George Galloway blasts the Senate

parados wrote:

Let me think about this...
One side accuses the other of profiting monetarily from oil for food
The accused says, "You have no evidence of me ever recieving money"
The accuser fails to present any such evidence.....

Which side should I believe in this exchange?

In my America it doesn't matter who is accused, they are innocent until proven guilty. The only fools are those that condemn without evidence.

Unless of course the accused is the US military, and the accusers are terrorists.

Despite your decision to suggest otherwise, it is not the case that in a defamation suit a person is "innocent until proven guilty."

It is the case that speaking the truth is an absolute defense to such lawsuits.

tico said, deceitfully again

Quote:

Unless of course the accused is the US military, and the accusers are terrorists.

Your intellectual integrity, not to mention your allegiance to principles of justice, stinks on this claim, tico. Government and military sources acknowledge that many caught up, held, and later released were not terrorists at all, but innocent civilians.

Ticomaya wrote:

parados wrote:

Let me think about this...
One side accuses the other of profiting monetarily from oil for food
The accused says, "You have no evidence of me ever recieving money"
The accuser fails to present any such evidence.....

Which side should I believe in this exchange?

In my America it doesn't matter who is accused, they are innocent until proven guilty. The only fools are those that condemn without evidence.

Unless of course the accused is the US military, and the accusers are terrorists.

What Senate Commission might you be referring to that has accused the US military, Tico? Careful, that aircraft carrier is gonna bump you in the ass.

From Wikipedia article on George Galloway:

On April 22, 2003, the Daily Telegraph published an article describing documents which the paper claimed had been found by its reporter David Blair in the ruins of the Iraqi Foreign Ministry. The documents purport to be records of meetings between Galloway and Iraqi intelligence agents, and state that he had received £375,000 per year from the proceeds of the Oil for Food programme

Galloway completely denied the story, insisting that the documents were forgeries, and pointing to the questionable nature of the discovery within an unguarded bombed-out building. He instigated legal action against the newspaper, which was heard in the High Court from November 14, 2004

On December 2, Justice David Eady ruled that the story had been "seriously defamatory", and that the Telegraph was "obliged to compensate Mr Galloway... and to make an award for the purposes of restoring his reputation". Galloway was awarded £150,000 damages plus costs estimated to total £1.2 million. In UK libel cases, the winning party is also normally awarded costs, with the loser paying the bill. The court did not grant leave to appeal; in order to appeal in the absence of leave, the defendants would have to petition the House of Lords.

The libel case was regarded by both sides as an important test of the Reynolds qualified-privilege defence. The Daily Telegraph did not attempt to claim justification (a defence in which the defendant bears the onus of proving that the defamatory reports are true): "It has never been the Telegraph's case to suggest that the allegations contained in these documents are true". Instead, the paper sought to argue that it acted responsibly because the allegations it reported were of sufficient public interest to outweigh the damage caused to Galloway's reputation. However, the court ruled that "It was the defendants' primary case that their coverage was no more than 'neutral reportage' ... but the nature, content and tone of their coverage cannot be so described."

The Daily Telegraph has not published any investigation as to whether their documents were genuine, but a 2005 US senate report comments that the original article "apparently included forged documents".


It helps to marshall one's facts before making such statements.

Ticomaya wrote:

Despite your decision to suggest otherwise, it is not the case that in a defamation suit a person is "innocent until proven guilty."

It is the case that speaking the truth is an absolute defense to such lawsuits.

Had you read the article from Wikipedia which i have already posted in this thread, you would have discovered that legal counsel for The Daily Telegraph intentionally stipulated the inaccuracy of the evidence, so as to avoid being obliged to prove Mr. Galloway's guilt, and instead argued a greater value in informing the public than the putative harm to Mr. Galloway's reputation.

It helps to do your homework in such discussions, which is why i did mine before replying to georgeob1 to point out to him that Galloway had sued and won.

Assuming there might be a defamation case on this side of the pond -- and if you didn't catch it from my res judicata remark, I'm not concerned about that other one -- I don't presume to know the precise evidence that will be presented to substantiate any allegations against Mr. Galloway. But apparently you do.

George wrote

"However, based on my experience of life, I would say that it is far more likely that George Galloway is a charlatan and a thief... "

Careful George, your namesake is a litigious kind of guy. No matter your private thoughts, the fact is he keeps winning in court, and would no doubt be pleased to meet you there.

What Defenses Are Available To People Accused of Defamation?

The most important defense to an action for defamation is "truth", which is an absolute defense to an action for defamation.

Another defense to defamation actions is "privilege". For example, statements made by witnesses in court, arguments made in court by lawyers, statements by legislators on the floor of the legislature, or by judges while sitting on the bench, are ordinarily privileged, and cannot support a cause of action for defamation, no matter how false or outrageous.

A defense recognized in most jurisdictions is "opinion". If the person makes a statement of opinion as opposed to fact, the statement may not support a cause of action for defamation. Whether a statement is viewed as an expression of fact or opinion can depend upon context - that is, whether or not the person making the statement would be perceived by the community as being in a position to know whether or not it is true. If your employer calls you a pathological liar, it is far less likely to be regarded as opinion than if such a statement is made by somebody you just met. Some jurisdictions have eliminated the distinction between fact and opinion, and instead hold that any statement that suggests a factual basis can support a cause of action for defamation.

A defense similar to opinion is "fair comment on a matter of public interest". If the mayor of a town is involved in a corruption scandal, expressing the opinion that you believe the allegations are true is not likely to support a cause of action for defamation.

A defendant may also attempt to illustrate that the plaintiff had a poor reputation in the community, in order to diminish any claim for damages resulting from the defamatory statements.

A defendant who transmitted a message without awareness of its content may raise the defense of "innocent dissemination". For example, the post office is not liable for delivering a letter which has defamatory content, as it is not aware of the contents of the letter.

An uncommon defense is that the plaintiff consented to the dissemination of the statement.

Public Figures

Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and did not award any damages.

The concept of the "public figure" is broader than celebrities and politicians. A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established, on the basis that the notoriety associated with the case and the accusations against them turned them into involuntary public figures.

A person can also become a "limited public figure" by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, a woman named Terry Rakolta was offended by the Fox Television show, Married With Children, and wrote letters to the show's advertisers to try to get them to stop their support for the show. As a result of her actions, Ms. Rakolta became the target of jokes in a wide variety of settings. As these jokes remained within the confines of her public conduct, typically making fun of her as being prudish or censorious, they were protected by Ms. Rakolta's status as a "limited public figure".

Gosh, Tico. Don't worship there. You'll get a chair thrown at ya.

Tico, I read Steve's comment as a bit "tongue in cheek".

I thought it was funny.

Ticomaya wrote:

Assuming there might be a defamation case on this side of the pond -- and if you didn't catch it from my res judicata remark, I'm not concerned about that other one -- I don't presume to know the precise evidence that will be presented to substantiate any allegations against Mr. Galloway. But apparently you do.

That is not apparent at all. You are ignoring what i have been consistently saying throughout--which is that georgeob1 has consistently ignored the overwhelming evidence that no one has made a case against George Galloway as complicit in kickback schemes in the Oil for Food program, nor for having been a participant, directly or indirectly in the program; and that georgeob1 has ignored the statement from the Wikipedia article that the Senate subcommittee has found the documents used to make allegations against Mr. Galloway were forgeries.

I know you would love to make this a discussion of his prospects for a successful defamation of character suit in the United States. But i don't intend to play which is why i resonded "not at all" to your original, and off-topic, question about res judicata. This has been, all along, an attempt on your part to divert the discussion from georgeob1's intentional obtuse position with regard to the allegations against Mr. Galloway. All of which just suggests to me the more that you may worship at the altar of georgeob1.

...

Are you actually saying, hand on heart, that the Senate, knowing full well that the only evidence being used in their dossier was that very same evidence that had been thrown out in a libel case, had absolutely NO malice towards Galloway when they published these accusations?

Or are you saying that they were just dumb, and hadnt done their homework properly?

Either way.....they deserved, and got, a good bitch slapping.