Playing to the Galloway
On May 23, 2005, while newspapers were waxing delirious over the rhetorical drubbing that George Galloway was apparently administering to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, the Belmont Club on the old site noted something peculiar about the apparent passivity of the Senators towards Galloway's barbs.
The really striking thing about the Galloway's testimony as transcribed by the Information Clearing House is how the Senators and the Member of Parliament for Bethnal Green and Bow were pursuing a non-collision course. Galloway had come to score press and public relations points at which, by all accounts, he was successful at doing. But Senator Coleman and Levin seemed totally uninterested in responding to Galloway's sharp political jibes. It was almost as if the Senators were deaf to his political posturing. Instead, they focused exclusively and repeatedly on two things: Galloway's relationship with Fawaz Zureikat and Tariq Aziz. Zureikat was a board member of Galloway's Mariam foundation who is also implicated in the Oil For Food deals. Tariq Aziz was Saddam's vice president.
During his testimony Senator Coleman asked this seemingly innocuous question of Galloway about his relationship with Fawaz Zureikat.
SEN. COLEMAN: If I can get back to Mr. Zureikat one more time. Do you recall a time when he specifically -- when you had a conversation with him about oil dealings in Iraq?
GALLOWAY: I have already answered that question. 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. He donated money to our campaign, which we publicly brandished on all of our literature, along with the other donors to the campaign.
SEN. COLEMAN: Again, Mr. Galloway, a simple question. I'm looking for either a yes or no. Did you ever have a conversation with Mr. Zureikat where he informed you that he had oil dealings with Iraq, yes or no?
GALLOWAY: Not before this Daily Telegraph report, no. ...
SEN. CARL LEVIN (D): Thank you, Mr. Galloway.
Later, it was the turn of Senator Levin to ask these mild-mannered questions of the firebrand from Bethnal Green and Bow about his dealings with Tariq Aziz. He was shortly followed by Senator Coleman who asked the same question but with different emphasis.
SEN. LEVIN: ... I wanted just to ask you about Tariq Aziz.
GALLOWAY: Yeah.
SEN. LEVIN: Tariq Aziz. You've indicated you, you--who you didn't talk to and who you did talk to. Did you have conversations with Tariq Aziz about the award of oil allocations? That's my question.
GALLOWAY: Never.
SEN. LEVIN: Thank you. I'm done. Thank you.
SEN. COLEMAN: Just one follow-up on the Tariq Aziz question. How often did you uh ... Can you describe the relation with Tariq Aziz?
GALLOWAY: Friendly.
SEN. COLEMAN: How often did you meet him?
GALLOWAY: Many times.
SEN. COLEMAN: Can you give an estimate of that?
GALLOWAY: No. Many times.
SEN. COLEMAN: Is it more than five?
GALLOWAY: Yes, sir.
SEN. COLEMAN: More than ten?
GALLOWAY: Yes.
SEN. COLEMAN: Fifteen? Around fifteen?
GALLOWAY: Well, we're getting nearer, but I haven't counted. But many times. I'm saying to you "Many times," and I'm saying to you that I was friendly with him.
SEN. COLEMAN: And you describe him as "a very dear friend"?
GALLOWAY: I think you've quoted me as saying "a dear, dear friend." I don't often use the double adjective, but--
SEN. COLEMAN: --I was looking into your heart on that.--
GALLOWAY: --but "friend" I have no problem with. Senator, just before you go on--I do hope that you'll avail yourself of this dossier that I have produced. And I am really speaking through you to Senator Levin. This is what I have said about Saddam Hussein.
SEN. COLEMAN: Well, we'll enter that into the record without objection. I have no further questions of the witness. You're excused, Mr. Galloway.
GALLOWAY: Thank you very much.
In that May post, I wrote that the tone and manner of Galloway's examination suggested that the Senators were trying to establish a specific point for the record, in the hopes of using Galloway's testimony against him later.
In the exchange above it is abundantly clear that both Coleman and Levin simply wanted to enter Galloway's denial of having discussed Oil for Food business with Tariq Aziz in the record. Levin immediately ends his questioning after eliciting Galloway's "Never". Coleman is content to merely establish that Aziz and Galloway were "friends" who had met "many times" before saying "I have no further questions of the witness".
The London Times reports that "The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations will refer the Respect Party MP for possible prosecution after concluding that he gave 'false and misleading' testimony at his appearance before the panel in May." In particular, the Senate alleges they have found a paper trail showing payments leading from Fawaz Zureikat to George Galloway's wife. The Washington Times further reports that "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." In any trial over perjury, Galloway's response to the Senator's questions in May will loom large. Galloway is laughing the whole thing off. The BBC reports:
But Mr Galloway told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "The specific allegation against me is that I lied under oath in front of a senate committee.
"In this case the remedy is clear - they must charge me with perjury and I am ready to fly to the US today, if necessary, to face such a charge because it is simply false."
The Bethnal Green and Bow MP also launched an attack on the senate investigators.
"They have been cavalier with any idea of process and justice so far, but I am still willing to go to the US and I am still willing to face any charge of perjury before the senate committee," he said.
(Speculation alert) It was Galloway's contempt for the intelligence and capability of his Senatorial pursuers that may have gotten him into this perjury mess in the first place. It wasn't enough to remain silent on his relationship with with Zureikat. Playing to his gallery, Galloway boomed, "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." Nice touch about the cake and the bread. Perhaps he couldn't imagine, at the time, why these yokels were asking him simple questions that were beneath his level of rhetorical ability. Even today Galloway may think so little of his adversaries that he was willing to boast on BBC Radio that "I am ready to fly to the US today, if necessary, to face such a charge because it is simply false." He is as smart today as he was then.
posted by wretchardthecat at 10/25/2005 05:08:00 AM
64 Comments:
Galloway does not realize and cannot know in his heart what most Americans know - that the US Senate is constructed as much a place of legislation as it is a chamber of prosecution. If it can remove a sitting US President from office, then a boast too far from a third-rate megalomaniac is but a stepping stone to a much greater prize.
Galloway does not understand how American criminal proecution works - it is not a contest of arguement in a public forum, but an amassing of solid evidence that immobilizes the defendant and then buries them, making any court date a foregone thing.
The US Senate is almost totally immune to politics and the press in its end result. It also has the full resources of the Federal Government at its disposal - more so than any mere Federal prosecutor. It is also immune to many of the rules that hamper the FBI as it can call upon any and all Federal Agencies.
It sounds like Galloway thinks he's dealing with an American version of the Parliament he's used to dealing with.
The United States Senate is something else entirely... and damn near every Senator is a lawyer. To lie to a body composed of ~100 lawyers who have damn near unlimited resources to draw on for investigation and also serve as the judge and jury is quite stupid.
We got Capone on tax fraud, and we got Galloway on perjury.
I hope he brings his vanity and contempt with him to prison. I imagine he will be popular.
Jim Croce, had he been watching this thing, would have found himself a brand new analogy.
We simply don't have any hope of "getting" Galloway. There would be little hope if he were a U.S. Citizen. The fact that he is a foreign poltician makes it utterly impossible.
What is important is discrediting him. Most people do not recall specific events but merely a general feeling about something.
Wrechard calls this the Memory Hole. But it is not a Black Hole -things do escape from it - feelings, attitudes, general beliefs.
The Plame Flap, Abue Grabe furor, and New Orleans disaster rhetoric are attempts to induce a general air of discredit over the Bush Administration. Get specific and the discrediting falls apart, but most people are not specific in their memories. These are in part attempts to throw a general air of sameness over all of government. A special investigator is about to release an investigation report that will utterly savage the Clinton Admin; the Democrats are desperate to stop it going public, simultaneously trying to cut the funding for the office in Congress while in the courts filing hundreds of legal motions to delay its completion. They will not succeed - but may well suceeed in promoting a general air of "Well, they're all crooks up there anyway."
Discrediting Galloway will help dicredit all those who opposed the liberation of Iraq.
We need to attain a genral feeling of "Well, all those guys marching in the streets were shills for people on the take, anyway."
This "all powerful" Senate you folks portray; where was it when it came time to do justice to Bill Clinton? Hearing after hearing after hearing where key players were not compelled to get past their countless "I do not recall"s. Hearing after hearing after hearing where Senate committees were stood up by absent witnesses who were never punished for their flagrant contempt.
The mealy mouthed doublespeak from Senator Lieberman that was repackaged by the MSM as breaking with the Democrats. GIVE ME A BREAK.
It is all too highly selective. Hidden agendas and skeletons in closets everywhere.
Curiously, this setup of Galloway comes from Levin and Coleman, neither of which are noted for their support of the war. I wonder what tweaked their ire?
I can't wait for the Hitchens take!
If he *were* found guilty of perjury in the U.S. can we lock up an English-person for that? I wouldn't think so.
And would MSM publish it so the rest of the world, or even normal Americans, understood what was going on? I wouldn't think so.
I wonder if someone is trying to get Gorgeous George to roll over and finger an even bigger fish. If, as a previous poster noted, American justice is made up of, "...an amassing of solid evidence that immobilizes the defendant and then buries them..."
Can you spell J-a-c-q-u-e-s, for example?
The nice thing about perjury is that it doesn't have to go anywhere else. Charging Galloway with treason or some similarly large crime would open up a whole can of unwelcome worms. But perjury is such a technical crime that the light will shine only in some corners and leave all the rest in darkness.
Galloway's defense always rested on the fact that they couldn't bring him down without dragging in people who are still in high office today. If he had just kept his mouth shut he could have continue to shelter behind that implicit defense. But by perjuring himself on a subject on which he can be nailed down Galloway has given away the store. My opinion re SpudIslander's question, is that Galloway has given the hatchetmen of both parties a safe way to put him away.
This is more than a mere attempt to discredit Galloway. If that were the sole purpose of this investigation, we would have seen much more of it at the hearings.
Senators are notoriously long-winded and self-important. When they become laconic and unaffected, when they refuse to bite no matter how much bait you lay out, it is time consult your lawyer.
Indictments are coming. You can depend on it.
Or K-o-f-i.
me too, undertoad. starting, presumably, from his previous position: "So on one hand we have a bipartisan Senate committee, and on the other we have a man with a big and dirty mouth. "
(nahncee - please: he's not english, he's scottish. and foreign nationals are locked up here everyday.)
Wretchard seems to be saying that this perjury charge rests on the claims of Tariq Aziz contradicting Galloway's testimony. Hardly a watertight case.
This arrogance and hubris are the hemp and knot which will hang this strutting popinjay.
He deserves everything he gets... 23 million barrels, indeed! "Not one cent."
Right...
It is time to put Galloway in a dank cell, tightly wrapped in straightjacket to prevent self harm. What a wanker!
The corrupt modern left. Without its media smokescreen, where would it be?
Just wanted to thank RWE for his post about the 'Memory Hole'. Plenty of people are not so much interested in facts, but their 'feelings' on a subject. Corn-Pone opinions indeed.
My understanding of British law comes from reading Rumpole. Can a British court try him based on the information gathered by the U.S.?
Bribery from a foreign goverment? Hell, I could throw in treason - they managed to hang William Joyce for Treason and he wasn't even a British Citizen!
Perhaps, more to the point, what purpose is served, other than the obvious, of pursuing Galloway? Is there an agenda that can be furthered by putting this Olympic class idiot away? I can't imagine Carl Levin going after him because he was offended by Galloway's anti American commentary. Dunno, just strikes me as odd.
All that will happen is that Galloway will turn this into an attack on Islam,it is irrrelevant whether he is lying or not,he will emerge from this as a hero to the people he represents.
The man doesn't care about general American public opinion,he is impressing his followers,that is all that counts.The scene is being set for Islam's champion being persecuted by the Great Satan,that is all that counts.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
peter - and Zarqawi is a hero to the people he represents. But neither he nor Galloway represent the majority whose opinion ultimately will prevail.
Off topic somewhat - but does anyone think that the attack on the Palestine Hotel (which is getting a lot of coverage despite that fact that U.S. troops stopped it) - is a case of Z the Terrorist following the "Media is part of the war" advice from Z the Terrorist Advisor?
Or is it just another example of the "Tet Offensive" approach?
Ex-Democrat.
They are prevailing in the Muslim world and that is all that matters to them.
Both men have one object,to stir up strife between Muslims and the rest of us,if the can drag along the left at the same time well and good.The point is Galloway is not losing fans he is gaining them,he was unknown in the States before the Senate inadvisadly called him before them.This kind of thing is meat and drink to a demagogue like Galloway,getting his day in court would make him ecstatic,being jailed more so.It will only boost his credibilty with his followers,it has to be remembered that to some US law has no legitimacy.
Doesn't Galloway as a member of Parliament have some immunity from prosecution? Was he legally compelled to testify before the United States Senate? Peter UK is correct in saying that a demagogue like Galloway craves media attention. If Galloway were convicted of perjury in the United States, could he be expelled from the House of Commons?
Removing Galloway from a position of political authority (and media attention) through a perjury conviction is probably the best outcome.
Galloway represents a large Muslim constituency,it would be an absolute disaster to throw him out of the House of Commons,even if that could be done under British law.
I hate to say "I told you so",but many of us were warning you not to play with the "Tar Baby",now it is going to get everywhere.
There is no "lose" in this for Galloway,it would have been better if he had been deprived of the oxygen of publicity and ignored.
Everybody seems to believe that a perjury charge based on lying to Congress would have some legal force in the UK, but I don't see it.
No British citizen has ever been arrested in England and hauled off to the US on that basis, and there would be no public support in the UK for bestowing that power on US politicians. It is especially unlikely that British Members of Parliament would ever give their opposite numbers in the US the power to compel a British MP, however much they may disapprove of him, to submit to a US trial.
Galloway can laugh at the US Congress indefinitely as long as he doesn't come here, as I feel sure he plans to do.
peter - "Sunlight is the best disinfectant."
Ex-Democrat,
Galloway was a penny-ante player until he was thrown out of the Labour Party,this gave him enough notoriety to put together his extreme left/Islamic party Respect.From there he got back into Parliament,the Senate hearings propelled him onto the world stage,the man is growing before our eyes.
Meanwhile,the big operators are hidden from view,whilst Gorgeous takes the heat.All they have on him is $100,000 or so in his WIFES bank account,she is divorcing him,so you can bet that his defence will be he didn't know of his wife's involvement in OFF.
At the same time does anyone know where the real money went,billions of it?
It is most probable that Gorgeous has not connection to the big operators and was simply Western moutpiece for Saddam Hussein.This whole affair is generating more heat than light!
OT but sometimes topical here at the Belmont Club.
Bob (http://mindanao.com/blog/?p=294#comments) Bob at the Mindanao blog has been following an interesting story. It has to do with rumors that PGMA has signed off on an agreement with the MILF to give them a chunk of Mindanao to form an independent state. If true this is very bad news, as it would quickly turn into Afghanistan with palm trees and/or possibly degenerate into a civil war in Mindanao.
I don't know how much cred to give the story as it could be a disinformation campaign by PGMA's opponents as it would make no sense from PGMA's standpoint since many of the leaders in Mindanao & the Bisayas are supportive of her.
Wretchard, do you have any insight on all of this?
America does not have jurisdiction over Galloway. Even if he visited America - while on official Parliament business or UN activity I hope to gosh we are not so stupid as to contemplate arresting the man.
It's up to the UK to deal with him. We have no business meddling in internal UK politics. Anymore than the UK meddling in our affairs by arresting a DOD official for deceiving Parliament about torture, torture, torture!! or some other topic twisting Brit knickers.
On the other hand, the apparant fact of perjury is good if the UN accepts the Senate conclusions (which it will because Kofi endorsed the US Senate investigation to keep his ass and Kojo's relatively safe) and requests Galloway be tried in Britain for perjuring himself in the Oil for Food Scandal.
bioqubit said...
This "all powerful" Senate you folks portray; where was it when it came time to do justice to Bill Clinton?
The all-powerful Senate was clearly smarter than you and the fringe Republican ideologues that tried unseating a popular, effective President for lying about a blowjob.
At a certain point, the public gets disgusted with the raw partisanship in DC that seeks to criminalize or smear all the actions of the other side. Clinton's impeachment was one moment where the public concluded Republican fanatics were trying railroad Bubba out of office and the Senate knew that and had no appetite to proceed.
C4,
Do we have an extradition treaty with the UK? I would be surprised if we don't. If so, then we can request extradition and I have this feeling he could very well be extradited, after all he is an all around thorn in the side of Labour as well as the Tories.
After all, what sort of jurisdiction did we have over Mark Jimenez who was in the Philippines? He was sent back, tried & convicted and his term is about up (in fact he may already be out).
Also, please spare us the revisionism.
C4: "America does not have jurisdiction over Galloway."
Why not? Because of the nature of the alleged crime?
If there is a there there, we can expect that it will be guarded by most of the European money changers, because in the nether world of banking secrecy and shell companies, are the puppet masters of the world. It appears that the UN set up the scandal from day one as a money laundering operation. George Galloway is a colorful peon, a cutout, and he will be kited by his own.
It is unlikely that the Senate will do anything to much shed light on these dealings, back room compromises will be made, quid pro quo. The American public will only be afforded the truth when it is one of their own… conservatives.
rwe - re Baghdad hotel attack, following from this morning's PowerLine blog:
"A word from Major E.
Major E. is our man at Camp Victory in Baghdad. Today he writes to comment on the attack on the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad, heading his report 'Bombs in Baghdad -- Spectacularly Ineffective':
By now, I am sure that many of your readers have seen the eye-catching video of multiple vehicle bombs detonating in front of a Baghdad hotel. Since it is being broadcast all over the airwaves, I just wanted to remind readers that even though it was an apparent public relations success for the terrorists, the attack was a failure in military terms.
The number of terrorists involved and the follow-on small arms attacks make it clear that the overall goal was to use suicide vehicle bombs to breach the security perimeter, then take over the hotel and hold the international guests as hostages. Instead, they failed to achieve those objectives and the attackers were killed... " ... continued with more about the effectiveness of the Iraqi soldiers and police.
powerlineblog.co . . .
Bah - someone just murder this idiot. Andale, andale.
Hold on here guys, Republican talking points all weekend were emphasizing the fact that perjury is not at all a crime. Kay Bailey Hutchinson was explicit that senior Administration traitors who divulged the identity of a NOC CIA agent, an act of betrayal that very likely lead to the death of a CIA agent (an unnamed star was added to the wall at Langley shortly after the revelation that Brewster-Jennings & Associates was a CIA front company) were being condemned only for being conservative. Now it will seem slightly hypocritical if some on the Right are waxing poetically about the horrors of Mr. Galloway committing the suddenly oh so serious crime of perjury while at the same time saying that Rove, Scooter, Cheney and perhaps the President himself are being harassed by the non-charge of perjury when the indictments come down tomorrow.
Brewster’s Millions
Now that the front company has been exposed, the Boston company is at risk of being attacked by the enemies of Richard Prior and John Candy. If any more leaks were too occur next all the employees at Langley would be at risk…oops!
But seriously, the tit-for-tat insider trading of classified information with editorial mouth pieces has to stop. Talk about putting a bullet in the back of some ones head, they should have executed John Walker and Aldrich Ames a long time ago. The rest of us would have been rotting in jail for much less.
Dear Kevin - here is the actual pith of the otherwise erection-inspiring headline, you idiot.
"Mr. Libby's notes indicate that Mr. Cheney had gotten his information about Ms. Wilson from George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, in response to questions from the vice president about Mr. Wilson. But they contain no suggestion that either Mr. Cheney or Mr. Libby knew at the time of Ms. Wilson's undercover status or that her identity was classified. Disclosing a covert agent's identity can be a crime, but only if the person who discloses it knows the agent's undercover status.
It would not be illegal for either Mr. Cheney or Mr. Libby, both of whom are presumably cleared to know the government's deepest secrets, to discuss a C.I.A. officer or her link to a critic of the administration. But any effort by Mr. Libby to steer investigators away from his conversation with Mr. Cheney could be considered by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special counsel in the case, to be an illegal effort to impede the inquiry."
-- New York Times, today, now.
Wow. What incendiary stuff. But they have to keep that ball rolling, eh, these journalists?
This is as wonderful as the Iraqi Constitution's passage's coverage. "constitution passes by 79% SUNNIS UNHAPPY; COULD'VE VOTED IT DOWN BY A TWO-THIRDS REJECTION IN 3 PROVINCES; ONLY 5% SHY OF THAT NUMBER."
Honestly. You're all a bunch of pathetic morons. May you get a nasty, nasty head cold.
Galloway can be charged with conspiracy, money-laundering, and perjury according to the evidence gathered.
Galloway conspired to conceal the role of Zureikat in funding his campaign, including not registering with the British government that Zureikat had donated to his campaign.
The money-laundering charge is pretty obvious, so is the perjury.
Perjury charges are only relevant if they are material to an investigation. In this case, Galloway's numerous lies and false statements qualify, since he was covering up for Zureikat and himself by doing so.
Read a succinct and detailed overview of the evidence against Galloway here.
Dan,
Please don't believe the New York Times, we actually call it New Pravda, and it is quite often full of sh#t.
Actually Cheney and Scooter learned the NOC agent's name from David Wurmser but as you wisely point out, that was no crime since they all had security clearances, although one could question whether they actually had a need to know, but oh, never mind. The crime actually occurred when they leaked this name to six members of the Korporate MSM, you know, the Kool Kids Klub of whore journalists all falling over themselves to spout the Administration line. That my friend, is a crime, it's actually worse than a crime, it is treason. People get shot for treason, or at least they used to. Lying about committing treason in front of a Federal Grand Jury is also a crime. Or at least it use to be until just this last week when Republican political hacks filled the Korporate MSM whore talk shows with their wise words of how these actually weren’t crimes at all. So which is it, is perjury a crime or not?
That's just it: this is a record of what people said. What actually happened, off the record and in reality, is that this woman's name was well-known. Period. All this other stuff is bullsh0t. Perjury is also a very specific and difficult-to-demonstrate crime liberally construed to the benefit of the accused.
Basta. Go, ye - there is plenty of delicious porno to help you harmlessly resolve all that free time.
Marcus Aurelius,
There is actually an extradition treaty so strong that it has aroused resentment in certain quarters in the UK.
See
But it may be that politics, rather than law is going to play a big role.
PeterUK may have a point from a British point of view. From an American domestic political perspective, things get more complicated.
1) Galloway is Northern Irish, not Scottish, although he was formerly MP from a largely Muslim community in Glasgow.
2) Yes, the US and UK have extradition agreements.
3) Galloway is not likely to be extradited due to the nature of the crime.
4) Nevertheless, Galloway came and voluntarily testified on American soil before Congress and apparently perjured himself, which Levin and Coleman very carefully elicited from him.
5) If he steps on American soil, he can be arrested, without any recourse from his own Government.
6) I don't believe he is covered by any diplomatic immunity, because his initial testimnony was given freely and uncoerced.
7) As Peter UK states, there would inevitably be supporters who would be, ahem, rankled at Galloway's arrest, shouting some lame idiocy about persecution...whatever. That does not mean that there would not be an upside. In fact, due to Levin's involvement, it could be simply a bipartisan point of American pride that some pissy self-righteous gasbag doesn't get to come over here and thumb his nose at Congress.
Eric
Don't imagine Galloway is likely to face sanctions over this in the UK. Lying to Congress is not a crime over there, nor is there any likelihood that it ever will be.
Galloway represents a type which Americans ought to be able to recognize; he's an urban demagogue whose voters have already figured out that 'he's a rogue but he's our rogue'. This type constantly resurfaces in European politics, from Le Pen on the right to many of the Communists on the left.
The underlying reason is that the established elites in Europe are so entrenched, voters often like to support only someone they feel sure will refuse to 'go along to get along'.
Galloway reminds me of Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Meen and how he underestimated the way the Tom Cruise character was leading him into incriminating himself.
Meme Chose,
The party Galloway represents is an amalgam of Socialist Workers Party and Muslim association of Britain,which has affiliations to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Galloway's constituency of Bethnall Green and Bow is a largely Muslim immigrant area.
Would anyone like to conjecture what will be the outcome of his arrest,trial and imprisonment?
This is what the man wants!
Coleman says the information that substantiates the perjury charge is going to a federal prosecutor, and that Galloway's case may bring additional indictments from the New York court overseeing Oil For Food cases.
Galloway is finished, notwithstanding PeterUK's valid objections concerning a publicity windfall. When the indictments come down, he will have to confront them. If he does, he goes to jail. If he doesn't, it may get bad enough that he is extradited. Even if he is not extradited and remains hiding in Britain, he will be seen as a coward even to his own people and he will be finished.
I think his comments today sealed his fate. He promised a showdown to the world, and we will give him one. George will get to see how gorgeous he looks in orange.
PeterUK, nobody wants to be in prison. It's five years for each charge, and his behavior ensures that we will prosecute "to the fullest extent of the law." He may be in jail quite a while.
Aristides,
I would disagree there are those that would go to prison to make a point,admittedly Galloway doesn't seem like martyr material.
This would be the political trial of the century,there are regimes in the Middle east who can supply plenty of dirt and gold to make sure nobody comes out of it clean.How long do you think the trial could be made to last,given a few activist lawyers and Iranian money?
Imagine the field day the international media could have with this,the friction that could be generated between the UK and the US,the sneers from the EU about dragging a captive behind the American imperial chariot.I said at the time that the Senate should never have given the man a platform,he is a small time demagogue who thrives on publicity,any publicity.
On extradition,the Middle east also has countries where Galloway could find refuge.
Disagree, always, with the idea that it's better not to do anything lest something bad MIGHT happen.
Not upsetting the Middle East applecart is how we got in this situation in the first place.
Prosecute the rogue and let the chips fall where they may.
Undertoad - Hitchens wrote today in Slate about Galloway's perjury. Calling him not only a pimp for fascists it seems, but also one of their regular prostitutes. Hitchens pointed out the evident perjury now spans the Atlantic. Besides the US Senate, Galloway also violated perjury statutes by stating he was not compensated for Oil for Food in court when he sued and won against the Daily Telegraph for defamation. And when he filed false paperwork on his full formal declaration of interests he was involved in as part of being a MP in the House of Commons, as he omitted the shell charity he set up for his oil barrel commissions and that his wife was taking straight cash distributions out of. And by subverting Oil for Food, he violated British law regarding Crown subjects violating treaties and international agreements Britain was party to.
http://politics.slate.msn.com/id/2128742/
MA writes:
Do we have an extradition treaty with the UK? I would be surprised if we don't. If so, then we can request extradition and I have this feeling he could very well be extradited, after all he is an all around thorn in the side of Labour as well as the Tories.
No way will the US resolve a British Commons issue by criminal prosecution. He's the Brit's problem. We will attempt extradition for crimes of violence and drugs and terrorism and theft - but we don't normally bother with people that file false customs reports, lie in US courts, etc. then got back to their native lands.
Nor will Britain much care that he lied to Americans anymore than we care that our diplomats lied under oath to the Turkish Parliament about aid in 1992. Or how we ate up the lies of the neocon's INC men like Chalabi under oath in front of US committes, or want to go after the daughter of the Kuwaiti diplomat - who testified to the Senate with the brilliant lie that Iraqi troops were taking all the incubators out of Kuwait and just dumping the premie babies inside onto hospital floors to die.
But if he is gigged in the UK, the fact that he perjured himself under oath before one of the highest bodies in one of the countries the UK is allied with would not help his prospects of suffering a perjury conviction, a lesser treason count, or be compelled to pay exceptionally high financial damages for winning a lawsuit there by perjuring himself yet again under oath.
Nahncee,
The whole endeavour was inept,the Senate shouldn't have called a nobody like Galloway in the first place.
Whilst everyone is jumping up and down about Gorgeous and his 150 grand,the operators with the billions are laughing themselves sick.
All that has been done is given the anti-war crowd a chance to get a new lease of life.
Meanwhile,back at the real money.....
Marcus Aurelius,
"Bob at the Mindanao blog has been following an interesting story. It has to do with rumors that PGMA has signed off on an agreement with the MILF to give them a chunk of Mindanao to form an independent state. If true this is very bad news, as it would quickly turn into Afghanistan with palm trees and/or possibly degenerate into a civil war in Mindanao."
I have no independent confirmation that this is true. But it wouldn't surprise me if Gloria Macapagal Arroyo had cut a deal like that for political advantage. People whose judgment I trust say that her support is at rock bottom. Whether or not there is a better alternative to Gloria Macapagal Arroyo available she may fall notwithstanding. You will also recall she has been making noises about federalism and raised the specter of secession should she be ousted. And there are rumors she is building a private army to survive in a post-cataclysmic Philippines. So while I don't know anything for a fact there's nothing I'd discount.
The Manila papers say that the US Embassy has been scooping up JI and Abu Sayaf rebels by offering large dollar denominated cash rewards. This suggests to me that the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) is functioning less and less as a disciplined military organization than a confederation of armed factions which can now be hired as bounty hunters.
The US probably has the power to prevent any given faction from seizing power, but no ability to put anyone in particular in place. The place is like a pile of sand. The archipelagic nature of the Philippines gives America certain unique leverage it would not otherwise have in a landbound state. Logistically, the Philippines relies on the eastern Luzon ports of Manila and Batangas; the Visayan port of Cebu and the Mindanao ports of Davao, General Santos and Cagayan de Oro to move the bulk of its goods. Any coup plotters would above all need the ability to shift forces between the islands. Any secessionist force would need to control one or more of these ports to remain viable. If the USN demurred nothing could move. If you look at Bob's site you'll see, sometime back, a picture of one of these Littoral Combat Ships prowling around. Not that it's necessary, but it underscores both the extent and limits of US power in the Philippines. The the US can veto but it cannot nominate.
PeterUK: It seems to me we shouldn't worry about giving Galloway publicity. If anything I'd donate money to him. It may be good for him personally, but it won't be good for the anti-war cause. Screaming long live the Iraqi resistance isn't going to fly, especially in this country. It seems he's the PR equivalent of Zarqawi slaughtering Shi'ites left and right. Perhaps it is more delicate in the UK, but am I wrong?
Cutler,
Jailing Galloway will be seen as anti-muslim,especially in his constituency.We have enough problems in that area already,as you will have noticed.It would have been preferable to have left Georgeous an obscure ex-Labour politician rather than boost him into international spokesman for Islam.
We thought he was just a silly little tit until the Senate promoted him!
PeterUK
I think that NahnCee may be on to something she said earlier about what the ultimate end of this game may be. I have noted your points of how this may be a win-win situation for Galloway, given his constituency. However, what if we can squeeze him somehow, knowing that what we really want out of him is his knowledge of bigger fish to fry. My take on Gorgeous George is that he is a bully and a coward, a combination of personality disorder that is fertile ground for plea-bargaining. He really is a small fish and a small player in this affair, but he may know things that could break open some new and refreshing ground.
I don't mind Galloway and Sheehan leading the anti-war movement. Two more obnoxious people couldn't be found.
Fred,
I reckon With Galloway what you see is what there is,lowly mouthpice for Saddam Hussein and paid accordingly,I doubt if he has any contacts with to big boys because taking into regard his situation,it is amazing he is still alive if he did know any thing.The prime actors were either/ or /and a nation state,a big corporaration or organised crime,nothing else could launder such large amounts of money.
Wretchard,
Thanks for that. Yeah, I have added Bob's Mindanao blog to my list of regular reads (at least vi RSS aggregator) and saw his report of the USN ships in the area. Thanks for mentioning Bob's blog one a week or so ago.
From what I have been reading it seems to buy PGMA very little to sign off a chunk of Mindanao. I don't see it benefitting her if she holds onto power (I think it makes that less likely) and I see no benefit if she is ousted and has to rely on a private army (ahh, yeah perhaps the price was right). One of the things I seem to recall seeing were reports that leaders of Cebu and Mindanao have threatened secession in the event of her ouster and Bob doesn't seem to think (with good reason) that non-MILFs will stand for an independent Moroland.
Anyway, this is kinda disrupting the flow of the discussion at large I brought this all up on the 10/25th at Blogger Beer (http://bloggerbeer.blogspot.com/2005/10/serious-misstep-by-president-gloria.html) and have been commenting on Bob's site.
Anyway magandang gabi! ;-)
PeterUK
Then, let's just let the British Government and law enforcement deal with him and be done with it. I remember thinking last May what a buffoonish thing to bring him over here so that he could blather, bloviate, and utter incendiary drivel in the Well of the Comitia. I remember thinking about our own Senators, "What utter fools these guys are! They should have known this was coming."
What this whole affair has unpleasantly demonstrated to my satisfaction is the utter stupidity and immorality that obtains among the general public in both countries that they just yawn about these things and accord them no consequence in how to understand the entire complicated drama involving the U.N. and E.U. corruption in this scandal.
It is distressing to note that those who are behaving honorably in this Iraq war are being pilloried as the villains ("Bush lied, boys died!")while the true villains are getting off and in some quarters enjoy the adoration of the MSM and their Leftist, university enclaves.
Fred
Agreed,my main fear is that the Galloway affair is that this is the Senates high profile case,make as much noise as possible, case closed.
"We showed the little Brit Gobshite"!
But what about the real operators,the ones who got billions.
The amounts on money involved could not have escaped the notice of governments,which governments.All you have is a small time operator from the fringes gettting a tiny bit of the action.
Galloway ignored the single mindedness of Sen Levin at the hearing, so keen was he on the sound of his own voice.
He still appears to be ignorant of the evidence that must have been in Levin's possession. Galloway is quoted today
"Knowing what we do about what happens to people in American dungeons in Iraq, you don’t have to be a genius to work out why, after May, they would get somebody to say what they want them to say
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,172-1843592,00.html
Levin obviously had Aziz's testimony in May, he didn't go & get it because he had been "humiliated" at the hearing.
The point is,the Telegraph had documents retrieved after the fall of Baghdad implicating Galloway in OFF,the Charities Commission had evidence of irregularities in the Mariam appeal.The Telegraph documents have been authenticated,they were never dusputed in the libel case because they were not admitted as evidence since they were not deemed "relevant" to the case.
All this was in the public domain well before the Senate hearing,a simple phone call would have ascertained this,so what is new?
This is exactly what Hitchens and Galloway were doing in their debate in NYC. Galloway playing to the crowd and Hitchens making a careful logical case to the cameras. Guess who had a bigger audience.
Post a Comment
<< Home