BTW the second letter seems to match their translation, although I just skimmed it .
In his denial, Gallaway challenged, “Find me the UN cheques with my name on them.” He sounds secure that he did not directly receive any UN checks. However, it may be that Gallaway did receive money, but via some route other than the UN. An audit of Gallaway’s finances would be a more direct way to check the story. Will anyone do so?
jjimm, kabbes, would these allegations amount to a crime under British law? Do you think there will be a formal investigation? Who would do such an investigation? Scotland Yard? A committee of the House of Commons?
Also, if Gallaway follows through on his threat to sue the* Telegraph*, would the defendant then have the right to audit Gallaway’s finances in an effort to validate the story? I’m fairly sure they would have that right under US law.
I’d first like to see a fascimile of the letters that prove the case.
This BBC article from March of last year provides some interesting background on another Gallaway case.
That last sentence leads back to the “tip of the iceberg” question. Which academics received Al-Fagih money? Did any of them later receive Saddam Hussein money? Inquiring minds want to know.
Perhaps, but that’s not what the Telegraph article in your OP says.
I suspect it would be illegal if it contravenes the UN sanctions (UK dopers - remember Mark Thomas sending teddybears to Iraqi children a couple of years ago in direct contradiction of sanctions?). Though since the allegations concern UN oil-for-food, if true, then it might be legal - it’s not clear exactly how he is meant to be profiting from this. Even if not illegal, if proven, then Galloway would almost certainly resign, and his career and name would be ruined.
I am not a lawyer, but if not the defendant, then I suspect the courts would be able to do this, and they’re pretty stringent. (Not strictly related, but Lord Jeffrey Archer’s currently in jail for committing perjury in a libel case that he himself launched).
I shall be keeping a close eye on this. Something smells fishy…
During the discovery process the plaintiff must reveal a great deal that is ordinarily private. Things which are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence being discoverable is one rule of thumb. That’s pretty broad.
I’m not surprised Gallaway is suing for defamation. Given the nature of the charges, he must act innocent (however you do that, BTW). An innocent man would sue, presumably. Who cares about paying the legal fees when you face total disgrace and potentially criminal charges?
Personally, I hope these accusations are true. He’s an objectionable worm, and one of the smarmiest people I’ve ever met.
As regards the OP, it really is unlikely that any other MP’s could be in a similar position. Galloway has long been an outspoken defender of Iraq, and certainly their most ardent supporter in British politics.
Everyone wants Galloway’s bollocks, from his own political party to the security services. Have done for years.
Personally, I’d give it at least a few days and see what else emerges. IMHO, his best hope at the moment would seem to be someone like the Guardian being sent counter information from inside – so many people want Galloway, I suspect I’d only be happy if the money trail is proven to lead directly to him (making withdrawals).
Fwiw, I think it’s possible he received money but isn’t that like everyone else including the UK doing business with the regime up until last year – dammit, the French and Germans (as well as the UK) thought that policy the best way to bring Iraq into the ‘world community’ … am I suffering from a ‘1984’ reality slip again ?
Just wait until the Saudi Arabian allegations emerge. When/if they find the audiotapes.
Sorry, could you elaborate istara?
I always found it strange how a backbench MP from a working-class constituency in Glasgow had such incredible access to the inner workings of any foreign government, Iraqi or other. Knowing the workings of the Labour party in Glasgow (see: the Mohammed Sarwar bribery case) I wouldn’t be surprised if these allegations are found to be true.
jjimm, Galloway has been accused of treason or something very close. He has to sue for libel. He doesn’t really have much of an alternative.
kabbes, there is nothing “fairly obscure” about Galloway.
For technicality sake I would like to point out that bribes are the exchange of monies, services or items for the performance of an illegal act by an official (or govt).
What the US did to form the coalition of the willing is the exchange or promise to exchange for monies, goods and services for the unscrupulous use of one’s position by an official (or govt) in favor of the US. Thats called graft not bribery. 
Oddly it does not surprise me to find that the “Telegraph” dislikes George Galloway.
Incidentally, Glasgow Kelvin is more of a student/academic constituency than the classic meaning of “working class.”
Beat your wife much?
In other words, without basis.
Ah. Are they as accurate as those CIA reports on Iraqi NBC weapons?
I don’t know how you can possibly equate “unproven” with “without basis”. It has not been proven that OJ Simpson murdered his ex-wife, but that does not mean there is no basis to think he did. It is not proven that there is life on other planets, but that does not mean there is no basis to think there is (in the first case the basis would be inductive, in the second deductive, and in the present case once again inductive, but I think the point is clear).
I should point out that this investigation is into another allegation: that he used charity money from a fund he’d helped set up for Iraqi children as his travelling expenses.
Sorry, shoulda read the cite better. There’s an internal Labour investigation, not a criminal one, on the Galloway/Saddam kickback allegations. The investigation into Galloway’s alleged misuse of charity funds is by “officials”, whatever that means.
The backlash has started.
There have been murmurings in the media that this whiffs of the Scargill smear where he was claimed to be in the pay of Lybia in the 1980s - a smear which seriously damaged him but was subsequently shown to be complete fabrication. Some are suggesting that the intelligence service, who have good reason to dislike Galloway, may have planted that document. After all it is pretty bloody convenient that in an otherwised burned down building with virtually every other folder being no more than white ash, this one was there unharmed at the top of the pile ready to be discovered.
pan