show in front of the Senate.True that. I sincerely dislike the guy, but thought that was hugely entertaining. To that end, I'm going to hear him give a Q & A session at Queen's next week. I shall ask him, on DCD's behalf, if he thinks he'll get done :p

True that. I sincerely dislike the guy, but thought that was hugely entertaining. To that end, I'm going to hear him give a Q & A session at Queen's next week. I shall ask him, on DCD's behalf, if he thinks he'll get done :p
Actually could you ask him on my behalf if I at least enjoyed raping the daughters of Arabia because I don't remember even doing it.

Next week?

When? Where in Queens?

If it's not when I have a lecture or something I might pop along.

Actually could you ask him on my behalf if I at least enjoyed raping the daughters of Arabia because I don't remember even doing it.Sure :D

Next week?

When? Where in Queens?

If it's not when I have a lecture or something I might pop along.Thursday - ie, 3 November - 7.30 pm in the Whitla Hall. I'm leaving a lecture on bloody Freud early to see it. I mean, much as Galloway is a twat, at least he's more interesting than Freud who only understood principles pertaining to sex :p

Shite, just looked up the website (see here (http://www.belfastfestival.com/showevent.php?id=88)), an d it's indicating tickets aren't available for some reason. Hopefully the server is just down or something, but I fear tickets may be sold out :( Hope you can manage to make it, I'm sure it'll be a laugh if nothing else.

Oh yeah...

He was awesome.

I loved to see the very uncomfortable expressions on the faces of the NeoCon senators (like If they were being sodomized)...It was awesome...

I say we ask him to testify before Congress...again :D

Except this time, Galloway will be the one being sodomized.

GEORGE GALLOWAY faces possible criminal charges after a US Senate investigation tracked $150,000 (£85,000) in Iraqi oil money to his wife’s bank account in Jordan.

The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations will refer the Respect Party MP for possible prosecution after concluding that he gave “false and misleading” testimony at his appearance before the panel in May.

The sub-committee claimed that, through intermediaries, Mr Galloway and the Mariam Appeal were granted eight allocations of Iraqi crude oil totalling 23 million barrels from 1999 to 2003.

It will also forward the new information to British authorities, saying it raised questions about Mr Galloway’s financial disclosure and the payment of illegal kickbacks to Iraq. “We have what we would call the smoking gun,” said Senator Norm Coleman, the sub-committee’s Republican chairman.

The sub-committee’s report, released today, was provoked by Mr Galloway’s clash with the senators — which he turned into a book entitled Mr Galloway goes to Washington. In that encounter, the anti-war MP vehemently denied receiving oil allocations from Iraq.

But the report provides bank account details tracking payments from an oil company through a Jordanian middleman to Mr Galloway’s nowestranged wife, Amineh Abu- Zayyad, and his Mariam Appeal fund.

“Galloway was anything but straight with the Congress. He was anything but straight with the American people. There was a lot of bombast. There was a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing,” Senator Coleman said. “We take very seriously the importance of testifying honestly before this committee . . .” he said. “We will forward matters relating to Galloway’s false and misleading statements to the proper authorities here and in Great Britain.”

A Senate aide said that Mr Galloway would be referred to the Justice Department for investigation of possible perjury, false statement and obstruction of a congressional proceeding — all “Class A” felonies carrying a sentence of up to five years and a $250,000 fine.

The report says the Jordanian middleman Fawaz Zureikat, a close friend of Mr Galloway and his representative in Baghdad, funnelled $150,000 from Iraqi oil sales to Mr Galloway’s wife and at least $446,000 to the Mariam Appeal. On the same day Mr Zureikat also paid $15,666 to Ron McKay, Mr Galloway’s spokesman. Mr McKay could not be contacted for comment last night.

The saga dates back to Mr Galloway’s Big Ben to Baghdad tour in September 1999 when he took a red double-decker bus to Iraq. An anonymous “oil trader 1” told the Senate investigators that Mr Galloway asked him at the Rashid Hotel, during the tour, how to translate oil allocations into money.

Another individual, known as “oil trader 2”, told the investigators that he learnt in summer 2000 that the Iraqi Government had granted an allocation of oil to someone represented by Mr Zureikat. Oil trader 2 said: “At that time I knew that the individual that Zureikat represented was a British official named George Galloway.”

He added: “Officials of the Iraqi State Oil Marketing Organisation confirmed to me that Mr Zureikat represented Mr Galloway in the sale of Galloway’s allocations of Iraqi crude oil.”

He also told investigators: “The fact that Mr Zureikat represented Mr Galloway with respect to oil allocations and other business in Iraq was common knowledge, understood by many oil traders with whom I had regular contact.”

The investigators spoke to Tariq Aziz, the former Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq, who told them that Mr Galloway asked him for political funding in allocations in the name of Mr Zureikat. The Senate report shows that Mr Zureikat received $740,000 from Taurus Petroleum on July 27, 2000, as commission for its purchase of 2,645,068 barrels of oil.

The report then reproduces money-transfer documents from Citibank showing that Mr Zureikat sent Mr Galloway’s wife $150,000 on August 3, 2000. They conclude that the amount was “largely” Oil-for-Food money because Mr Zureikat’s account contained $848,683 at the time, only $38,000 of which did not come from the programme.

Sure :D

Thursday - ie, 3 November - 7.30 pm in the Whitla Hall. I'm leaving a lecture on bloody Freud early to see it. I mean, much as Galloway is a twat, at least he's more interesting than Freud who only understood principles pertaining to sex :p
7:30 on a Thursday?

I get pissed with an old mate from school every Thursday evening, so I probably won't be going...

Shite, just looked up the website (see here (http://www.belfastfestival.com/showevent.php?id=88)), an d it's indicating tickets aren't available for some reason. Hopefully the server is just down or something, but I fear tickets may be sold out :( Hope you can manage to make it, I'm sure it'll be a laugh if nothing else.
It says on the site " MORE TICKETS JUST RELEASED ON THE INTERNET !! LAST RELEASE NOW AVAILABLE !! CLICK "BOOK" TO BUY"

The report then reproduces money-transfer documents from Citibank showing that Mr Zureikat sent Mr Galloway’s wife $150,000 on August 3, 2000. They conclude that the amount was “largely” Oil-for-Food money because Mr Zureikat’s account contained $848,683 at the time, only $38,000 of which did not come from the programme.
See, that's his wife.

As he has just pointed out on Channel 4 News here in the UK, his wifes finances are none of his business.

See, that's his wife.

As he has just pointed out on Channel 4 News here in the UK, his wifes finances are none of his business.

The problem he has is although he says it's his wife's account, his name was on the account as well - he had access to the money and control of the account up until the time they were separated - which is well after the time the Oil For Food money went in there.

The problem he has is although he says it's his wife's account, his name was on the account as well - he had access to the money and control of the account up until the time they were separated - which is well after the time the Oil For Food money went in there.
Not according to what he just said in the interview.

I wasn't aware you had to tell the truth to a foreign parliament. How could the US one charge him with anything, if he's a British MP?

I wasn't aware you had to tell the truth to a foreign parliament. How could the US one charge him with anything, if he's a British MP?
Maybe while he was testifying before the US senate he took an oath to tell the truth. If he lied under oath on US territory he commited a crime here. Kinda like if I went to Mexico and shoplifted some firecrackers. They'd be right to charge me with a crime even though I'm not a citizen.

Maybe while he was testifying before the US senate he took an oath to tell the truth. If he lied under oath on US territory he commited a crime here. Kinda like if I went to Mexico and shoplifted some firecrackers. They'd be right to charge me with a crime even though I'm not a citizen.

But he's not in the US, and is a foreign MP. I would personally have no quarrels about lying to an American parliamentary subcommittee, as it's full of liars itself, not that he seems to have.

Except this time, Galloway will be the one being sodomized.

....all “Class A” felonies carrying a sentence of up to five years and....Wanna bet?

Wanna bet?here are my bets

Galloway will never expend one day in Jail.

Maybe while he was testifying before the US senate he took an oath to tell the truth. If he lied under oath on US territory he commited a crime here. Kinda like if I went to Mexico and shoplifted some firecrackers. They'd be right to charge me with a crime even though I'm not a citizen.

I can't help to think that if it is a crime to lie in the American Congress, than probably most of the members would be in prison?

But he's not in the US, and is a foreign MP. I would personally have no quarrels about lying to an American parliamentary subcommittee, as it's full of liars itself, not that he seems to have.

The same way that I could be charged for perjury in sweden if I lied under oath in a court of law there.

Galloway could have just refused to answer questions about his finances, instead of going on about having "never seen a barrel of oil in his life."

True it's a tough deal, because the US senate is a disgrace, and full of disgraceful individuals. The worst of them being Senator Klansman from W.Va. But that's how it is. When in rome and the rest. After all I don't imagine that I could use the first amendment as a defense against hate speech laws in europe.

Still I doubt he'll return to the US to defend himself, so it's a storm in a teacup.

The same way that I could be charged for perjury in sweden if I lied under oath in a court of law there.

Of course, but seeing as it's not against the law to lie to other governments, I doubt your own government could do anything.

Of course, but seeing as it's not against the law to lie to other governments, I doubt your own government could do anything.

Okay, let's be clear here. Nobody has been charged as yet. The US Senate has accused galloway of perjury because he lied under oath. Galloway has said that he should be charged with perjury by them if that's the way they really feel. And in the event that he is charged with anything (unlikely), it will be the US government doing it, not the british one.

Secondly, if he is charged with anything it will be lying under oath in front of a senate comittee. Anyone can be charged with that, including Senators, because they are acting as witnesses, and not officers of the tribunal. The fact that he is an MP, or you can lie your pants off to other governments when acting in a similar capacity (which I doubt to be honest), has no bearing on this.

Galloway did not appear in front of the senate to give a speech and participate in a senate debate (though he might think he did), he was a witness, under oath, subpeoaned as part of a senate investigation.

Of course, but seeing as it's not against the law to lie to other governments, I doubt your own government could do anything.
They could be required to extradite him, actually. There's this ridculous crap Blair forced into law the other year giving the American government fair claim to anybody they want to try under their legal system rather than ours.

He might be a prat, but at the same time he did put on a great show in front of the Senate.

Quite, although at least he's doing his utmost to bring Blair, and the assorted Labour left, to catastrophe.:)

There's this ridculous crap Blair forced into law the other year giving the American government fair claim to anybody they want to try under their legal system rather than ours.WOW...Its like just... Why dont Blair just make it a state or something...

WOW...Its like just... Why dont Blair just make it a state or something...

He probably will....:(

WOW...Its like just... Why dont Blair just make it a state or something...
If he makes us a State we'd have rights under American law, which would spoil Bush's fun, given that Blair does everything he tells him to anyway.

Chris, since when is Blair part of the Labour left?

If he makes us a State we'd have rights under American law, which would spoil Bush's fun, given that Blair does everything he tells him to anyway.

Chris, since when is Blair part of the Labour left?

He isn't, it s simply Galloway is, and not only is he dividing the more socialist echelons of the party, but he is imposing upon Blair as well. In fact, he may well win the Tory's the next election.

He isn't, it s simply Galloway is, and not only is he dividing the more socialist echelons of the party, but he is imposing upon Blair as well. In fact, he may well win the Tory's the next election.
Accentuate the positive, eh?

Accentuate the positive, eh?

Implying?

Implying?
Not implying anything. I just think you may be a little over optimistic there. The great undead has left the tories in a real mess.

Not implying anything. I just think you may be a little over optimistic there. The great undead has left the tories in a real mess.

I don't agree actually, they are in a reasonable position, since Brown, blair's successor, is a trenchant socialist, and any reversion to distinctly left wing policies will regain the Tory's the 5 million votes they have lost, not surrendered to labour, but merely lost, since 1992.

I don't agree actually, they are in a reasonable position, since Brown, blair's successor, is a trenchant socialist, and any reversion to distinctly left wing policies will regain the Tory's the 5 million votes they have lost, not surrendered to labour, but merely lost, since 1992.
Quite possibly, but you could be giving Brown too much credit.

Galloway could have just refused to answer questions about his finances, instead of going on about having "never seen a barrel of oil in his life."
See..that's the problem for him. In Parliament, hyperbole, sarcasm, and quick debating are part of every day life. In the Senate...they aren't as much. So he's gone in and done what he would do at home, and the Senate Commitee is going to accuse him on the basis of taking it literally, when if he said it in Parliament nobody would.

Galloway is such a corrupt liar. It's fairly clear now that like the French government, he had a financial interest in preventing the Iraq war.:mad:

here are my bets

Galloway will never expend one day in Jail.

1. He committed perjury, point blank, while testifying before the Senate.
2. If he comes to the US, he will most certainly be arrested.
3. If arrested, he will most certainly be convicted.
4. Having seen the evidence posted concerning his bank accounts and his control of his wife's accounts - as well as his testimony before the Senate, if I was his lawyer, I would want him to strike a deal.

If he doesn't attempt to strike a deal, and tries to do that loud mouthed routine in a courtroom, he'll be in a cell with Bubba learning how to wear a dress.

See..that's the problem for him. In Parliament, hyperbole, sarcasm, and quick debating are part of every day life. In the Senate...they aren't as much. So he's gone in and done what he would do at home, and the Senate Commitee is going to accuse him on the basis of taking it literally, when if he said it in Parliament nobody would.

Okay, let's be clear on one thing. Galloway was not invited to participate in a debate in the US senate (no matter how much he likes to think he was). He was there as part of a public inquiry, as a witness, under oath, sworn to tell the truth.

If a US senator went in front of a UK panel as part of a public inquiry ordered by parliament, and lied his ass off, the argument that it was a matter of style would sound pretty silly. This has nothing to do with parliamentary style (though US politics could use some); it's perjury, nothing more or less.

2. If ....
3. If ....
4. Having seen ...
If he doesn't ...like I said..he will not expend one day in jail...

Are you taking me on the bet or not?

Galloway is such a corrupt liar. It's fairly clear now that like the French government, he had a financial interest in preventing the Iraq war.:mad:

Like the US did not have a financial interest in going to war with Iraq:rolleyes:

And the French were in the end right, had the US waited for the weapons inspectors to finish their work it would have been shown that there was no need to use military force against Iraq.

I am truely torn by this whole thing:

On one hand it would be great to finally see Gorgeous George brought down as the slimy toad really annoys me.

On the other hand i'm quite enjoying His humiliation of the US senate.

To be honest if the senate do have proof why don't they just charge him and extradite him under the terrorism extradition agreement (which hasn't actually been used for many terorists but mainly for people peripherially connected to the enron saga, who have already been cleared by the FSA and british law...)

It says on the site " MORE TICKETS JUST RELEASED ON THE INTERNET !! LAST RELEASE NOW AVAILABLE !! CLICK "BOOK" TO BUY"I know, but if you click the "Book Tickets" link, it tells you there are none available.

Okay, let's be clear on one thing. Galloway was not invited to participate in a debate in the US senate (no matter how much he likes to think he was). He was there as part of a public inquiry, as a witness, under oath, sworn to tell the truth.

If a US senator went in front of a UK panel as part of a public inquiry ordered by parliament, and lied his ass off, the argument that it was a matter of style would sound pretty silly. This has nothing to do with parliamentary style (though US politics could use some); it's perjury, nothing more or less.Yeah, but your initial point had been clear irritation at Galloway's style when confronting the Senate. No, it was not a debate, but Nadkor is not just right about Parliament; sarcasm et al are common in courtrooms across the UK too. If someone from the US were to do that in a UK court, I think people would be quite amused.

Your point that style is ultimately unimportant still stands, of course. However, Galloway has yet to be charged and it is not proven that he knew about any of this, if indeed it even happened. Stating that he must have known about his wife's financial affairs (whoever said that) is ludicrous. My partner would be mortally offended if I knew any detail about his financial affairs, as I would if the situation were reversed, and we have agreed that that is the way we want to keep it when we get married. Plenty of couples value their independence in this way - why should Galloway be any different, just because he's in the public eye?

Even if he did know, I think the US scarcely has the right to criticise. Americans may not have perjured themselves, to be fair, but their choice to go to war in Iraq was clearly, at least in part, financial. Furthermore, to criticise Galloway for knowing Saddam Hussein is the ultimate in hypocrisy. Who was it said "Here, Saddam! Have some weapons, mate!" Britain, yes - but predominately the USA.

I know, but if you click the "Book Tickets" link, it tells you there are none available.

Yeah, but your initial point had been clear irritation at Galloway's style when confronting the Senate. No, it was not a debate, but Nadkor is not just right about Parliament; sarcasm et al are common in courtrooms across the UK too. If someone from the US were to do that in a UK court, I think people would be quite amused.

Actually my initial point is that, as a witness, under oath, in a US jurisdiction it would have been better not to answer than possibly perjuring oneself.

In any event, next time you are a witness in a UK court try a "Galloway" on with the judge, and see what happens. You may be disappointed. You might find your entire testimony struck. (Though that would also amuse people). Further, if you knowingly perjure yourself, in the US as the UK, you could potentially find yourself on the wrong end of a prosecution = where you can try your antics on in the dock. (Though again, people might find it amusing).

Your point that style is ultimately unimportant still stands, of course. However, Galloway has yet to be charged and it is not proven that he knew about any of this, if indeed it even happened. Stating that he must have known about his wife's financial affairs (whoever said that) is ludicrous. My partner would be mortally offended if I knew any detail about his financial affairs, as I would if the situation were reversed, and we have agreed that that is the way we want to keep it when we get married. Plenty of couples value their independence in this way - why should Galloway be any different, just because he's in the public eye?

I think the issue is that he shared a joint account with his wife - at least the one into which money was paid - so the argument of "seperate" finances is a little thin. Further he has not been charged, so it's a moot point. (And possibly a thorny conflict of laws issue).

Even if he did know, I think the US scarcely has the right to criticise. Americans may not have perjured themselves, to be fair, but their choice to go to war in Iraq was clearly, at least in part, financial. Furthermore, to criticise Galloway for knowing Saddam Hussein is the ultimate in hypocrisy. Who was it said "Here, Saddam! Have some weapons, mate!" Britain, yes - but predominately the USA.

It is a fairly well established principle of law - in the US at least - that one cannot absolve one's own guilt by pointing to the guilt of another. (Yes, there are civil rights exceptions, but they don't apply to Galloway).

Galloway is such a corrupt liar. It's fairly clear now that like the French government, he had a financial interest in preventing the Iraq war.:mad:

The french government, in their illuminated wisdom, serevd ther own interests in the war, and pursued a self aggrandising course. Chirac ad the capacity and the will to oppose Bush on principle, and refuse to concur with his sentiments and intentions. George Galloway, talented orator that he is, opposed the war for moral factors,and has, through his belligerence, contrived to ensure the issue will not dissipate. The senate now proposes to prosecute Galloway to dispense with him, and silence his ardent oration, upon the pretext of financial corruption. The cynicism that motivates the prosecution is both evident and deplorable, and moroever we all, irrespective of our political inclinations, ought to support Galloway for illustrating a damn sight more spine than Blair and Brown possess.

The french government, in their illuminated wisdom, serevd ther own interests in the war, and pursued a self aggrandising course. Chirac ad the capacity and the will to oppose Bush on principle, and refuse to concur with his sentiments and intentions. George Galloway, talented orator that he is, opposed the war for moral factors,and has, through his belligerence, contrived to ensure the issue will not dissipate. The senate now proposes to prosecute Galloway to dispense with him, and silence his ardent oration, upon the pretext of financial corruption. The cynicism that motivates the prosecution is both evident and deplorable, and moroever we all, irrespective of our political inclinations, ought to support Galloway for illustrating a damn sight more spine than Blair and Brown possess.

Yah well, pretty much the only person calling for the indictment of galloway at the moment is galloway. So I suggest you take it up with him.

Yah well, pretty much the only person calling for the indictment of galloway at the moment is galloway. So I suggest you take it up with him.

Yeah, it just seems a tad contrived that only the most voiciferous critic of the war is prosecuted, whilst all other members of the charity are ignored....:rolleyes:

Yeah, it just seems a tad contrived that only the most voiciferous critic of the war is prosecuted, whilst all other members of the charity are ignored....:rolleyes:

Tony Blair is going to take him down on charges wholly seperate from perjury, long before anything happens in the US.

Some information that may help the debate.

Gorgeous wants to be charged. On National TV he declared that he was begging the US Senate to charge him with perjury, and he also flatly stated that he would not need to be extradited and would get on a plane the moment they decided he had commited a crime.

I am quite impressed.

But he's still a dick ;)

Some information that may help the debate.

Gorgeous wants to be charged. On National TV he declared that he was begging the US Senate to charge him with perjury, and he also flatly stated that he would not need to be extradited and would get on a plane the moment they decided he had commited a crime.

I am quite impressed.

But he's still a dick ;)

Actually if he was charged with felony perjury, I doubt he would get on a plane. That's another lie.

Actually if he was charged with felony perjury, I doubt he would get on a plane. That's another lie.

And if you extradite him at Blair's consent, I can assure you it would be the last time New Labour were elcted, or that we stand with you over any issue.

And if you extradite him at Blair's consent, I can assure you it would be the last time New Labour were elcted, or that we stand with you over any issue.

According to Galloway, he wants to be charged, and he'll gladly come here on his own - without any extradition.

I think Galloway didn't understand the difference between Parliament and the US Senate. While he may be able to splutter and shout and deliver bombast with flair at Parliament in abject rejection of all the facts, and even lie with a will, those things are generally not permitted to people under oath before the US Senate.

I hope that he is stupid enough to get on a plane and come here.

And if you extradite him at Blair's consent, I can assure you it would be the last time New Labour were elcted, or that we stand with you over any issue.

First off, I would just like to say as a life long tory voter, I would actually vote for Labour if they agreed to George being sent down. Someone needs to do it.

Secondly, there is no doubt in my mind that he took the money and knew about it, so he's going to go down in England anyway, whatever the US decides.

Thirdly, no-one in the US really gives enough of a fuck about him to charge him. It's not going to happen and no-one has called for it apart from him.

Fourthly, and this is typical of Galloway, he's once again full of shit. Sure, he likes to talk about dashing to Washington to defend his "good" name. But the fact is, if he were actually charged, he would fight extradition tooth and nail.

Face it, the man's a pathological liar, and a borderline psychopath.

First off, I would just like to say as a life long tory voter, I would actually vote for Labour if they agreed to George being sent down. Someone needs to do it.

Secondly, there is no doubt in my mind that he took the money and knew about it, so he's going to go down in England anyway, whatever the US decides.

Thirdly, no-one in the US really gives enough of a fuck about him to charge him. It's not going to happen and no-one has called for it apart from him.

Fourthly, and this is typical of Galloway, he's once again full of shit. Sure, he likes to talk about dashing to Washington to defend his "good" name. But the fact is, if he were actually charged, he would fight extradition tooth and nail.

Face it, the man's a pathological liar, and a borderline psychopath.

I am aware of that, and I applaud you for your decency in voting Tory. I sure will in 2009. Personally, I believe Galloway ought to be tried in a UK court, th reprucusions or Blair would be severe,and moreover, I object to american intrusion upon British justice, or British citizens for that matter.

I think Galloway didn't understand the difference between Parliament and the US Senate. While he may be able to splutter and shout and deliver bombast with flair at Parliament in abject rejection of all the facts, and even lie with a will, those things are generally not permitted to people under oath before the US Senate.


It's a funny thing though Mr. Hollowpoint, tribunals convened as part of public inquiries in the UK get pissy when you act like that in front of them also. They are just not televised, so for some reason there seems to be a lot of people who assume that the rules are the same as Prime-Minister's question time. This is not the case.

Galloway knew what he was doing, because it was frankly as assine as sitting in front of a UK public inquiry and pleading the fifth. The trouble is the man can't help himself.

I am aware of that, and I applaud you for your decency in voting Tory. I sure will in 2009. Personally, I believe Galloway ought to be tried in a UK court, th reprucusions or Blair would be severe,and moreover, I object to american intrusion upon British justice, or British citizens for that matter.

It's British justice if they try him for the lies in the UK.

It's US justice if they try him for perjury (a crime that he committed while here flapping his jowls).

Either way, I think that Christopher Hitchens has the scoop - Galloway pwned himself.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2128742/?nav=navoa

It's British justice if they try him for the lies in the UK.

It's US justice if they try him for perjury (a crime that he committed while here flapping his jowls).

Either way, I think that Christopher Hitchens has the scoop - Galloway pwned himself.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2128742/?nav=navoa

A related question then, if you will avoid te issue. Would Bush extradite a memebr of the senate to the UK for trial?

A related question then, if you will avoid te issue. Would Bush extradite a memebr of the senate to the UK for trial?

If he had perjured himself, I bet he would.

Here in the US, if you commit perjury (which as Myrmidonisia noted this week is the most common charge in government service), or conspire to cover up, you get thrown to the wolves.

Take a look at the Plamegate thing. If anyone from Cheney on down gets indicted, they'll be forced to resign. Bush will have to throw them to the wolves, whether he likes it or not.

A related question then, if you will avoid te issue. Would Bush extradite a memebr of the senate to the UK for trial?

If he commited a crime in britian that warants extradition under our treaties, bush wouldn't have a choice. He'd have to.

Like the US did not have a financial interest in going to war with Iraq:rolleyes:

And the French were in the end right, had the US waited for the weapons inspectors to finish their work it would have been shown that there was no need to use military force against Iraq.
Yeah. We were interested in ruining our finances by pouring billions down that rathole.

A related question then, if you will avoid te issue. Would Bush extradite a memebr of the senate to the UK for trial?
I would hope that he would under similar circumstances, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

If he commited a crime in britian that warants extradition under our treaties, bush wouldn't have a choice. He'd have to.

Utter bollocks, Bush would do his utmost to try the fellow in the US.

Moreover, why on earth is perjury a crime? It was only considered one in Europe in eccelesistiacal courts, and moreover, the entire point of a lawyer or defence is to lie, or at least alter the intricacies of the issue.

Utter bollocks, Bush would do his utmost to try the fellow in the US.

Moreover, why on earth is perjury a crime? It was only considered one in Europe in eccelesistiacal courts, and moreover, the entire point of a lawyer or defence is to lie, or at least alter the intricacies of the issue.

If everyone, including witnesses to a crime, are allowed to lie, it destroys the integrity of the trial process.

Perjury is a very, very important thing here in America.

I instruct my clients ALL THE TIME - if you lie on the stand or you lie to me, I will withdraw from representing you immediately.

If everyone, including witnesses to a crime, are allowed to lie, it destroys the integrity of the trial process.

Perjury is a very, very important thing here in America.

I instruct my clients ALL THE TIME - if you lie on the stand or you lie to me, I will withdraw from representing you immediately.

And yet it somewhat destroy's the point of a lawyer, since the division between perjury and portrayal is somewhat vague, and it can accordingly be argued that legal representation is a form of perjury.

I intend to be a corporate lawyer, and to be frank, all the advice and discussions I have enacted have informed me of quite how much more difficult legal proceedings are in the US.

And yet it somewhat destroy's the point of a lawyer, since the division between perjury and portrayal is somewhat vague, and it can accordingly be argued that legal representation is a form of perjury.

I intend to be a corporate lawyer, and to be frank, all the advice and discussions I have enacted have informed me of quite how much more difficult legal proceedings are in the US.

It isn't vague here.

Let's look at an example.

A friend I once knew in college had a fake gun. A replica. One night, I followed him in my car while he drove his. Somewhere along the road, I saw him brandish this fake gun at another driver. It's a crime called "brandishing a weapon". A really stupid thing to do.

Of course, the police were called. He was booked, and he gave a statement that he didn't own a gun, or even a fake one, and he never brandished anything. That's also what he told his lawyer. He then asked me to lie for him.

So I met with his lawyer - lawyers always want to go over the facts first to know where they stand. And I told him what I saw. The lawyer was furious with him, and told him that he would not represent a client if that client lied to him.

Needless to say, the idiot is no longer my friend. And he had to plead guilty.

If, for example, the lawyer in question were to have me lie on the stand, and someone was to discover the fact, he would risk being disbarred.

Utter bollocks, Bush would do his utmost to try the fellow in the US.

Moreover, why on earth is perjury a crime? It was only considered one in Europe in eccelesistiacal courts, and moreover, the entire point of a lawyer or defence is to lie, or at least alter the intricacies of the issue.

It wouldn't really be Bush's choice though, would it? I suppose he could tell the Justice Department to break the law, but it would be kind of public, and I don't imagine he would get away with it.

To be honest, I can't imagine a vast upwelling of anger in the US if England did want to try a US Senator for a crime commited there either. (Provided said crime had been committed). Seriously, go for it.

Face it, the man's a pathological liar, and a borderline psychopath.
And very fond of suing people under the UKs generous libel laws.

In any event, next time you are a witness in a UK court try a "Galloway" on with the judge, and see what happens. You may be disappointed. You might find your entire testimony struck. (Though that would also amuse people).You have a point, in that Galloway is the "defendant", but it is really very common for lawyers to behave in this manner. They sneer and often laugh openly at people's arguments in court, be they that of witnesses or other barristers. OK, Galloway wasn't in this position exactly - as I say, he was the "defendant" - but then again, he was defending himself, in lieu of a barrister or other legal representative, so it's really not that unusual (in a British context at least).

I think the issue is that he shared a joint account with his wife - at least the one into which money was paid - so the argument of "seperate" finances is a little thin. Further he has not been charged, so it's a moot point. (And possibly a thorny conflict of laws issue).If indeed it was a joint account with his wife (I'm not sure of the ins and outs of the situation, to be honest), then that would be mostly fair enough; however, he cannot control his wife's spending whether its through a joint account or not. The worst he can be accused of, if this were the case, is knowing about it after the event (when bank statements etc were sent to him) - unless there is solid evidence of anything more, and it certainly has not been produced yet if that is the case.

It is a fairly well established principle of law - in the US at least - that one cannot absolve one's own guilt by pointing to the guilt of another. (Yes, there are civil rights exceptions, but they don't apply to Galloway).Very true here as well. My point there was not a legal one, but more a moral and social one. I think it's hypocritical in the extreme for the US to get worked up about someone getting involved with Saddam when they were heavily so themselves at one stage. There's nothing legal in my argument, and I freely admit it wouldn't hold water in any court, but I still thing it's morally wrong, and a poor example to the rest of the world.

Face it, the man's a pathological liar, and a borderline psychopath.Actually, I don't disagree with you here. I think he's a twat in all honesty (I enjoyed his behaviour at the Senate, but not because I'm a fan of him). My arguments here are largley academic, but I do feel there ought to be solid evidence that he explicitly knew about the spending on his wife's behalf before she spent it. That applies to anyone in similar circumstances; there is nothing special here about George Galloway.

And very fond of suing people under the UKs generous libel laws.

Evidently, you can make a living that way.

Maybe instead of spouting off for free on NS, I should become a public ranter in the UK, and sue people who flame me.

Get a nice new condo in the West End...

Evidently, you can make a living that way.

Maybe instead of spouting off for free on NS, I should become a public ranter in the UK, and sue people who flame me.

Get a nice new condo in the West End...
Scary thing is, you probably could making a living out of that...

And very fond of suing people under the UKs generous libel laws.

Actually, only the daily telegraph, and that is under appeal.

Actually, only the daily telegraph, and that is under appeal.
And the Christian Science Monitor.

Scary thing is, you probably could making a living out of that...

I guess the only reason you don't do it is because you couldn't flame like that and keep a straight face...

I guess the only reason you don't do it is because you couldn't flame like that and keep a straight face...
That, and I live too far away from speaker's corner.

And the Christian Science Monitor.

I stand corrected. I think his telegraph award is going to be overturned however.

Personally, I should very much enjoy driving over George Galloway in a bulldozer; I find myself convinced that to touch him would be to touch a man made from oil. Behind his cheery, "I'm a nice Scots union man" facade, I beliebe Galloway to be a liar; watching his "rebuff" of the US senate was thus satisfying in that, for the entire time I watched and listened to him, he avoided actually answering the question put to him with evidence, instead choosing the "I can't believe you filthy murdering yanks should dare accuse a liberal Golden Boy like me of anything so underhand" line, which may be very dramatic and nice but doesn't do a great deal for his argument. I agree that, as yet, no solid evidence showing that he was in direct receipt of payments from the Iraqis has been forthcoming (though nothing would surprise me), though I must add that it seems highly unlikely that he could have been blithely unaware of three people close to him being in receipt of large payments from the Middle East that happened to come through just after the monthly UN pay-out. With that in mind, my trust of him diminishes still further. Not to say my respect for him diminishes at all, owing to the fact that I have none; protesting at the war in Iraq is well and good (I did it myself), but to command British troops to disobey direct order is, in my view, traitorous and should be treated as such.

1. He committed perjury, point blank, while testifying before the Senate.
2. If he comes to the US, he will most certainly be arrested.
3. If arrested, he will most certainly be convicted.
4. Having seen the evidence posted concerning his bank accounts and his control of his wife's accounts - as well as his testimony before the Senate, if I was his lawyer, I would want him to strike a deal.

If he doesn't attempt to strike a deal, and tries to do that loud mouthed routine in a courtroom, he'll be in a cell with Bubba learning how to wear a dress.

1. He has not been charged and has not been found guilty, therefore, as Galloway said to the U.S senate. Put up or Shut up.
2. They can extradite him any time, they are just making excuses for having no evidence.
3. Why don’t they charge him then?
4. Keep in mind, that before, the senates “proof” was found to be blatantly inaccurate. Documents referring to the wrong time period, and as well as forensically proven falsified documents. What makes you so sure that it’s any difference this time?

If Galloway goes back the U.S.A he will laugh it up and embarrass your senate committee once again. As George said. I dare them to charge him, and until he is charged, I say put up or shut up U.S.A.

1. He has not been charged and has not been found guilty, therefore, as Galloway said to the U.S senate. Put up or Shut up.
2. They can extradite him any time, they are just making excuses for having no evidence.
3. Why don’t they charge him then?
4. Keep in mind, that before, the senates “proof” was found to be blatantly inaccurate. Documents referring to the wrong time period, and as well as forensically proven falsified documents. What makes you so sure that it’s any difference this time?

If Galloway goes back the U.S.A he will laugh it up and embarrass your senate committee once again. As George said. I dare them to charge him, and until he is charged, I say put up or shut up U.S.A.

Wrong.

No forensically proven falsified documents here - just bank records, etcc. And no documents referring to the wrong time period. Maybe you should go to the Senate site and review the documents yourself. Oh, and by the way, there's evidence that was never presented at his libel suit. Which means that they can use that to overturn the decision.

Or, you can read Christopher Hitchens:

That day has now been brought measurably closer by the publication of the report of the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. This report, which comes with a vast archive of supporting material, was embargoed until 10 p.m. Monday and contains the "smoking gun" evidence that Galloway, along with his wife and his chief business associate, were consistent profiteers from Saddam Hussein's regime and its criminal exploitation of the "Oil for Food" program. In particular:

1) Between 1999 and 2003, Galloway personally solicited and received eight oil "allocations" totaling 23 million barrels, which went either to him or to a politicized "charity" of his named the Mariam Appeal.

2) In connection with just one of these allocations, Galloway's wife, Amineh Abu-Zayyad, received about $150,000 directly.

3) A minimum of $446,000 was directed to the Mariam Appeal, which campaigned against the very sanctions from which it was secretly benefiting.

4) Through the connections established by the Galloway and "Mariam" allocations, the Saddam Hussein regime was enabled to reap $1,642,000 in kickbacks or "surcharge" payments.

(For a highly readable explanation of how the Oil-for-Food racket actually worked, see the Adobe Acrobat file on the site www.hitchensweb.com prepared by my brilliant comrade Michael Weiss and distributed as a leaflet outside the debate in New York.)

These and other findings by the subcommittee, which appear to demonstrate beyond doubt that Galloway lied under oath, are supported by one witness in particular whose name will cause pain in the Galloway camp. This is Tariq Aziz, longtime henchman of Saddam Hussein and at different times the foreign minister and deputy prime minister of the Baathist dictatorship. Galloway has often referred in moist terms to his friend Aziz, and now this is his reward. I do not think—in case anyone tries such an innuendo—that there is the smallest possibility that Aziz's testimony was coerced. For one thing, he was confronted by Senate investigators who already knew a great deal of the story and who possessed authenticated documents from Iraqi ministries. For another, he continues, through his lawyers, to deny what is also certainly true, namely that he personally offered a $2 million bribe to Rolf Ekeus, then the head of the U.N. weapons inspectors.

The critical person in Galloway's fetid relationship with Saddam's regime was a Jordanian "businessman" named Fawaz Zureikat, who was involved in a vast range of middleman activities in Baghdad and is the chairman of Middle East Advanced Semiconductor Inc. It was never believable, as Galloway used to claim, that he could have been so uninformed about Zureikat's activities in breaching the U.N. oil embargo. This most probably means that what we now know is a fraction of what there is to be known. But what has been established is breathtaking enough. A member of the British Parliament was in receipt of serious money originating from a homicidal dictatorship. That money was supposed to have been used to ameliorate the suffering of Iraqis living under sanctions. It was instead diverted to the purposes of enriching Saddam's toadies and of helping them propagandize in favor of the regime whose crimes and aggressions had necessitated the sanctions and created the suffering in the first place. This is something more than mere "corruption." It is the cynical theft of food and medicine from the desperate to pay for the palaces of a psychopath.

Taken together with the scandal surrounding Benon Sevan, the U.N. official responsible for "running" the program, and with the recent arrest of Ambassador Jean-Bernard Mérimée (France's former U.N. envoy) in Paris, and with other evidence about pointing to big bribes paid to French and Russian politicians like Charles Pasqua and Vladimir Zhirinovsky, what we are looking at is a well-organized Baathist attempt to buy or influence the member states of the U.N. Security Council. One wonders how high this investigation will reach and how much it will eventually explain.

For George Galloway, however, the war would seem to be over. The evidence presented suggests that he lied in court when he sued the Daily Telegraph in London over similar allegations (and collected money for that, too). It suggests that he lied to the Senate under oath. And it suggests that he made a deceptive statement in the register of interests held by members of the British House of Commons. All in all, a bad week for him, especially coming as it does on the heels of the U.N. report on the murder of Rafik Hariri, which appears to pin the convict's badge on senior members of the Assad despotism in Damascus, Galloway's default patron after he lost his main ally in Baghdad.

Yet this is the man who received wall-to-wall good press for insulting the Senate subcommittee in May, and who was later the subject of a fawning puff piece in the New York Times, and who was lionized by the anti-war movement when he came on a mendacious and demagogic tour of the country last month. I wonder if any of those who furnished him a platform will now have the grace to admit that they were hosting a man who is not just a pimp for fascism but one of its prostitutes as well.

Or, you can read Christopher Hitchens..
Joe who?

ah that Joe... :D

galloway annoys me...

Like the US did not have a financial interest in going to war with Iraq:rolleyes:
That is also correct! Looks like everyone sucks.

Could someone explain to me exactly how a charge against Galloway would proceed. I presume it would be held in the senate itself; who decides if he is guilty or not? Who decides the veracity of the information against him?

I loved the contrast between the news reports either side of the pond when this whole thing started. Shows how influencial the media can be in forming peoples' opinions.

Could someone explain to me exactly how a charge against Galloway would proceed. I presume it would be held in the senate itself; who decides if he is guilty or not? Who decides the veracity of the information against him?the same NeoCon Judges that "appointed" Bush to the White house...

the same NeoCon Judges that "appointed" Bush to the White house...
The supreme court? ok that makes sense. I, being wholly ignorant of US politics, thought that it might have been done by the senate itself or something.