Playing to the Galloway 2
Seixon has a detailed exposition of how and when oil money was moved into Fawaz Zureikat's account and then transferred to George Galloway's Mariam Appeal. The documentary chain is probably unbreakable. Hence, Seixon thinks that:
The only defense Galloway can mount against these allegations is that he did not know that Zureikat was using money from oil deals to donate to his campaign. In other words, he would claim that he never asked Zureikat about the source of this money, thus was not part of this money laundering scheme.
If all that stands between Galloway and a conviction for perjury is the defense that he was misled by Zureikat, it follows that Zureikat must agree to cover for him. The Simply Appalling blog has an interesting reference to a dead link in the Independent, which hints that Zureikat may not be so willing to go down with Galloway.
Well, Kim Sengupta and Terri Judd of the UK's Independent were able to reach Mr. Zureikat for comment, and he had some interesting things to say.
The Jordanian businessman accused of passing oil money from Saddam Hussein to George Galloway has revealed that he is once again trading in Iraq and making trips to America with the approval of the US authorities. Fawaz Zureikat was speaking publicly for the first time since he was named by a US Senate investigative committee examining the United Nations oil-for-food programme. He told The Independent that neither the new government in Baghdad nor US officials had raised any objections to him renewing his trade with Iraq.
There's a new government in Baghdad, which is incidentally trying Galloway's old pal Saddam Hussein for capital crimes, and Mr. Zureikat would understandably be anxious to carry on his business with the current government. He would be in a potential position to remember names, locations, other witnesses and documents that may cast doubt on George Galloway's assertion that he knew nothing of the provenance of the money that showed up in the Mariam Appeal accounts.
posted by wretchardthecat at 10/25/2005 02:48:00 PM
56 Comments:
He has probably ALREADY fed Galloway to the prosecution, and others.
What better calling card?
Galloway's defense strategy was ultimately a political one, not one based on law and the viability of concealment. Had his political bets come off, he would have been safe. If the US had been defeated or badly damaged in Iraq, the fortunes of Chirac, Kerry, Schroeder, Assad etc would have soared. He would have been untouchable.
But things went otherwise. Little by little Galloway lost ground. Expulsion from the Labor Party. Schroeder lost. Chirac got a stroke. Blair won. Howard won. Bush won. Assad got into a fix in Lebanon. Iraq began to beat down his precious insurgency. The wheels began to fall of his wagon. Is his political defense likely to get any stronger? Unless his luck changes he may have to revert to a purely legal defense.
Hey! Here is an idea!
How about we extradite Galloway...
...to Iraq?
After all, it was the Iraqi people's money that he helped to steal.
And his political/race lord advantages won't matter there.
Not as far fetched an idea as some may think, rwe. The question of Jurisdiction is always an interesting one. Perhaps there are Courts outside of Brussels that demand Justice. What type of extradiction treaty will the UK have with the "new" Iraq?
Wonder if he'd "hop" a plane to Baghdad, if indicted, there?
For those that are interested in Mr Hitchens view of the saga of Galloway .
He may just find Justice in England
"... 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, ..."
I don't think that there is going to be a significant effort to deal with him legally in America. I think that this is aimed at providing additional insight into the corruption at the U.N./OFF and Kofi Annan's horrible leadership. It will provide more impetus for significant reforms, especially with a pair like BOlton and RIce dealing with the U.N.
What is Galloway alleged to have perjured himself on? There is more than perjury here. He said he did not take Iraqi bribes, if it can be proved he did, then perjury is the least of his worries.
I was hearing reports there have been indictments and convictions in New York already over the UN food for oil scandal.
C4, why don't you wait until Fitzgerald to announce his indictments before assuming anything. I know some think Al Franken to be reputable but he really isn't.
Concur Peter_UK's analysis: prove simple greed --> show the man's pettiness AND illegal actions.
What a maroon!
Vicious, MEAN little greedy man.
Hiss legal options are bleak.
Iraq can sue for monies owed. This is a Civil Case can can be tried in British Courts. He will be bankrupted.
And/or he can be tried in absentia in Iraq, where I doubt he'd go. If convicted, a Fatwa may be sought from the Shia and Sunni Ummas and issued against him under Sharia Law. Then no Muslim can vote for him. He won't be able to set foot in any Muslim dominated nation.
The UK has laws against bribery and racketeering. If charges against conspirators can be risen to Felonies, then Galloway can be charged with a Felony even if he did not participate in the actual crimes.
I predict that Galloway will end up like Joe McCarthy.
What I would like to know is what Galloway did with that money and who he has GIVEN money too subsequently. Thats a paper trail to tread.
The Senate report is available here.
From a cursory reading it seems that, from a layman's perspective, Galloway's legal position looks very, very bad. This leaves him with the "political martyrdom" defense. Whether this is enough to protect him from civil suit from the Telegraph and the Iraqi government remains to be seen.
The report hangs the exact quote that I noticed in May 2005 around Galloway's neck: "I can assure you, Mr. Zureikat never gave me a penny from an oil deal,
from a cake deal, from a bread deal, or from any deal." It also brings up his public declarations during his debate with Christopher Hitchens.
The usual defense of a person facing criminal liability is to say nothing except through his lawyer, to suffer a sudden loss of memory and to make constant use of an industrial-grade paper shredder. Galloway has opted for the opposite course, which is to talk and to keep talking, at every opportunity and venue. This, I think, means he has chosen to put all his eggs in the political defense basket. Will it hold up? We shall see.
The Guardian:
"Galloway pledges to take fight to clear name into enemy territory
· MP challenges accuser to debate in midwest base
· Demand for perjury claim to be settled by court fight
George Galloway is considering taking his fight with Senator Norm Coleman to the Republican's heartland by booking a venue in Minnesota and challenging him to a debate."
* * *
So apparently he's going to rest his case on who can talk louder, longer.
Nahncee,
In for a dime, in for a dollar. It looks like Galloway hasn't got a legal leg to stand on. His only chance is to keep running from limelight to limelight; to continue his political martyrdom defense. Of course the more he invests in this strategy, the less recoverable his legal options become.
But how long can he keep it up? Sooner or later he'll have to pause for breath. Inevitably something will drive him off the front pages and then a man with a suit will show up to serve him something. Maybe not a warrant of arrest, but some process he has to respond to. Then running gets harder and harder.
PeterUK,
I will grant that circumstance gives him some protection. And he may get away with it. But there is such a thing as overplaying one's hand. I don't know when Galloway will reach that point. Maybe he has a long way yet to go.
The interesting thing will be to see how far one can levitate purely on the strength of European antipathy to America. There was this scene in Forbidden Planet when Morbius closes the Krell metal door against the Id monster which simply redoubles its assault by increasing powers of ten. I don't know what the outcome will be, but it'll be interesting.
Red River said...
I predict that Galloway will end up like Joe McCarthy.
///////////////
I wish you wouldn't put it that way.
After all, McCarthy was right.
In fact, on thursday I'm going to a seminar given by NSA historians on the Venona cables.
The NSA told J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI about the venona cables in 1948 but insisted that the FBI develop their own cases on the Spies. That is, no information developed by the NSA could be used by FBI in court. The FBI had to develop their own cases. The NSA didn't want the KGB to know that the NSA had broken their codes.
The number of spies vetted by the cables and the number of spies mentioned by McCarthy are very similiar (about 400). So where did McCarthy get his number?
W - your 7.03 post reminded me of the intriguing final paragraph to this Hitchens piece:
"On Wednesday night in Manhattan, however, he made the mistake that all demagogues and bullies make, and forgot that he was on television and on the record, and sought only to please his own section of the crowd. He answered questions with crude abuse. I have plenty of time and patience to spare on this, and was addressing myself to a larger audience, and I never ask a question to which I don't know the answer. So we shall see, shan't we?"
http://politics.slate.msn.com/id/2128742/
Galloway Faces New Iraq Charges:
Among the subcommittee's findings:
• Mr. Galloway personally asked for and received from Mr. Aziz and others eight allocations from 1999 to 2003 for the rights to 23 million barrels of oil.
• Amineh Abu-Zayyad, Mr. Galloway's wife, received $150,000 in the summer of 2000 from Fawaz Zureikat, the Jordanian businessman Mr. Galloway acknowledges was his business representative in Baghdad.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19955
During the McCarthy era Joe Stalin was gearing up to do a pogrom in Russia on the same scale as Hitler's shoah. As Wretchard mentioned in an earlier essay Stalin already had the concentration camps set up. And some of the preliminary accusations had gone out for what came to be known as the doctor's plot.
At the same time the Rosenburgs were tried and executed for treason in the USA--and this less than a decade after the Holocaust. This naturally caused fear and suspicion in the US Jewish community. This fear and suspicion was played upon by knowledgeable communists and leftists. These folk not only knew about what Stalin had done in the 1930's and was about to do with the doctor's plot but also saw the Rosenburg trials as show trials american style ... that is, a prelude to an american pogrom. What Stalin had planned to do in a brilliant piece of jujitsu leftists imputed to Americans on the right. But it was done soto voce. Basically a blood libel was perpetrated on Americans especially conservative Americans--without their knowing it.
While the American public outside NY/LA were generally given the view that the McCarthy era was an age when innocent men were unjustly tried by suspicious anti semites like McCarthy & Nixon--the NY/LA Jewish establishment was given a different story. They were given to understand that the democrats/liberals had prevented the US from visiting a holocaust on them. That therefor they owed their loyalty to the liberal democrats because the liberal democrats were the protectors of the Jews.
And this went on for decades after McCarthy.
This dual track story line didn't crack until the early 1990's when the kgb/nkvd/gru opened up their files on the WWII-McCarthy Period. In 1995 the US's NSA agency opened up their Venona files. Both Russian and American spy agency files showed that McCarthy was right. The US government --as well as the Manhattan Project--had been at one time soaked with Russian Spies. The Rosenburgs were guilty.
Needless to say, an American style shoah was never in the cards.
The reason that hollywood hated Ronald Reagan so much was that he was an anti communist in hollywood during the McCarthy period.(He was among the first wave of FDR democrats to switch parties.) Reagan was blacklisted from Hollywood. He couldn't get work there after the McCarthy episode. However, his experiences in Hollywood served him well when he went into public service. He always understood the jujitsu of media talk of the age. Something that cannot be said of Nixon.
Actor George Clooney's is directing a McCarthy topic film now open. The film called "Good Night and Good Luck", in which Clooney also stars, is a look at the impact of McCarthyism on 1950s America.
That Clooney should step up and take on this topic shows that he's either really bright or really stooopid.
I suspect the latter. But I'll never know for sure. Since I won't go see his movie. I went to "A Beautiful Mind" and came out of that movie spitting mad.
When I hear American based Moslems talking about McCarthyism being visited on them. I have to laugh. They don't know that they have pronounced themselves guilty in the eyes of many Americans. As to Plamegate, it looks vacuous.
...Amineh Abu-Zayyad, Mr. Galloway's wife...
I'm reading that Mr. Galloway is estranged from his wife. I'm also reading that some of the illicit funds are in bank accounts in her name.
I wonder if Muslim ladies are as vengeful about causing trouble for their estranged husbands as Western ladies have been known to be, and what this particular Muslim lady might know about where the money came from that was deposited in her name.
Charles,
If had any objection to PeterUK's suggestion that Galloway be left to wither away it is the point you just raised. Letting Galloway walk would leave him vindicated in history. The Left is above all the thief of history. Orwell understood this as no one ever did. It wants to suck out your soul, or rather humanity's soul, and replace it with its own, like that horrifying Egyptian mummy in the Bubba Ho-tep movie, preying on the residents of the Shady Rest retirement home.
They'd be prepared to let Galloway fade away in penury, as they were prepared to see the Rosenbergs fry, for so long as they get to write the history, to raise the monuments, to tell the tale. What they are unprepared to do, what they will resist at all costs, is to surrender the pen of the recorder.
Reference my comment on Galloway on the previous thread in regards to discrediting him.
It sounds like Christopher Hitchens agrees with me. Last night I saw him say that Galloway was a liar, thief, and pugeror but that he had become "a hero to the anti-war movement."
Merly charging Galloway with the crime of lying in an investigation will be seen by his admirers as "sticking it to the man", and will further enhance his statute among them. Discrediting him relative to the very principles he stands for - by trying him as one who stole bread from the mouths of Iraqi children - will do far more to take down both him and the cause he supposedly supports.
wretchard said...
They'd be prepared to let Galloway fade away in penury, as they were prepared to see the Rosenbergs fry, for so long as they get to write the history, to raise the monuments, to tell the tale. What they are unprepared to do, what they will resist at all costs, is to surrender the pen of the recorder.
////////////////////
Yeah man, since Melville, they have been calling themselves Ishmael.
OT:
Interesting digs at the Pyramid of Fire from Blam's list at fr.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1508992/posts
Dan said...
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Iran-Israel.html
My question is:
If a nation, any nation, calls for the complete and total destruction of another nation and both are members of the UN, is that not a violation of the UN charter?
If, as in this specific case, Iran's President, calls for the complete destruction of the state of israel, is israel within it's rights, to start a complete and total retalitory strike against the nation of iran until iran no longer exists?
If iran has declared a state of war against israel, does israel have to wait any longer to let's say, take out the major electic grids of iran as a response to iran's verbal pronouncements?
PREAMBLE of the UN CHARTER
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
AND FOR THESE ENDS
to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,
CHAPTER I
PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES
Article 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are:
To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.
ah yes.. i see... iran is well within the UN charter...
Seeing how Norm Coleman explicitly said indictments are coming, I think the discussion must move past the "Will it happen?" stage.
Hell hath no fury like a Senate scorned. My money's on 9 years in jail, at least.
Porker
Those Iranians are pesky, all right.
If rants are all that are required to start or continue a War, well then, Israel has been at War with Iran & Syria for quite a while. No change there, except perhaps bringing the Mad Mullahs back into public view.
But to what end?
The Iranian President has been at War with US since the Hostage taking, during Mr Carter's Presidency, no change there, either.
Wretchard,
The fact that you've seen Bubba Ho-tep and are able to weave it into your always insightful commentary speaks volumes. We're truly not worthy...!
It amusing that Galloways’ immutable way with words might be the double edge sword that brings him to his knees. The Spectator awarded him debater of the year, so it is understood that the man is quick to call a debate to defend himself. Oh but for the days of yore had his recalcitrant ways past Aaron Burr…that he should utter ’still more despicable opinions’ of him.
Saddam bribing UN officials and government officials like Galloway, is finally getting some airtime. Regardless of what happens to Galloway, publicity over the UN/Saddam link scandal is to the good. What is needed now is to broaden the scandal to include more French and German officials.
Eddie,
I think you understate the utility of trying Galloway in America. As Wretchard points out, if Galloway were to be indicted a co-defendant at trial would be anti-Americanism itself. Many anti-war lies need to be confronted, and luckily for us most of them are embodied in the despicable figure of Gorgeous George.
Anti-warriors have been spared from any scrutiny over their motives. It can't but help to have a media circus highlight the bribes Saddam paid to his supporters in the West. Let the spotlight fall on those who sought to stop this war.
Silence leads to memory loss. This is not something we should forget.
If rants are all that are required to start or continue a War, well then, Israel has been at War with Iran & Syria for quite a while.
.....if it were JUST rants, i would agree, but i'd say funding hezbollah & palestinian armed groups with cash and arms to attack aint rants
this AFTER the sole rep. for the pali's signed on the th "peace" process
watching peter-uk, I now understand how England lost its empire.
NahnCee said...
watching peter-uk, I now understand how England lost its empire.
9:22 AM
//////////
imho that had much to do with the switch from a steam powered/coal based industry to an internal combustion/oil based industry. England had a glut of the former and a dearth of the latter.
a similiar fate is in store for the USA if we don't get off oil asap. that said, I think we will.
we didn't lose it Nancy, we just put it down somewhwere and now can't remember where.
sort of like the car keys.
porker
You say that the Iranians are
"... funding hezbollah & palestinian armed groups with cash and arms to attack aint rants ..."
Well they have been doing that for quite awhile now, as well. That the new Iranian President delivers his rants in Public just underscores the sense of security he must feel.
Again nothing very new, they are at war with US and we do not recripricate.
Mr Galloway will face Judgement in England. The Daily Telegraph will press the issue, making the "News" as well as reporting it.
We could expect indictments from Iraq. It could well be a part of their proposed UN push for Justice, post December elections.
Peter - I'm simply saying it's better to move forward than to hunker down and hide because something bad MIGHT happen. If the guy's an SOB and did a Bad Thing, then prosecute him, for God's sake! I'm really not interested in all your waffling "what if's", or whose little feelings might get hurt.
It's a gut instinct thing, which feels like the right thing to do. The fact that you're more interested in lawyerly rationalizing means that you would have soldiers with the Bad Guys in their sights out in the world call in to get approval and legal justification before they ever pull the trigger just because it's the safe thing to do in a dangerous world.
One of our Good Guys from long ago said, "Damn the torpedo's! Full speed ahead!" Damn your if's, and's and but's ... full speed ahead and PROSECUTE!
for so long as they get to write the history, to raise the monuments, to tell the tale. What they are unprepared to do, what they will resist at all costs, is to surrender the pen of the recorder.
////////////////////
Yeah man, since Melville, they have been calling themselves Ishmael.
///////////////
My reference probably bears some explanation:
I was seconding Wretchard's mention that the left wants to the teller of the tale--the narrative voice. The source for this I think--comes from Moby Dick
"... And I alone am escaped to tell thee." Melville took the quote from the Book of Job to characterize Ishmael, the lone survivor of the wreck of the Pequod, clinging to the coffin that was, for him, a life-raft.
/////////////////////////
Job 1
12And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.
13And there was a day when his sons and his daughters were eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother's house:
14And there came a messenger unto Job, and said, The oxen were plowing, and the asses feeding beside them:
15And the Sabeans fell upon them, and took them away; yea, they have slain the servants with the edge of the sword; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.
16While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, The fire of God is fallen from heaven, and hath burned up the sheep, and the servants, and consumed them; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.
17While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, The Chaldeans made out three bands, and fell upon the camels, and have carried them away, yea, and slain the servants with the edge of the sword; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.
Well, Peter, you certainly must be right if one counts the amount of exclamation points backing you up. At least you're not at the point of doubling up on your exclamation points, like sorority girls tend to do (!!!!).
"...clear and present danger." I'll bet you didn't want us to go into Iraq, either, did you?
And that 9/11 thing? Merely a love-tap between two groups of folks with a life-style disagreement, and certainly not a "clear and present danger" to either the civilizations built up in American nor in England, since it didn't, in the least, affect America in any significant way.
Finally, if you're going to try to buffalo your way through an argument using Big Words, at least spell them correctly (i.e., "presumptuous").
Peter - surely you're not making the horrifically weak argument that only those people who have actually been in combat are entitled to talk about it?
Would it follow that you also think that only people who have lost relatives in combat are entitled to have opinions about it? That nebulous "moral authority" thing -- such as Cindy Sheehan?
Or are you just being TERRIBLY protective because the scoundrel in question comes from your side of the ocean and you can't stand the idea that your small green island might be brushed away as inconsequential in the subsequent world-wide rush to torment him?
In any case, I am not seeing any logic in any of your arguments, including the ones that no one should do anything about him because bad-terrible-awful things might happen thereafter.
Perhaps he does not understand the US Justices system, or even better, that he will be brought to the UN's Bar of Justice, not the US.
The entire Oil for Food fiasco damaged the Iraqi people, whom will soon, 16 Dec 05, be represented in the UN by a representitive government. When that member nation demands Justice on the World Stage, well, expect Mr Galloway to be in the dock, amongst others.
Reading the Senate's report via Wretchard's link it looks like Galloway is in a tight of spot.
In fact, the report indicates that Galloway was in Saddam's back pocket all along and stealing money from from money from the countries (and citizens) that supported the sactions.
With Mr. Zureikat freely doing business, bert speculates: He has probably ALREADY fed Galloway to the prosecution (Zureikat turned state's evidence).
Red River asks the question: What I would like to know is what Galloway did with that money and who he has GIVEN money too subsequently. Yes, that a good question. And, why is not the money (or what is left) frozen. The Senate report indicates that Galloway's "charities" were just front organizations dealing with a known terrorist/enemy of the USA. Would not new banking regulations require that Galloways funds be frozen?
Moron99 suggests: the way I figure it is that if the US senate is going after a British MP then one of two things is probably true.
1) the guy is percieved by senate as an enemy of state and suspected of deep links to terrorist organizations...
Marcus echoes that idea: more than perjury here. He said he did not take Iraqi bribes, if it can be proved he did, then perjury is the least of his worries.
I was hearing reports there have been indictments and convictions in New York already over the UN food for oil scandal.
This makes me wonder why the Feds would not just start freezing assets and spring a trap on him with a sealed indictment if they are going to hold Galloway accountable in some criminal fashion. The exact opposite is happening.
A report has been issued giving Galloway ample warning that he is in legal trouble. The element of surprise is gone and Galloway must be stashing his cash in some untouchable location (i.e., the Isle of Man) and preparing a legal defense. Intuitively, this doesn't seem like the way to stop a criminal.
Maybe the reason is there are few (if any) previous instances where the USA brought criminal charges against British Member of Parliament.
My assumption is the US Senate doesn't want to throw Galloway in the Jug - but wants to politically eliminate him. But, this does bring the problem of unequal justice to the surface. If some low level thief at the UN is going to get some punishment and Galloway is allowed to walk free it would seem to be a double standard. And, it will send a message that diplomats completely above the law. Lastly, it makes the US Senate look impotent.
Does anybody know exactly which court in the USA would have the power to indict British MP Galloway?
On a slightly different angle, I like RWE's idea to extradite Galloway to Iraq where the justice system could be considerably less comfortable that the UK's (or US).
Ledger,
Galloway's MP status is irrelevant in this matter. The perjury was committed before the Senate so I imagine that a DC DA could file charges. I would consider such a filing to be as irrelevant as the actual calling of Galloway by the Senate.
The Senate is wasting time and money going aftyer a flash pimp while the UN brothel keepers who paid the French whore deVillepin to perform unnatural acts before the Security Council chuckle up their sleeves. If we don't see French and Canadian brought up wrt OFF (Desmarais anyone?) then the Congressional Clown Corps will only have succeeded in grabbing headlines by chasing a cheap barker.
The Senate action was pathetic in calling this pimp originally and it is pathetic in chasing him. Get Strong in front of the committee, or Annan or Ghali - not some cheap Brit pol with delusions of glory.
I still think Galloway may be being used as a stalking horse to get Kofi.
In any case, if you adhere to the lessons of Watergate and "follow the money" I'll betcha it leads to a slam-dunk case for aiding and abetting terrorism. Including, from however much of a distance, al-Queda, bin Laden, Zaqawari, and 9/11.
On this side of the ocean, we feel rather strongly about people funding people who were involved in 9/11.
Although if somehow Galloway could be used to bring down Kofi, that might be an adequate quid pro quo.
" predict that Galloway will end up like Joe McCarthy.
///////////////
I wish you wouldn't put it that way.
After all, McCarthy was right.
"
He was right some of the time. If you go look at his antics in the Senate and read his biographies, you get a much different picture of a deeply troubled man.
Contrast McCarthy's actions with Ronald Reagan's in the same time period.
McCarthy went down when he began to slander innocent people with no proof.
I hate Communism, but McCarthy was his own worst enemy. I can respect a Communist if they are pro-American and are intellectually honest. McCarthy could not respect anyone and traitors and then everyone else got sucked into his whirlpool.
Nahncee,
I agree about the stalking horse. If the prosecution can bring down Galloway, then who can they NOT bring down?
Galloway will get positive spin, but as the noose closes, he will begin to sound shrill then he will become a buffoon.
If a respected, conservative, patriotic Muslim steps up to run for his MP post, then Galloway is toast.
infinitekirts (or is it nigelhuffy??) - please take your tiresome trolling back to the dreary damp semi-detached suburban wasteland from whence you undoubtedly commute to that mid-level managerial job; your attempt to insult the decent people on this thread via american fast food is truly pathetic: especially to anyone who has enjoyed the equivalent gourmet delights on that side of the pond.
(Btw, what's for dinner tonight? Wimpy's? mushy peas? cheese 'n onion crisps? indian take-away? chip butties? pork pie? donner kebab? chinese & chips??)
Peter,
Chasing Galloway is the equivalent of paying 5 cents to P.T Barnum for a ticket to the Egress.
There's one born every minute - and we elect a lot of them to the Senate.
Peter,
I don't think that many Americans understand the utter weightlessness of the run of the mill MP. How many are there and how many people do they represent - on average?
Galloway doesn't even have the right accent, for crying out loud. Statesman - right, like Huey Long was a statesman. Or Gary Condit.
rick, peter, nahncee (et al) - what do you make of this? http://nytimes.com/2005/10/27/international/middleeast/27food.html?ei=5094&en=b9f38efdda60f1e1&hp=&ex=1130385600&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print
(by the way, peter, i don;t think i have any scrupples either ;-)
Red River said...
McCarthy went down when he began to slander innocent people with no proof.
I hate Communism, but McCarthy was his own worst enemy. I can respect a Communist if they are pro-American and are intellectually honest. McCarthy could not respect anyone and traitors and then everyone else got sucked into his whirlpool.
//////////////////
this has been pretty much the tell on McCarthy for the last 40 years. The venona cables showed that the USA during and after WWII had broken the Russian code just like they'd broken the German and Japanese codes. The russians were using nearly everyone in the communist party during the 30's and 40's as spies. The numbers that McCarthy put forward as spies ie -- 400 were roughly the same number that the US NSA put to the FBI in 1948. Where was McCarthy getting his numbers from?
I'm going over John's Hopkins today to listen to some NSA historians give their reports on the most recent findings from the venona cables.
Peter UK: The best definition of a "statesman" I have heard of is:
"A dead politcian"
We can only hope that Galloway becomes a "statesman" soon...
PeterUK,
I understand your argument, but I just disagree. A grand jury is being called to look at the evidence, and once they do indictments will be issued. Indictments are not window-dressing. In fact, they are the legal equivalent of crossing the Rubicon. Once they're out there, a federal prosecutor will be called in to see it through. If you've ever seen Crimson Tide, Lt. Zimmer's statement to Weps is applicable here (I won't write it out since it is explicit).
If you take it as fact that indictments will be issued, the emphasis then shifts to Galloway and whether he will show up voluntarily. He says he will, I think he will. If that happens, he will be tried and convicted, unless he plea-bargains. Either way, it works out for us.
We have quite a few federal prosecutors, so this is not a huge waste of energy for the Department of Justice. It's useful to remember that the Senate did not go after Galloway in a vacuum. He was just a name on a list of players in the Oil For Food scandal. We battled the mob in this country by taking down middle men until we got to the top, and we are fighting terrorism the same way. Think of Galloway as just one step up the ladder. A satisfactory step, to be sure, but also a necessary one.
And I wouldn't underestimate the political utility of taking him down, either. Galloway's persona will draw media attention like a moth to a flame. For the good Senators, and for the Prosecutor for that matter, that is as good as money in the bank.
The UN as an organization and each of the European Security Council members Russian, French, and UK will each have their "sacrifices" for the cause of Iraqi Justice.
The Frenchman, Ambassador Jean-Bernard Mérimée (both France's former U.N. envoy & former Aide to Kofi) has been arrested in Paris.
The ongoing investigation into Benon Sevon will serve as the UN's fall guy. Whom the Russian candidate will be is known, but I cannot find the link.
It seems England may well "sacrifice" Mr Galloway to the justice demanded by the Oil for Food illegalities.
The characters are all accomplices in Saddam's "Crimes against Humanity".
Peter,
I don't believe that there is enough space here to do a point by point explanation of why the Galloway matter is simply a Senatorial sideshow. While it's true that the esteemed Senators allowed Galloway to put his head in a US justice noose and it might be possible to have a nice show trial, that trial will not expose the depth of the corruption within the UN Secretariat - which is what the announced purpose of the hearings is about.
If a definitive link is established between Galloway and UN brothel masters, then I am wrong but I have deep doubts that any such link exists. Tie Galloway in some tiny way to Maurice Strong, Paul Martin, Paul Desmarais (jr. or sr.), Paribas, Ghali or Annan and it could be more than a sideshow for the simple minded. If those names do not show up then the Senators involved are what I believe them to be - blowhards depending upon the gullibility of the American public.
This is not comparable at all to the quaint NY prosecutors practice of rolling a sottocapo to reach the capo di tutti capi. In the regular Mafia cases all the participants were subject to US law. What US laws have the UN brothel keepers broken?
Why is Paribas being allowed to continue to do business within the US? Why don't the bloviating Sentors put up a wall chart in the hearing room with the Strong-Ghali-Annan-Paribas-Martin-Power Corp-Total/Fina-Iraqi oil ministry links?
Try a flash pimp but keep the brothel masters names out of the papers. Great job, Senators.
I was at the NSA Center for Cryptologic History presentation today on the Venona Cables.
Both the NSA and the FBI denied that Hoover gave any information concerning venona to Senator Eugene McCarthy. They did not deny that Mcarthy and Hoover met together every week for four years from 1950 to 1954. Nor did they address the question of why the number of spies (349) given by the NSA to the FBI is roughly similiar to the number of spies that McCarthy named.
However, if Hoovers intent was to publicly embarrass communists in and around government into hiding or exile or "smoke them out"-- then I would say that McCarthy's rule of unintended consequences would appy to Galloway.
I don't think that Galloway should be tried but in Britian according to British law for having broken british law. If he hasn't broken any british law then tough. And if he lied to the US congress well then tough. Any effort to move on him in American courts would just make Galloway look like a prince of the realm rather than Lord Ha Ha.
And if the Brits can't do it. Well that would be a shame.
Rick:
Ledger,
Galloway's MP status is irrelevant in this matter. The perjury was committed before the Senate so I imagine that a DC DA could file charges.
I hear you. The jurisdiction is in DC. So, logically a DC DA could go the GJ and get an indictment. But, why not just get the indictment - publish the Senate report later. Why flash your hand of cards to Galloway?
One other point that was not clear to me, has there ever been an indictment of a British MP by US Authorities?
NahnCee: I still think Galloway may be being used as a stalking horse to get Kofi.
Yes, it could well be. Certainly, Galloway would have important information on Kofi and his con-men.
Sirius_sir: Peter UK, to your points... I think he grossly misjudges his position in respect to what may well await him should he come (please do, George) and stand trial. True, he seems to be relishing a fight, perhaps thinking--as you suggest--he can use it to advantage. And yet he may find that bluster and bombast are a defendent's least effectual assets in a US (or Iraqi) court of law.
That is well stated. But, why not just lay the papers on him and start the process? Why write a big public report detailing the charges?
Aristides: ...A grand jury is being called to look at the evidence, and once they do indictments will be issued. Indictments are not window-dressing. In fact, they are the legal equivalent of crossing the Rubicon. Once they're out there, a federal prosecutor will be called in to see it through... If you take it as fact that indictments will be issued, the emphasis then shifts to Galloway and whether he will show up voluntarily. He says he will, I think he will. If that happens, he will be tried and convicted, unless he plea-bargains. Either way, it works out for us... We battled the mob in this country by taking down middle men until we got to the top, and we are fighting terrorism the same way. Think of Galloway as just one step up the ladder. A satisfactory step, to be sure, but also a necessary one.
That makes sense. Could you explain the necessary part (is Galloway the only one that will spill his guts? Or, does he have to spill his guts first before the rest of the mob goes down?). But, again why issue a Senate report? Why not just go to the GJ and get the indictments?
rosignol: ...The only protection from Galloway would have is diplomatic immunity- his status as a non-US-citizen does not protect him.
IIRC, he waived all immunities when he testified, so he has no extraordinary protection from indictment.
Methinks Mr. Galloway is in for a rather unpleasant encounter with the US legal system.
I would not mind see Galloway roast on the stand. But, why not just get the indictment and start process now?
Rick: ...Galloway matter is simply a Senatorial sideshow... If a definitive link is established between Galloway and UN brothel masters, then I am wrong but I have deep doubts that any such link exists. Tie Galloway in some tiny way to Maurice Strong, Paul Martin, Paul Desmarais (jr. or sr.), Paribas, Ghali or Annan and it could be more than a sideshow for the simple minded. If those names do not show up then the Senators involved are what I believe them to be - blowhards...
Ok, the Senators are either blowhards - or there in something deeper that they are after. What will be the signs of the latter?
Post a Comment
<< Home