George Galloway wins libel case against Telegraph over Saddam claims

[nicky g]

Galloway wins

This will be of only passing interest to American readers. But it reminds me of a question I'd forgotten about - the authenticity of the documents the Telegraph found in an Iraqi ministry is still disputed, but the Christian Science Monitor admits the documents it found are almost certainly forgeries. The question is, who forged them? These were found very early on in the war in an Iraqi ministry - who put them there? UK/US intelligence? Chalabi's lot? Somone was obviously playing pretty dirty tricks in an attempt to discredit prominent anti-war figures. It's also interesting that there has ever been a concerted investigation into who forged the Niger uranium documents; you would think it would be of some import, given the prominence they came to.

[nicky g]

Could it have been the Rockingham group within British intelligence? I'd not heard of them until today; Juan Cole's blog refers to them (thanks to ACPlayer for pointing me towards the blog, which is very good on what goes unreported in the Western press). Some articles from last year on the group for those that are interested:
Michael Meacher/Guardian
Sunday Herald

Obviously shadowy groups with sexy names operating within intelligence sounds like conspiracy theory at its best. On the other hand there is no doubt the group existed - just what it's purpose was (the official line, given in teh Butler report, was that it existed simply to pass intelligence on to UN weapons inspectors; given that we know there were spies in the inspector teams and this was the main British intelligence conduit to them, I don't think its innocence holds up) - and someone forged those Galloway documents, so at some level there is a conspiracy. Meacher's point that Ritter's credibility should have shot through the roof after the ISG came to the conclusion he had pushed all along - that Saddam's WMD capability was largely destroyed in 1991, with the weapons inspectors getting rid of the rest - is a good one.

[Fluffington]

Andrew Sullivan's take on this:

GALLOWAY: Some things are worth reiterating. The libel verdict won by Saddam-supporter George Galloway does not depend on the notion that Galloway's ties to Saddam were disproven. They haven't been. Nor was this case decided by a jury. The case was won because, in the judge's view, the Telegraph had not given Galloway sufficient time or space to respond to the charges:
Mr Justice Eady said Mr Galloway was not given sufficient opportunity to refute the claims in the Telegraph that he had received up to £375,000 a year from Saddam.
The judge noted that Mr Galloway had a 35-minute conversation with Andrew Sparrow, the paper's Westminster correspondent, but was not sent the documents or told that the Telegraph was intending to publish a story. "Although Mr Galloway was interviewed by telephone on the afternoon of April 21, he was not given the opportunity of reading the Iraqi documents beforehand; nor were they read to him," said the judge. "He did not, therefore, have a fair or reasonable opportunity to make inquiries or meaningful comment upon them before they were published."
Such a judgment wouldn't stand a chance in an American court - but then Britain's libel laws are far tougher than America's; and there's far less freedom of speech in the UK than in the U.S. Here's the Telegraph's official response. It's deeply depressing. The verdict stands regardless of whether the story is proven true or not.

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/

[nicky g]

Yah I realise this. My main interest is in who forged the documents that the CSM admitted were forgeries. I agree UK libel laws place far too much burden on the defendant. Sullivan's accouting of the converstation is a little unfair though; my understanding is that Galloway wasn't told of most of the accusations against him. The reporter only mentioned allegations he'd misspent money donated to the Mariam Appeal foundation which he founded (allegations he was subsequently cleared of) and didn't mention the Iraqi documents or oil for food charges at all.