For some reason this didn't come out properly. I tried re-posting but not sure if it worked. Just in case it didn't work here it is again.

On Thursday 23rd October George Galloway was expelled from the Neo Labor Party. The Party had made five allegations against Galloway. They were:

1. He was accused of inciting Arab armies to fight British Service men and women whilst they were engaged in conflict.
2. He was accused of inciting British Service men and women to disobey orders whilst they were engaged in conflict.
3. He was accused of threatening to stand as an independent candidate against the Labour Party.
4. He was accused of supporting a councillor from another party in Preston.
5. He was accused of inciting voters in Plymouth to vote against their MPs.

During a 'tribunal' the party found Galloway guilty on four out of the five allegations (1-4 above).

Galloway has denied that he had invited the armies of Arabic nations to attack British troops. The Stop the War Coalition has posted the papers Galloway used in defence at the 'tribunal'.

The allegations which originated in articles written in the Sun 'newspaper' came from a transcript of the interview he did on Abu Dhabi TV. Galloway claims that the transcript came from a translation from English into Arabic and then back into English and states that this cannot be an accurate way to determine whether he is guilty.

He further claims that based on his own version of the transcipt, that changes had been made in the version of his words printed in the Sun and in the Neo Labor Party allegations relative to the original version. He is saying that the paraphrase of his comments changes completely the meaning of what he has said. If he is correct and not lying then it would be clear that he was actually calling more for an embargo on Arabic states selling oil to the United States.

Here is what he is claimed to have said by the allegations:-
"Well let me say first of all that Iraq is fighting to all the Arabs. Why don't the Arabs do something for the Iraqis. Where are the Arab armies? We wonder when the Arab leaders wake up? When are the going to stand by the Iraqi people?"

And here is what Galloway is claiming to have said:-
"Well let me say first of all that Iraq is fighting to all the Arabs. Why don't the Arabs do something for the Iraqis. You speak about the dignity of the Iraqi people and their support. Where are the Arab armies? Even if it is not realistic to ask a non-Iraqi army to come to defend Iraq, we see Arab regimes pumping oil for the countries [WORDS INDISTINCT]. Today 51 Iraqi civilians were killed in Baghdad by a missile fired from an Arab country [WORDS INDISTINCT]. We wonder when the Arab leaders wake up? When are the going to stand by the Iraqi people?"

As can be seen, the meaning of the what Galloway said is completely changed by the omission of words from the paraphrase version used in the allegations.

On the other hand it is well known that George Bush has deliberately invited Iraqi troops to attack British (and U.S.) troops by saying 'bring 'em on'. The treatment of Bush is rather different to the treatment of Galloway when Tony Blair has even invited him to visit the Queen on an official state visit.

If what Galloway is saying is true then why has he been found guilty on this charge? And how can the Neo Labor Party defend a position of using the questionable evidence of the transcript which is contradicted in two differing versions? Did the Party actually consider Galloway's own version of the transcript or had the decision already been made to find him guilty?



Sources:
Witness Statement/NCC Disciplinary Hearing
 http://www.stopwar.org.uk/article.asp?id=231003a

The five allegations from "Labour attempt to defend expulsion of Galloway"
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/10/279696.html

GEORGE Galloway is to set up an anti-war party to challenge Labour in every English and Welsh seat at the European Parliament elections next year.
The expelled Labour MP also confirmed last night that he will not be resigning his own seat in Glasgow Kelvin to create an early by-election. He denied he was running scared from his own voters by not forcing a by-election, and insisted that his career in politics was far from finished. He also told BBC Scotland that he plans to fight his expulsion from the Labour party in the courts. Mr Galloway, who intends to build a new political movement based on the anti-war coalition, will announce his intentions at an anti-war rally in London. The rebel MP said he would not stand on the same ticket in Scotland but instead support Scottish Socialist party candidates. Last week, Mr Galloway said he would stand against Labour as an independent after being thrown out of the party for his outspoken opposition to the war in Iraq. Labour's national constitutional committee found him guilty of four out of five charges brought against him by the party's leadership. He denounced the two-day hearing as a political show trial" which had been rigged in advance by Tony Blair. Mr Galloway gave warning at the time that he was considering quitting his seat to force a by-election in which he would challenge Labour as an independent. The MP's Labour membership was suspended after 36 years in May after an interview on Abu Dhabi TV in which he accused Mr Blair and George Bush, the US president, of invading Iraq "like wolves".
Labour's ruling national executive committee insisted he was being called to account, not for his anti-war views, but for conduct likely to bring the party into disrepute.
He was charged with urging British troops to defy orders, calling on Arabs to attack British troops, telling voters in Plymouth not to support Labour candidates who backed the war, congratulating an anti-war candidate who defeated Labour in Preston, and threatening to stand against Labour himself. He was acquitted of the Plymouth charge.
The latest round in his battle with Labour includes taking legal action on the basis that the party allegedly broke its own rules when he was expelled last week.

 http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/3593.html

you are making the mistake of applying rational habaeus corpus arguments to what is in fact an irrational political trial. there is no more ''logic'' to the persecution of galloway than there was to senator macarthys onslaught against communists (real or imagined) in the 1950s.
since the mid-1990s, a few people noted that the proposed policy of the labour party would result in a quasi-totalitarian regime if put into effect. You only need to look at the hideous archgitechture, the grotesque pageantry, the enforced liqudation of all independent tendencies in society, and of course, endless warfare. sum it up as
WE'RE ALL IN PARTNERSHIP TOGETHER;
WORK FOR FREEDOM, WAR FOR EVER.

Not sure what you mean by saying that I am "making the mistake of applying rational habaeus corpus arguments to what is in fact an irrational political trial".

However I can explain that the reason that I posted the information is that as far as I know none of the mainstream news sources (as far as I know) have published the counter claims of Galloway over what he actually said and meant. I searched the Guardian website and have been reading some but not all copies of The Independent. They and others repeat the views of the Sun and the Neo Labor Party. They appear to be following the party line and going with the establishment point of view of what has been said and meant by Galloway on Abu Dhabi TV. I thought it was important to point this out. Some people are still saying that Galloway is a traitor because of inciting foreign armies to attack our troops.

to clarify, i wasnt trying to be nasty. all i meant was that when overt political motives are the major factor, any concepts such as due legal process (etc) become largely irrelevant. of course, its important to mount a defence and take legal advice, but politics is notroius for abandoning legality when it becomes an obstacle to the desired goal. as such, what galloway is purported to have said is not the main matter; the labour party would have found a way to have 'got' him regardless, so any loose words simply made it easier.