Skip to main content
news

Re: Republicanism still an ...

Russ
Google Google
SubjectRe: Republicanism still an offence in England? (wasRe: Queen mother (of
FromRuss
Date2002-04-14 00:20 (2002-04-14 00:20)
Message-ID<20020413182003.04407.00005426@mb-fi.aol.com>
Client
Newsgroupsalt.fan.tolkien
FollowsConrad Dunkerson
<snip>

Conrad Dunkerson
As for the Washington Post writing 'hundreds' - as they weren't THERE they had only three possible sources; the Red Cross (~3000), Israeli Security (~750), or the survivors (~15,000). That they chose to call it hundreds means either that they prefer the Israeli story or (more likely) they were being unspecific... as 'hundreds' could be said of either 750 or 2750.

Yeah, right.

Or maybe they used the word 'hundreds' because they found the sources for it more credible.

The Palestinians have absolutely ZERO right to be outraged by anything.

You are drifting back into 'we should nuke Mecca' territory.

Not at all and you're snipping my comment out of context. I was specifically replying to your assertion that Palestinian outrage at the election of Sharon was justified. Aside from the undeniable fact that it was Palestinian violence that assured Sharon's election in the first place (and I'm sure you will not deny Arafat et al knew very well their violence would lead to Barak's defeat), they have no right to complain about Sharon as Israeli leader when their leader Arafat is an unrepentant terrorist.

There are plenty of outrageous things going on in the Middle-east. Trying to limit it to just one side is willful blindness.

Simply because you do not like the conclusion of the report does not make it false.

No, the fact that it is clearly false makes it false. Numerous members of the IDF, including Sharon, unquestionably knew that there was a massacre going on and allowed it.

Make up your mind. First you cite the report and now you say its false.

I said that even they had to admit that Sharon was responsible... that isn't exactly an endorsement of the report.

Actually, it was libelous. The jury found it was false and that Time was negligent. What they did not find was they Time acted with actual malice.

In which case... it was not libelous. No malice, no libel. It was a libel suit. The suit failed. Time was found NOT to have committed libel. Sharon got nothing.

I've not made myself clear perhaps because its a point of law. The jury found Time committed libel; however, because Sharon was a 'public figure' he was only entitled to damages if Time acted with 'actual malice'. If Sharon had not been a public figure he would have been entitled to damages.

I should also note that this result is a peculiarity of American libel law when the First Amendment is involved. Time would have had to pay damages under British law.

Even if he HAD gotten something, the suit was over a totally insignificant footnote... not the massacre itself. Sharon did not contest the majority of the article at all, just one note about a purported conversation with the family of the former Lebanese president. That you continue to try to use such a ridiculous thing as a 'vindication' of Sharon is an absurd exercise in revisionist history.

You're interpretation of the suit is absurd. Go read the case. The article discussed the Israeli report which said that Sahron was 'indirectly responsible' because he should have been aware that the Phalangists were going to do what they did. The report specifically found there was no conspiracy and that the Phalangists were the only part directly responsible. Sharon did not contest any of that.

The questionable part of the Time article said basically that there was a secret addendum to the report saying that Sharon *told* the Phalangists to go into the camps and exact revenge for the assasination of their leader. In other words Time's article was saying that the published report was false and that a secret report said Sharon instigated the massacre. *That was the key point*, not a mere footnote as you are passing it off as.

Russ