They still think they rule the world

[Donal]

No, everyone has their fair share. The US just seems to have a lot more cameras and microphones. I think those are the real source of most political problems.

 

[RandFan]

No, everyone has their fair share. The US just seems to have a lot more cameras and microphones. I think those are the real source of most political problems.

And to be fair we have a lot of weight to throw around. And we are known to be self aggrandizing and exude an air of superiority from time to time but we aren't without our good points either. I tire of those who seek only to make America a punching bag.

 

[Ziggurat]

You really don't appear to get it yet - we don't apologise to Usan governments for anything.

As written, it wasn't actually an apology. Read it carefully: it's a diplomatic way of saying, "tough luck".

We don't want or need Usan approval for anything.

Who is "we"? Not the UK government. They definitely want our approval, just as we want theirs. How much they want it, and what they are willing to do for it, may be a different matter. But countries pretty much always want the approval of their allies to at least some degree. Not wanting approval at all doesn't indicate independence, it indicates stupidity.

The letter from the senator was pointless posturing. Your response is too.

 

[Alareth]

Darn. From the title I thought this thread was going to be about cats.

 

[Whiplash]

EJ is in no way obsessed with America, and there is not a single bit of psychology one can gleam from these kinds of posts. Nope, not at all.

EJ, you sound like kid who just turned 18, and is now telling his parents that he's gonna do whatever he wants, whenever he wants. Fully compensating for years of control.

And no, I'm not suggesting that the relationship beween the US and the UK has been that type of relationship. It hasn't. But in the minds of people like EJ, it has, apparently.

 

[Doubt]

I'm cheered to learn we don't have a monopoly on dim politicians.

We are now working on a plan to export our dim politicians to the UK. Think of it as a payback for sending the puritans over here.

 

[geni]

What makes this very sad is that he sent his letter to Brown.

Since requiring al-Megrahi within a reasonable timeframe would involve the invasion of Libya which would generaly be considered an act of war constitionaly Brown is the correct person to contact (well on paper that would be the queen but the accepted convention is that it should be Brown).

 

[geni]

I think EJ's latest temper tantrum is based on the discovery that the terrorists and their supporters (Libya's Quaddafi, in this case) had once again played the "compassionate" and "humane" folks for fools and got them to release the murderer of hundreds of their own people to a hero's welcome.

Half a hero's welcome. We never did find out why the welcome was shut down so fast.

I am no big fan of Schumer, but him pointing out that (as usual) the "unbiased", why-can't-we-be-friendly-to-murderous-thugs folks were taken for a ride is spot on.

Suckers!

You actualy wanted to see a al-Megrahi retrial? That would have had the potential to be inconvient.

 

[WildCat]

We are now working on a plan to export our dim politicians to the UK. Think of it as a payback for sending the puritans over here.

Be nice, we already sent them Madonna. Isn't that punishment enough?

 

[Donal]

They sent us Idol and Got Talent. They wanted a war, we'll give them a war.

 

[sphenisc]

We are now working on a plan to export our dim politicians to the UK.

Simultaneously raising the average IQ of both nations.

 

[YoPopa]

I think that an apology is the least EJ deserves. We have a man for that.

 

[Rolfe]

Well, I suppose the Labour party would just love to give the SNP some stick about this, but since it was the Labour government in Westminster (which has the relevant jurisdiciton in England) who released Ronnie Biggs on exactly the same terms about a fortnight before Megrahi was released, they can't say a word. Tough. Go smother Ronnie Biggs, or at lease drag him back to jail, then see how it goes.

And you know what? I wish some of the people here who seem so sure Megrahi planted that bomb would come and debate the matter in the CT forum. 'Cos those of us who are debating it may not have much idea, or agree, about who did it, but one thing we don't have any answer to is the proposition that whoever it was, it wasn't him.

Contrary viewpoints, well reasoned with reference to the actual evidence, would be welcomed.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Well?

Anyone think Tony Gauci really did identify Megrahi as the "mystery shopper" to any degree of reliability? Or even that the shopping trip actually happened on 7th December?

Anyone think that Megrahi, acting alone and without an accomplice, managed to get that bomb through security at Luqa airport - without even going airside? And that the bag was somehow rendered invisible so that the well-documented Air Malta baggage reconciliation system, which showed not only absence of evidence of an unaccompanied bag but evidence of absence, somehow didn't register it?

Anybody prepared to argue the notion that the CIA's star witness Majid Giaka was telling something approximating to the truth, even though it was clearly shown that he was making up the entire tale about Megrahi to keep his CIA handlers happy (and secure his cushy witness protection programme and a great deal of money)?

You know, this is a sceptics board. There are several active threads on the Pan Am 103 bombing. Nobody has even tried to defend the proposition that Megrahi did it. So if you want to come along and demand that he be dragged back to die in jail because you think he did, then your presence arguing that point of view would definitely enhance these discussions.

Rolfe.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Nobody has even tried to defend the proposition that Megrahi did it.

Why should anybody here do that? I seem to recall an officer of the court (perhaps a team of such officers) doing just that, successfully. Hence, one scumbag in jail.

Your revisionism remains trite.

DR

 

[dtugg]

Rolfe, I don't really care enough about the subject to look into the evidence in depth. But if he didn't do it, he should have been released on those grounds. If is indeed innocent, it's a failure of the Scottish legal system that he was convicted and that the conviction was never overturned.

That said, it is outrageous to release a person convicted of mass murder and terrorism on "compassionate" grounds, although the Senator in question may have been a little out of line demanding that Meghari be returned to prison. I am glad that my country doesn't think that it is a good idea to be "compassionate" to mass murdering terrorists.

 

[zooterkin]

EJ is in no way obsessed with America, and there is not a single bit of psychology one can gleam from these kinds of posts.

The word you want is "glean".

 

[Rolfe]

Why should anybody here do that? I seem to recall an officer of the court (perhaps a team of such officers) doing just that, successfully. Hence, one scumbag in jail.

Your revisionism remains trite.

DR

You never heard of miscarriages of justice? They don't happen on your planet, maybe?

ETA: Er, MY revisionism? You think this is my idea, as opposed to the enormous numbers of web sites questioning the verdict, and the people who have devoted serious chunks of their lives to trying to find out what really happened?

Report of the official UN observer to the trial
Official UN observer's report on the first appeal
SCCRC press release on the decision to grant the second appeal on the grounds of evidence of a miscarriage of justice

And there's plenty more where that came from. Any assertion that Megrahi was guilty because that kangaroo court said so, is just sticking your head in the sand.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Rolfe, I don't really care enough about the subject to look into the evidence in depth. But if he didn't do it, he should have been released on those grounds. If is indeed innocent, it's a failure of the Scottish legal system that he was convicted and that the conviction was never overturned.

In that case, moderating demands for the guy's head on a platter might be appropriate - I mean, since you don't care about the subject....

You are bang on the nail about the failure of the Scottish legal system. The entire thing stank to high heaven and still stinks to high heaven.

The real scandal surrounding the release is that Megrahi seems to have been pressurised to drop his ongoing appeal in order to be granted compassionate release. This is the appeal that has been dragging on since 2003, with no prospect of being heard during the lifetime of the defendant. Because it seems to suit those in positions of power to fight against orders to release necessary evidence to the last gasp.

It was perfectly clear from the report of the SCCRC giving leave to appeal that the appeal was likely to be successful, as the evidence that a miscarriage of justice had occured was very strong. However, blocking tactics were introduced at every turn. I can just imagine Eilish Angiolini and the rest of the legal and political establishment whooping with glee to discover that Megrahi was terminally ill, and therefore it would be possible to delay the process until after he was dead.

But oops, if a defendant dies with an outstanding appeal, it is open to other interested parties to continue to fight the appeal on their behalf. Relatives of some of those killed on PA103, who don't believe for a second that Megrahi did it, intimated their intention of doing just that. Then, luckily for those who have spent the past six years trying to prevent that appeal coming to court, Megrahi was "persuaded" that his chances of release would be much improved if he withdrew the appeal first.

Nice. How does it feel to be proud of your country's legal system? I wouldn't know.

That said, it is outrageous to release a person convicted of mass murder and terrorism on "compassionate" grounds, although the Senator in question may have been a little out of line demanding that Meghari be returned to prison. I am glad that my country doesn't think that it is a good idea to be "compassionate" to mass murdering terrorists.

Well, sorry, but that's the law in my country, and it's one part of the law that I'm perfectly comfortable with. Even if Megrahi had been guilty, he would have been eligible for compassionate release. I don't set my compassion by the benchmark of "murdering terrorists".

Rolfe.

 

[dtugg]

Well, sorry, but that's the law in my country, and it's one part of the law that I'm perfectly comfortable with. Even if Megrahi had been guilty, he would have been eligible for compassionate release. I don't set my compassion by the benchmark of "murdering terrorists".

Rolfe.

Actually the law is similar in the US, at least at the federal level. From what I understand, any terminally ill prisonor would be eligable. But, that doesn't mean that it will automatically grated, and it isn't in Scottland either (evidenced by the fact that not everybody who applies recieves it). But in the US, they would never let a mass murderer go just because he is dying. And rightly so, I think. Some people deserve no compassion. I think it is perfectly fair to let a mass murderer die in prison.