George Galloway blasts the Senate

Actually, the "Beeb" reported that the members of the Labour party accused him of "inciting Arabs to fight British troops." The "Beeb" reported that he was found guilty of doing so in a party conclave. The "Beeb" did not once use the word "jihad." The "Beeb" did not, in fact, report that he was guilty of "inciting Arabs to fight British Troops," it simply reported that he was so accused and condemned by the Labor Party.

Of course, regarding those who consider the Republican party to be an institution of government as opposed to a private political association, i can see why you would make such unsupportable statements.

The charges faced by Mr Galloway were understood to be that:


he incited Arabs to fight British troops
he incited British troops to defy orders
he incited Plymouth voters to reject Labour MPs
he threatened to stand against Labour
he backed an anti-war candidate in Preston

He was found guilty of all but the third charge

blatham wrote:

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.

Excuse me? What source said these were "innocent" civilians?

"As early as 2003, US military intelligence officers told representatives of the Red Cross 'that in their estimate between 70 and 90 percent of the persons deprived of their liberty in Iraq had been arrested by mistake'"

"In his report on the Abu Ghraib last summer, General Fay quoted a sergeant assigned to the Abu Ghraib Detainee Assessment Board - the body responsible for deciding whether prisoners should be released - as estimating that '85-90 percent of the detainees were of no intelligence value.'"

I will state now what ought to have been obvious all along. No, i am not in possession of any putative evidence against Mr. Galloway which may in future be used against him--what an absurdity, in fact, what pure rot. That dog won't fight. I am in a position to point out that the evidence used by the permanent subcommittee for investigations of the Senate Committee for Homeland Security and Governmental Arrairs has been published--i've linked it in my own thread on this topic. Therefore, i consider it not unreasonable for me to state in a controversy about Mr. Galloway's alleged guilt that the evidence of The Daily Telegraph was stipulated as false by their own legal counsel; that the evidence originally offered by The Christian Science Monitor was characterized as false by that publication when it printed a retraction; and finally, that the permanent subcommittee has not disputed the claim made by Mr. Galloway that the evidence they had published in smearing his name was identical to the evidence refuted in court and retracted by the CSM--the evidence for that, incidentally, is to be found in the subcommittee's report.

Based on Tico's criterion, i would be unable to comment on the weather in casual conversation, as it may change within the next five minutes, and make me out to be a liar.

Setanta wrote:

Actually, the "Beeb" reported that the members of the Labour party accused him of "inciting Arabs to fight British troops." The "Beeb" reported that he was found guilty of doing so in a party conclave. The "Beeb" did not once use the word "jihad." The "Beeb" did not, in fact, report that he was guilty of "inciting Arabs to fight British Troops," it simply reported that he was so accused and condemned by the Labor Party.

Of course, regarding those who consider the Republican party to be an institution of government as opposed to a private political association, i can see why you would make such unsupportable statements.

I never claimed the Beeb used the word 'jihad'.

From the link provided by Steve on previous page:

Quote:

The charges faced by Mr Galloway were understood to be that:


he incited Arabs to fight British troops
he incited British troops to defy orders
he incited Plymouth voters to reject Labour MPs
he threatened to stand against Labour
he backed an anti-war candidate in Preston

He was found guilty of all but the third charge

The accusations were judged to break a rule which bans "bringing the Labour Party into disrepute by behaviour that is prejudicial or grossly detrimental to the party".

On Wednesday, Mr Galloway said: "While I have no complaint about the conduct of the tribunal itself, the evidence of the Labour Party's only witness, it's own deputy general secretary, was a sad, degrading and demeaning affair."

Now, wouldn't you think that the American MSM (also known as the left-leaning American media on these boards) would be broadcasting and re-broadcasting the Galloway 'interview' as it made Coleman and his team look like such blobs? ...

Ticomaya wrote:

blatham wrote:

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.

Excuse me? What source said these were "innocent" civilians?

Quote:

"As early as 2003, US military intelligence officers told representatives of the Red Cross 'that in their estimate between 70 and 90 percent of the persons deprived of their liberty in Iraq had been arrested by mistake'"

"In his report on the Abu Ghraib last summer, General Fay quoted a sergeant assigned to the Abu Ghraib Detainee Assessment Board - the body responsible for deciding whether prisoners should be released - as estimating that '85-90 percent of the detainees were of no intelligence value.'"

NYRB Feb 10, 2005, page 46

Without even a hint of a whispered suggestion that you broaden your information sources, this ought to have been rather obvious in any case. The US forces are going to release people they consider to be terrorists?

blatham wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

blatham wrote:

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.

Excuse me? What source said these were "innocent" civilians?

Quote:

"As early as 2003, US military intelligence officers told representatives of the Red Cross 'that in their estimate between 70 and 90 percent of the persons deprived of their liberty in Iraq had been arrested by mistake'"

"In his report on the Abu Ghraib last summer, General Fay quoted a sergeant assigned to the Abu Ghraib Detainee Assessment Board - the body responsible for deciding whether prisoners should be released - as estimating that '85-90 percent of the detainees were of no intelligence value.'"

NYRB Feb 10, 2005, page 46

Without even a hint of a whispered suggestion that you broaden your information sources, this ought to have been rather obvious in any case. The US forces are going to release people they consider to be terrorists?

What is that ... the New York Review of Books? How about a direct link?

You want to know one thing that irritates me? Well, I'll tell you anyhow: when a TV reporter comments that a criminal defendant plead "innocent" at their arraignment. Or are found "innocent" after a trial. These folks plead, or are found, "not guilty." Innocent they might or might not be, but they are not found to be as such by their jury.

So I'll ask you again, and this time it would be nice if you only answered my specific question: What government or military source said these were "innocent" civilians?

I'll accept your statement that your use of the word "innocent" might have been misplaced, or a link to that word being used by "government or military sources." I'm not saying they didn't say that, but I want to know who did if they did, and I doubt very seriously that they did.

Perhaps that is all the evidence there is .... I'm not saying it is or isn't -- or haven't I made that abundantly clear? But what say you about the classified evidence that hasn't come to light yet?

In other words, don't look for Galloway to sue over any of Hitchens' statements regarding him now or any time in the future

I repeat....y'all have yourselves a real winner here Be proud.

I now see where the Beeb reports he was guilty of "inciting Arabs to fight British troops".

A real winner y'all have got yourselves here.

I repeat....y'all have yourselves a real winner here Be proud.

Ticomaya wrote:

Perhaps that is all the evidence there is .... I'm not saying it is or isn't -- or haven't I made that abundantly clear? But what say you about the classified evidence that hasn't come to light yet?

I say nothing about it, or haven't i made that abundantly clear? I have not concerned myself with what may come to light, because i haven't ever billed myself as a prognosticator. It's simply a non-starter, although it is a glaring example of how deparate you are to make a case against those with whom you disagree. It's a very, very pathetic point on which to continually hammer. Which is why there's no further need to comment on the silly game you're trying to play.

EDIT: Your continued use of the definite article, thus: "the classified evidence that hasn't come to light," suggests that such evidence exists. Do you have a good basis for a contention that such evidence exists, or are you merely resorting to another pathetic rhetorical trick?

Ticomaya wrote:

blatham wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

blatham wrote:

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.

Excuse me? What source said these were "innocent" civilians?

Quote:

"As early as 2003, US military intelligence officers told representatives of the Red Cross 'that in their estimate between 70 and 90 percent of the persons deprived of their liberty in Iraq had been arrested by mistake'"

"In his report on the Abu Ghraib last summer, General Fay quoted a sergeant assigned to the Abu Ghraib Detainee Assessment Board - the body responsible for deciding whether prisoners should be released - as estimating that '85-90 percent of the detainees were of no intelligence value.'"

NYRB Feb 10, 2005, page 46

Without even a hint of a whispered suggestion that you broaden your information sources, this ought to have been rather obvious in any case. The US forces are going to release people they consider to be terrorists?

What is that ... the New York Review of Books? How about a direct link?

You want to know one thing that irritates me? Well, I'll tell you anyhow: when a TV reporter comments that a criminal defendant plead "innocent" at their arraignment. Or are found "innocent" after a trial. These folks plead, or are found, "not guilty." Innocent they might or might not be, but they are not found to be as such by their jury.

So I'll ask you again, and this time it would be nice if you only answered my specific question: What government or military source said these were "innocent" civilians?

I'll accept your statement that your use of the word "innocent" might have been misplaced, or a link to that word being used by "government or military sources." I'm not saying they didn't say that, but I want to know who did if they did, and I doubt very seriously that they did.

You want to know what irritates me? That an American schooled in law suddenly holds that persons are presumed guilty without any hearing and are to be so considered until they prove themselves innocent before a court of law which will never be convened because they don't deserve one,[/I] and that lawyer does so because his political party likes it done that way.

As it says above, General Fay's Abu Ghraib report. Dig it up yourself. You need to read more. Much more.

The NYRB page is now unavailable without subscription. Buy one.

McTag - so you agree with Galloway in his calling for Arabs to fight your countrymen who are serving in uniform? Is this the overall sentiment in Great Britain as well?