Thursday, December 2, 2004
...apparently, he did it on principle. Court opinion or not, there is no cleansing this man.
CNN.com - British MP wins Saddam libel case
Judge David Eady told London's High Court Thursday the allegations made against George Galloway by The Daily Telegraph were "seriously defamatory" and awarded the Scottish MP GBP150,000 ($290,000).
The newspaper said the stories published in April 2003 -- one of which called the MP a "traitor" -- were based on documents found in Iraqi government offices after the fall of Saddam.
The Telegraph did not try to prove the claims were true, but denied libel, claiming the articles were responsible journalism and in the public interest.
The UK's Press Association said the 50-year-old MP for Glasgow Kelvin smiled as Mr. Justice Eady, who heard the case without a jury, gave his ruling...
Update: It is less clear, as I read a bit more, that it has been proven that Galloway didn't take the cash - merely that The Telegraph couldn't prove he did - in other words, they couldn't (or didn't try to) prove that the documents were true - and in a country with weaker free-speech laws and broader libel laws...Galloway won the case. It will be interesting to read more on this.
You're right; the trial didn't focus on the truth of the allegations. Doing so would have been one of the newspaper's defense options, under British libel law (which is much more strict on the press than the American equivalent), but the Telegraph opted for a different line of defense. The judge didn't buy it. But this case by itself neither convicts nor exonerates Galloway over the alleged shady dealings with Saddam, dsespite how it is being presented.