Oil for Food Scandal: Cash x 2

[DinoDoc]

I didn't support the war because I decided I didn't care if Iraq had WMD or not. The UN, et al can not make that claim.

[MrFun]

I think the fact that DD ends so many of his posts with a smilie is scandalous, although I'm not sure why, yet . . . .

[DinoDoc]

[GePap]

[Sandman]

Remember George Galloway, the anti-war MP who was accused of having cut shady deals with Saddam, based on the 'documents' found in the oil ministry?

Well, he's won his libel case against the Telegraph, leaving the right-wing newspaper with a hefty legal bill and no right to appeal.

The Link

[Odin]

Norm Coleslaw rears his ugly carpet-bagging, Bush-loving head.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Sandman
Remember George Galloway, the anti-war MP who was accused of having cut shady deals with Saddam, based on the 'documents' found in the oil ministry?

Well, he's won his libel case against the Telegraph, leaving the right-wing newspaper with a hefty legal bill and no right to appeal.

The Link

Yeah, the Telegraph claimed they had clear proof that Galloway was bribed with money from the oil-for-food programme. That libel will cost them 1.5 million pounds in damages and legal fees.

As for this so-called scandal, the U.S. government has no credibility. They have overwhelming evidence of a scandal just like they had overwhelming evidence of WMDs in Iraq.

Any U.S. investigation of the UN is tainted from the start.

[Drake Tungsten]

From what I understand, libel laws in Britain aren't the same as in the U.S. The Telegraph could've been telling the truth and still been slapped with libel.

[Tingkai]

In a statement issued by the Telegraph after the verdict, the paper's executive editor Neil Darbyshire said:
"It has never been the Daily Telegraph's case to suggest that the allegations contained in these documents are true. These documents were published by us because their contents raised very important questions at a crucial stage in the war against Iraq."

"The Daily Telegraph did not and would not perform a detailed investigation into their contents. Newspapers have neither the power nor the resources to carry out such an investigation in a war torn country.

[Drake Tungsten]

Yep, sounds like it wouldn't have been libel in the U.S.

[Tingkai]

Why?

[Drake Tungsten]

It's extremely hard to prove libel in the United States, especially for a public figure of Galloway's stature. The information has to be presented as true, not actually be true and be presented with actual malice towards the person being libelled...

[Tingkai]

The judge ruled that the Telegraph showed malice by surrounding the reports in a "blizzard" of comment and inferences.

The fact that the Telegraph did not even attempt to confirm the validity of the documents is even more damming.

The allegation the Galloway was bribed with Oil-for-Food money is simply unfounded.

[Drake Tungsten]

The judge ruled that the Telegraph showed malice by surrounding the reports in a "blizzard" of comment and inferences.

Wouldn't matter in the States. The New York Times does stuff like this all the time...

edit: Sully agrees with me, apparently...

GALLOWAY: Some things are worth reiterating. The libel verdict won by Saddam-supporter George Galloway does not depend on the notion that Galloway's ties to Saddam were disproven. They haven't been. Nor was this case decided by a jury. The case was won because, in the judge's view, the Telegraph had not given Galloway sufficient time or space to respond to the charges:

Mr Justice Eady said Mr Galloway was not given sufficient opportunity to refute the claims in the Telegraph that he had received up to £375,000 a year from Saddam.
The judge noted that Mr Galloway had a 35-minute conversation with Andrew Sparrow, the paper's Westminster correspondent, but was not sent the documents or told that the Telegraph was intending to publish a story. "Although Mr Galloway was interviewed by telephone on the afternoon of April 21, he was not given the opportunity of reading the Iraqi documents beforehand; nor were they read to him," said the judge. "He did not, therefore, have a fair or reasonable opportunity to make inquiries or meaningful comment upon them before they were published."

Such a judgment wouldn't stand a chance in an American court - but then Britain's libel laws are far tougher than America's; and there's far less freedom of speech in the UK than in the U.S. Here's the Telegraph's official response. It's deeply depressing. The verdict stands regardless of whether the story is proven true or not.

http://www.andrewsullivan.com

Don't know whether to be ecstatic or depressed. Will probably swing suddenly and violently between the two emotions, in honor of my new ally...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh, and before anyone comes to complain, Sully is a Brit who lives in the US (I imagine someone complaining about the whole freedom of speech in the UK v. the US comment).

On the rest.. let's wait until all the facts are out. I sit with Arrian on this so far. Who knows what is right and wrong.