From: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Kahan Commission
Date: 18 Nov 1992 04:33:33 GMT
Organization: Australian National University
Distribution: world
Reply-To: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au
NNTP-Posting-Host: 150.203.23.70

In article 23450@ennews.eas.asu.edu, makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:
>In article <1eaapkINN21e@manuel.anu.edu.au> bdm@cs.anu.edu.au writes:

># In article <1992Nov16.141252.16632@ennews.eas.asu.edu> David Makowsky writes:
># >In article <1e74s0INNhdn@manuel.anu.edu.au> bdm@cs.anu.edu.au writes:

># ># Sharon only had to establish that Time could not prove what they 
># ># claimed about him.  As to what was actually proven in court, the 
># ># important evidence was heard in secret so how do you know what it was?

># >        It seems Brendan knows as little about the American legal system
># >as he does about the Middle East.  If evidence in a civil case like
># >this (in front of a jury) needed to be kept secret in would not have
># >been heard at all.  And if Time actually needed the evidence, the
># >judge would have directed a verdict in favor of Time.

># I looked up the details.  The case hinged on something that Time claimed
># was in the secret Appendix B of the Kahan report.  Israel refused to 
># provide the Appendix [reasonable] whereas Time said it was essential to 
># it's case [true].  A compromise was reached where Sharon's and Time's 
># Israeli lawyers could read the Appendix in the presence of Justice Kahan.  
># However, they were forbidden to disclose the contents to anyone, 
># including their US legal counterparts or the US court.  In addition, 
># three questions were put to Kahan.  Each question had the form "Does 
># the Appendix state that ...?"  Kahan's answers were then conveyed 
># to the court.

>	No evidence was heard in secrect, irrelgardless of what you think.

I just described what happenned; take it or disprove it.

>Time did agree to something, but probably only because they knew what
>the results were going to be.  

Since that part of the proceedings went against Time, they would 
have tried to avoid it if they knew the outcome in advance.

>                               Time could have argued that everything
>be presented and if the judge felt that their defense depended on it
>the judge would have ordered the report be used as evidence (no
>evidence was kept secret because the secret part of the report was not
>evidence).

Of course it was evidence.  If it contained what Time alleged that 
would be strong circumstantial evidence that Time knew what it 
claimed to know.

>  If the secret report would not have been would then not
>have been available for use as evidence (which would make it part of
>the pulic record) the judge would have immediatly stoped the trial and
>ruled in favor of Time without the case even getting to the Jury.

A legal friend is looking up the official trial report.  If it is
significantly different from what I described, I will post on it.

># The result was that the jury found that the Appendix did not contain
># what Time claimed it did.  In reply to Mark's insistence that Time
># KNEW it was lying about the Appendix, it should be noted that the
># jury found that it did not.  However, the jury did accuse Time of
># negligence and carelessness.

>	Actually, Time was found not to have been negligent.  If they were
>found to have been negligent, Sharon would have won since the jury
>found the story to be false.  In an American court, for a public
>figure 

It is not clear that Sharon is a "public figure" in the US.
(I don't know anything about this point.)

>       to win a libel case, not only must the story prove to be false
>but so must either negligence or malice.  A "non public" figure only
>needs to prove the story false.

I said "the jury accused" not "the court ruled".  The judge did not ask
the jury to determine negligence but to determine whether Time acted
with knowledge of the falsity of their story.  The accusation of
negligence was made by the jury in an extra statement they were not
asked for.

>	If anyone does not think Time was simply making up things to go
>after Sharon, irrespective of what the Jury thought, one needs only to
>look at the "apology" Time printed after it was discovered nothing
>damning appeared in the secret appendix.

I did.  Time admitted that the information was not in the secret 
appendix but said that it stood by the information.  I don't see
how that proves any more than stubbornness.

Here's my theory; I have no evidence so don't bother asking for any.  
Time's "highly placed source" told Time's reporter (Halevy) that the 
information was in the secret documents of the Kahan commission.
Halevy just _assumed_ that the secret Appendix was implied.  In fact
there are thousands of pages of testimony and inquiry minutes that
are classified.  Only a tiny fraction of it ever got into the report,
secret Appendix included.  We can't expect to see it for at least 
22 years, and more likely 50 years or never.  Maybe it's there.

>makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu

Brendan.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast