Did Galloway sit before the committee so he had a forum to air his grievances, or did he have some other obligation to testify?
The above is from George Galloway vs. the US Senate No one responded. Either I am on everyone’s ignore list, or it is the closest to a correct answer anyone has, and no one disagrees. I prefer to think the latter. 
You know, now that I think about it, on the same thread, the first post linked to the following story: BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Galloway takes on US oil accusers, from which I have the following:
that, combined by the fact that in England, the libel laws are quite different from here, makes me believe he came to America to defend himself.
The former. He has no legal obligation to testify before the Senate, he just wanted to face the accusers in person. I find it refreshing.
When they published their report last week, one of Galloway’s main criticisms was that the committee had not contacted him at any point so that he could give his point of view or make a case for himself. He also stated that he had tried to contact them, but without reply. The ‘invitation’ to appear came later that same day, seemingly because it was becoming an embarrasing situation to have criticised somebody so severely without letting them defend themselves. He certainly wasn’t obliged to appear.
He’s now been warned that there may be “consequences” if he’s found to have lied under oath… any idea what power the Committee might be able to bring to bear on Galloway?
Nothing.
He’s under UK Diplomatic passport, & nobody would waive that for an MP, it’d bring Blair down in a ball of fire.
BTW—guilty or inocent, I like this guy! 
I suppose you might be correct, but Blair and Galloway aren’t the best of friends. Galloway has already been expelled from the Labour party and taken one of its parliament seats.
However as the leader of the country Blair would have to act in the best interests of one of his citizens.
Probably.
Let me just think about it a bit more.
Are British MP’s on private visits abroad actually travelling under diplomatic immunity?
In any case, there were British citizens in Guantanamo Bay,: held without charge, access to legal advice or family. And it took years to release them.
Its hard to see what charges the Senate could bring against Galloway, since they didn’t actually present and evidence actually worth the name.
All we have are untested and therefore uncorroborated sources by various individuals and agencies.
Making such serious accustaions such as massive corruption, bordering almost on traitorism on such ‘evidence’ is idiotic, the accused can make statements of almost any kind, and since there is nothing to evaluate the truth of either side, the accused can only be not guilty, and the accuser just looks very bad.
The Senate committee has clearly not done all that much critical thinking, or they would have reviewed the allegations and libel case which Galloway brought against UK newspapers and he won.
That alone should have sounded a note of caution, it should have made them think about how they checked and backed up their facts.
Its just made US investigators look rather stupid, ignorant, lazy, without any sense of natural justice.
I doubt that the Senate committee are anything but learned intelligent people, but you wouldn’t know it from their McArtheyist behaviour.
he won’t have diplomatic immunity; that’s for diplomats.
I doubt that lying to a Senate Committee is an extraditable offence, and that’s the most they could charge him with.
If he chose never to go to the USA again there’s little they could do about it.
All Elected Officials who travel abroad do so under Diplomatic passports.
All elected officials in the UK? In the USA? Even if they’re elected only to the local municipal council? I know several members of parliament in Australia and they certainly don’t travel abroad on diplomatic passports.
Cite, Bosda? It’s not that I don’t belive you – I think you’re probably right, but that’s a WAG on my part.
Anyway, absent considerations of diplomatic immunity, if Galloway had lied under oath, he could be prosecuted for perjury same as if he had done so in court. I’m not up on the federal perjury standard, but presumably that requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged perjurer made a knowing misstatement of material fact while under oath. Not sure in this circus what might count as “material.”
Perjury is very, very rarely prosecuted when the lie was made by someone proclaiming his innocence – it’s overwhelming prosecuted (when at all, which ain’t much) when the perjurer is using his lies as a sword to injure someone else. Here, any lie that Galloway may have told appears, given my brief perusal of the facts, to have been more likely as a shield, i.e., the perjurer is lying to protect himself. (Of course, if I might be forgiven a brief editorial comment, the Congressional Republicans showed a willingness to ignore the sword/shield distinction in a rather high-profile case of alleged lying in the not-too-distant past.)
–Cliffy
I’d also be interested if that’s true, as my father is on the local school board where he lives and it’d be cool to get him a diplomatic passport. Somehow, though, I doubt that it is true.
I’m guessing bosda meant specifically those elected to a national position.