Pete The Elder

There seems to be a very unfortunate blurring to this view on politicians profiting from the "oil-for-food" program. Politicians are all hypocrites. Every one. They are not to be trusted with improving the world, really. But here you have one dubious scottish politician on one side and a government on the other which is, however you might prefer to put it, responsible for over one million civilian deaths over several years. Do we fight crime with crime now?

You say Galloway "committed an act of treason" (is that serious, or is it a humourous reference to Jolly Old England?), and should be "sent to Iraq" as punishment. Except, as you really know, he would probably be welcomed by most. George Bush and his elders, of course, could never set foot on an average Iraqi street, because they would be murdered very quickly indeed. By Iraqis. These Iraqis are the ones who have been "liberated" by said Bush.

Oh, and though I'm not enamoured to George Galloway, the the case against him is purely circumstantial. That's legally speaking. But you'll all understand that, because you believe in justice and the fair trial process. Right?

"Politicians are all hypocrites. Every one." Well so is everyone else who holds any moral values. What is your point with this statement? I will gladly take a hypocrite who does not enrich himself off the blood of the innocent while betraying his country over a hypocrite who does.

"responsible for over one million civilian deaths over several years." What government are you talking about here? I assume the British and that you pulled the million number out of thin air.

""sent to Iraq" as punishment" No I think he should be sent to Iraq for what we call a trial. Its called extradition. FrankJ thinks he should be sent to Iraq for punishment. FrankJ and I are not the same person. Notice I wrote "if he is guilty" and "If these accusations are true". We use trials to determine legal guilt and innocence.

"he would probably be welcomed by most" I am sure most Iraqis will welcome the man who helped to starve their children and keep them enslaved while he enriched himself. Most likely the ones who would welcome him are the deposed Baathist he helped to enrich.

"they would be murdered very quickly indeed. By Iraqis" Some might want to murder him, especially the Baathist tyrants he displaced. But probably not the ones released from Saddam's prisons. Not the ones freed from his rape rooms. Not the ones who saw their children gassed in the streets.

"the case against him is purely circumstantial" As are many, if not most, criminal cases. Circumstantial evidence is entirely admissable in an American court of law and there are many people in prison today based solely on circumstantial evidence.

I am sorry that you do not think treason is serious. I happen to think that treason that takes the form of illegally funnelling money to a genocidal dictator so that he can rebuild his weapons programs and continue to oppress his people is serious enough to warrant death.

I think the million dead refers to those who died as a result of our sanctions, depleted uranium and other consequences of our invasions, and George Galloway consistently opposed both invasions and sanctions, whereas the US and UK imposed them, so I'm thinking the Iraqis might be happier to see George Galloway walking down the street than Bush.
Contrary to Fox News, the Iraqi people are not united in joy and gratitude for their liberators. They've seen the Abu Ghraib photos as well, censorship of their news by the occupiers notwithstanding.

"I will gladly take a hypocrite who does not enrich himself off the blood of the innocent while betraying his country over a hypocrite who does."
That's why I prefer George Galloway over GWB and his lapdog, Tory Blair.

It's not treason - he called upon British troops to disobey illegal orders. That was a rational position when the war he opposed had started. Treason is when you try and overthrow the government or kill the head of state or similar.

Is it true that people can be sent to jail in the US purely on circumstantial evidence? No wonder you have a higher percentage of your population in prison than Stalin's Russia! Must be great to be so free. We're catching up though here in the UK!

I hope you understand I am not attacking any political idealogue at expense of another. For example, when I criticise Republicans do not assume I am doing it in defence of Democrats - let's not forget, Bill Clinton has a pretty appalling record with regards to Iraq, as does Bush snr and jnr, as does Blair, as did John Major, as did they all right back to the early 1920s when Britain lauched its first onslaught against the people of Iraq (when we were the world's dominant colonialist).

Over one million people died of preventable diseases and starvation during the US-UK sanctions imposed upon Iraq following the first invasion in 1991. Around half of these victims were children, mostly under 5 years old. That is a truism, albeit a very unpleasant one. And fear not, when I attack US policy I include the UK all the way, so yes, I am also referring to Britain, and I'm ashamed to be British because of that.

I understand what a trial is, and, like yourself, I believe in the fair trial process. My point was that in your labelling Galloway an "evil" man, you imply he is guilty, although he has yet to be tried. And, I might add, the senate has produced no physical evidence of said "funnelled" money at all, so the case would look less than strong to any lawyer. And yes, Galloway does indeed have considerable support from Iraqis and other muslims, as evident in his recent victory in the elections here, unseating a Labour incumbent and being cheered and held aloft on the streets of Bethnal Green by several thousand muslim immigrants. These pictures were shown on the BBC.

As for those Iraqis released from Saddam's prisons who would cheer the arrival of George Bush, this presumably does not apply to the many thousands kept there and imprisoned since Saddam's fall (all incarcerated with no trial or evidence, and, in most cases, no charges. How is their guilt and innocence to be determined, Pete?)

I think it is a great shame that residents of the US can be imprisoned solely on circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is based on suspicion, heresay and witness testimony or, in Galloway's case, photcopied documents and the confession of a torture victim. To say most "criminal cases are circumstantial" barely merits serious comment. I think you will find that in most murder cases, a body is discovered at some point, as is a weapon, blood, DNA, etc etc. These items are not circumstantial, as, for example, Saddam's mass graves are not.

As for this "treason" charge, you may "happen to think" that this "takes the form of illegally funnelling money to a genocidal dictator", but it doesn't. Treason is defined as the betrayal of one's country, and Saddam was not attacking the UK; our children were not starving from malnutrition. It is the Iraqi children and their parents who were betrayed, by Saddam, by us, by you, and by Galloway should he be found guilty.

The commentators here seem to be ignorant of the basic facts involved in this case and some of the terms they use. First off the sanctions were imposed by the UN Security Council
in resolution 661 on August 6, 1990 after the invasion of Kuwait (note that the above commentators seem to forget that Saddam started this whole thing when he invaded Kuwait). The sanctions were not imposed by the US and the UK. Both of the above commentators seem to not know this and Killjoy does not even know what year the sanctions started. They also seem ignorant of the fact that Saddam could have had the sanctions lifted at any time and avoided both invasions had he simply obeyed the UN security council's orders. All of the deaths of innocent Iraqis from sanctions (and the invasions) fall squarely on the shoulders of Saddam and his supporters. Those of us with respect for international law actually want the UN and its member states to follow through with the resolutions the security council passes. If the member nations do not do this then the UN is no better than the League of Nations.

"Circumstantial evidence is based on suspicion, heresay and witness testimony or, in Galloway's case, photcopied documents and the confession of a torture victim." Unlike what Killjoy suggests, circumstatial evidence is evidence that is not a direct witness to the event, but still allows one to reasonably infer that the event took place. Everthing from fingerprints and DNA evidence to eye witness testimony shortly before or after the event took place can be circumstantial. A confession of a witness to Galloway's actions is likely not circumstantial evidence, but is direct evidence. I have no problem for instance with an accused murderer being convicted if his fingerprints are found on the murder weapon, if he is seen leaving the seen of the crime, if he was known to have threatened th victim in the past, and his DNA was also found on the victim. All of this is circumstantial evidence if no one witnessed the actual murder.

The same commentator also states: "is a weapon, blood, DNA, etc etc. These items are not circumstantial, as, for example, Saddam's mass graves are not." Again he is ignorant about what circumstantial evidence can be. Weapons and DNA evidenence can be circustantial, especially if no witnesses saw the items at the time of the event. If a suspect's blood is found at the scene of the crime that is entirely circumstantial evidence if there is no witness that saw the suspect bleed there or saw the suspect there.

"in your labelling Galloway an "evil" man, you imply he is guilty, although he has yet to be tried" Although I am not sure that he is guilty in this case, I am pretty sure he is evil and as I am not a judge or jury I can say whatever I want to about how I think these things. In America we have something called the first ammendment which garauntees our right to pass whatever moral judgment we want on people and say how evil we think they are without restriction.

He also claims that "Saddam was not attacking the UK". Actually he was. Saddam repeatedly shot at British planes patrolling the no-fly zone.

The only illegal actions involved in the two invasions of Iraq were Saddam's first invasion of Kuwait and his continuous refusal to abide by UN Security Council resolutions.

For both Ted and Killjoy - It wasn't the sanctions that hurt the Iraqi people, it was Saddam. When our forces invaded Iraq, they found warehouses stocked with crumbling humanitarian supplies. Withholding supplies from the citizenry had a triple benefit. 1) Much like dear old Stalin, he could use it as a form of control on the populace, rewarding those he favored and punishing those who earned his ire. 2) Saddam could blame it on the sanctions and get his people to rally around him against America. 3) Saddam could blame it on the sanctions and get the liberal useful idiots of the world to rally around him against America. Oil for food was not only exceptionally corrupt in kicking back money to various parties, but the administration of the aid was a typical UN bureucratic mess in which nobody but perhaps Saddam's cronies knew how much of what was where. Don't blame the West for acts of tyrants and never underestimate the evilness of those tyrants.

Killjoy, I've always found the idea that a private citizen must wait until a trial before declaring someone guilty to be utterly absurd. I am under no compulsion, legal, moral, or otherwise, to withhold my judgment of a person's guilt or innocence until he has stood trial. Nor am I in any way obligated to withhold making value judgments about him. Saddam has not stood in the dock, but I can freely call him an evil son-of-a-bitch who committed genocide. I come to this through my own examination of the facts and I needn't wait for a judge or jury to make their own determination before I espouse it.

As for the circumstantial evidence, most or all criminal cases do use circumstantial evidence even if there is other, direct evidence used. And yes, you can have a case that is based mostly on it, but you must have a preponderance of such evidence. That is, any one piece is circumstantial, but when put together, they collectively point to one individual. We don't have any direct evidence that Timothy McVeigh parked the U-Haul outside the federal building in OK City, for example, but we have circumstantial evidence that he rented the truck used, hated the government, drove to OK City, and had been interested in fertilizer, among other things. Put it all together and we don't need videotape showing him mixing the chemicals or parking the U-Haul outside the federal building. It's foolish to think that merely because evidence is circumstantial that it is invalid or inadmissible.

Also, Ted and Killjoy, your definitions of treason are too narrow. Treason is also aiding the enemies of one's country. This has the unhappy effect of harming one's country. Saddam didn't have to invade Englad for this to be the case. Recall that if nothing else, Saddam continually fired on UK and US warplanes patrolling the no-fly zones (to prevent genocide on the people in those areas). Where do you think he got the money for his SAM batteries that were continually destroyed and replaced?