Oil for Food Scandal: Cash x 2

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Who knows what is right and wrong.

America = right

UN = wrong

[Drake Tungsten]

Or, alternatively...

Standing up to Saddam Hussein's regime = right

Standing up for Saddam Hussein's regime = wrong

Pretty basic stuff, really...

[Tingkai]

If someone is accused of a crime then it is up to the accuser to prove the accusation. The onus on proving the documents true is not on Galloway, but rather the newspaper.

It is incorrect to say the documents have not been proven false. Instead, the documents have not been proven true.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If someone is accused of a crime then it is up to the accuser to prove the accusation. The onus on proving the documents true is not on Galloway, but rather the newspaper.

But isn't the newspaper accused of the crime of libel, making Galloway the accuser and thus having to prove the accusation?



(though the know the Brits, for some reason, do it the other way... .interesting factoid, if a British plaintiff who won under libel laws in Britain over an American defendant, tried to get the money judgment enforced in the US, the US court would throw it out as it violates public policy of 1st Amendment freedoms.... sorry I'm studying for my Conflicts of Law final ).

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
But isn't the newspaper accused of the crime of libel, making Galloway the accuser and thus having to prove the accusation?

You're the legal begal, you tell me.

In Britain and Canada, if a defendent chooses the truth defence then it is up to the defendent to prove that what they printed was true, or that their belief that it was true was a reasonable belief.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
More importantly, who cares? So Iraq was getting more money than they were supposed to get. What did they do with it? They certainly didn't buy WMDs.

"sports equipment."

[Ramo]

Or, alternatively...

Standing up to Saddam Hussein's regime = right

Standing up for Saddam Hussein's regime = wrong

Pretty basic stuff, really...

Exactly.

Thus, Reagan was an evil bastard.

[Drake Tungsten]

Thus, Reagan was an evil bastard.

Yes. You're in distinguished company.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle


Wow, you're a trusting sole

your sole reason for having a sole on the bottom of you're shoes has nothing to do with a soul.

[Ramo]

Yes. You're in distinguished company.

Do you think Bush should invade North Korea?

[DinoDoc]

I'd like Boshko to keep his house. So no.

[Ramo]

Liberal doublespeak. Why are you a love slave to Kim Jung Il?

[Drake Tungsten]

Do you think Bush should invade North Korea?

Of course.

[Ramo]

I'm sure we can take them with the negative 50 million troops we'll have when Bush stops standing up for the other various dictatorial regimes in the world.

[Imran Siddiqui]

In Britain and Canada, if a defendent chooses the truth defence then it is up to the defendent to prove that what they printed was true, or that their belief that it was true was a reasonable belief.

Yeah, I realize that. We were pointing out that isn't like that in the US, and we believe our system is more conducive to free speech. In the US, the plaintiff always has to satisfy his burden of production first. He's gotta show that it was malicious or false enough so that the trial can go forward. When the trial starts, the plaintiff is the one who has to show that the defendant's writing was deliberately false and/or malicious in order to win the case.

Its for that reason the US won't enforce British libel judgments. Making the defendant have the burden of proof violates due process in our system.