Rolfe
Adult human female
Merged Lockerbie bomber alive after 9 months
- Thread starter Caustic Logic
- Start date
Rolfe
Adult human female
No, the real blame lies with the politician who twisted the prisoner's arm so that he believed he had to drop his appeal in order to get the compassionate release. See here. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/925/0085963.pdf Talk about mushroom-farming? If anyone was being kept in the dark and fed manure, it was Megrahi. And I say that as a long-time member of the same political party as that politician.
I found Megrahi's hand-written letter quite upsetting, realising that the evidence shows he didn't do it. Sometimes it gets forgotten that there's a real person caught up in this, one who has aggressive prostate cancer at the age of 58, and has been locked up in jail for 9 years, a couple of thousand miles from home, for a crime he didn't commit. And who was forced to withdraw the appeal that would have cleared his name in order to spend his last weeks with his family. Whatever he was or wasn't before 1988, he didn't bomb that plane, so being turned into an international hate figure while terminally ill can't be too pleasant.
The SCCRC agreed the case was possibly/probably a miscarriage of justice, and agreed six grounds of appeal, all the ones we know about relating to the identification of Megrahi as the purchaser of the clothes in the bomb bag. Of course he didn't buy the clothes, all you have to do is read the evidence.
This bit is reasonably non-embarrassing. Oh dear, everyone interpreted the shopkeeper's evidence a bit too enthusiastically. So the case falls, off you go Mr. al-Megrahi. Nothing too radical has been revealed.
However, Megrahi's solicitors were intent on pressing other matters, matters the SCCRC seemed possibly to have dismissed on political grounds. They were entitled to do that - once leave to appeal was granted, they didn't have to limit themselves to the SCCRC's agreed grounds. They were lining up evidence to show that the investigating authorities had planted fabricated evidence. That could have got quite unpleasant.
It's speculation, but it's one possible reason why everybody concerned seemed to be moving heaven and earth to delay the appeal, and why Megrahi was apparently pressurised to withdraw it as a quid pro quo of the compassionate release, even though that wasn't a necessary condition.
Rolfe.
I found Megrahi's hand-written letter quite upsetting, realising that the evidence shows he didn't do it. Sometimes it gets forgotten that there's a real person caught up in this, one who has aggressive prostate cancer at the age of 58, and has been locked up in jail for 9 years, a couple of thousand miles from home, for a crime he didn't commit. And who was forced to withdraw the appeal that would have cleared his name in order to spend his last weeks with his family. Whatever he was or wasn't before 1988, he didn't bomb that plane, so being turned into an international hate figure while terminally ill can't be too pleasant.
The SCCRC agreed the case was possibly/probably a miscarriage of justice, and agreed six grounds of appeal, all the ones we know about relating to the identification of Megrahi as the purchaser of the clothes in the bomb bag. Of course he didn't buy the clothes, all you have to do is read the evidence.
This bit is reasonably non-embarrassing. Oh dear, everyone interpreted the shopkeeper's evidence a bit too enthusiastically. So the case falls, off you go Mr. al-Megrahi. Nothing too radical has been revealed.
However, Megrahi's solicitors were intent on pressing other matters, matters the SCCRC seemed possibly to have dismissed on political grounds. They were entitled to do that - once leave to appeal was granted, they didn't have to limit themselves to the SCCRC's agreed grounds. They were lining up evidence to show that the investigating authorities had planted fabricated evidence. That could have got quite unpleasant.
It's speculation, but it's one possible reason why everybody concerned seemed to be moving heaven and earth to delay the appeal, and why Megrahi was apparently pressurised to withdraw it as a quid pro quo of the compassionate release, even though that wasn't a necessary condition.
Rolfe.
Last edited:
Rolfe
Adult human female
For a wider perspective, Robert Black has blogged that article today.
http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2010/08/cardinal-in-attack-on-us-vengeance.html
Rolfe.
http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2010/08/cardinal-in-attack-on-us-vengeance.html
Rolfe.
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
I am not convinced that they missed, ignored or failed to understand anything. What do you think they did wrong?
I don't know what logical fallacies might be buried in your remark, but they're monsters.
Whatever E.J.Armstrong's track record might be (I have no idea, personally), his o/p deserves to be looked at on its content. Critical thinking, and all that, eh?
My guess is that the question "Should the USA be told to get stuffed as a response to its requests for UK politicians to explain the Megrahi release and/or possible BP influence in the release?" would be answered with a resounding YES across the entire UK.
But that's just my guess and it's probably coloured by my interest in the Megrahi case.
The OP is about the opinions of a cleric, as is made clear. Give me one good reason why this man's opinion is of any interest or importance? The OP is a very large, and misplaced on this forum, appeal to authority.
And? He's a religious leader, not an intelligent functioning human being. Stuff him like a haggis and broil him up for dinner for Sawney Beane.
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2004
- Messages
- 34,367
...and anyone who follows The Bible.
Donal
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2006
- Messages
- 8,916
Stanford
Just out of curiosity, does EJ believe Scotland is run by the clergy? Why else would he defer to a cardinal's opinion as if he spoke for the whole country?
The Cardinal is entitled to his opinion, like anyone else. There is also a common sense in the UK that while Britain and America are natural allies, our politicians sometimes appear rather too craven in following American wishes. The fact that George Galloway's visit to Washington was viewed with such amusement and even perverse pride in Scotland reflects this. (Galloway may be a chancer, but he's our chancer and he didn't disgrace us).
There seemed to be more than a hint of a suggestion that it was now seen as the norm in Washington for foreign politicians to be expected to come at the call of US Senators, like schoolboys answering the dread summons to the headmaster's study. This was not well received. When Mcaskill et all responded with a polite, but firm, "naw" , there was a feeling of a correct decision, well made, in Scotland. Some would disagree.
The Cardinal, coming in after the fact, seemed to say much what many people felt, but he said it with no authority beyond his personal conviction.
It has been over-reported, giving him more apparent power than he has.
At least 50% of Scotland would swear black was white because an RC Cardinal said it wisnae. We can be a bit thrawn.
We still like you, America, just don't pluck thistles without gloves.
There seemed to be more than a hint of a suggestion that it was now seen as the norm in Washington for foreign politicians to be expected to come at the call of US Senators, like schoolboys answering the dread summons to the headmaster's study. This was not well received. When Mcaskill et all responded with a polite, but firm, "naw" , there was a feeling of a correct decision, well made, in Scotland. Some would disagree.
The Cardinal, coming in after the fact, seemed to say much what many people felt, but he said it with no authority beyond his personal conviction.
It has been over-reported, giving him more apparent power than he has.
At least 50% of Scotland would swear black was white because an RC Cardinal said it wisnae. We can be a bit thrawn.
We still like you, America, just don't pluck thistles without gloves.
Kopji
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2003
- Messages
- 8,004
Humm. I don't really get that from this end. If anything, support of British and European allies is often seen as a measure of 'reasonableness'. A big difference between Americans and Europeans (dangerously generalizing here) is that we don't sit around in pubs and talk politics. We are much into outward appearance over the substance of something. An idea might be an epic fail, but we'd give points to failing with style.
Support of UK politicians would be a kind of shortcut to credibility.
Support of UK politicians would be a kind of shortcut to credibility.
Last edited:
Kopji
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2003
- Messages
- 8,004
I do think though, that the good cardinal has misjudged his words in comparing the US to Saudi Arabia or Iran. We are not chopping off heads, hands, ears, noses, or sentencing adulteresses to stoning. More than a few Americans were killed in the bombing and comparing us to their killers is not going to be understood with all the subtle ecclesiastical humor and nuance that it was surely intended.
Quite a few people find the death sentence abhorrent, regardless of how it is actually implemented. If you don't want to be judged by the company you keep, then perhaps you should keep different company.
My reading of EJ's post is that he finds it hugely amusing that even a cleric can be driven to speak out so frankly, not that a cleric has any special authority.
Kopji
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2003
- Messages
- 8,004
Apparently keeping company with Scotland is not enough to count us as civilized. I am not altogether clear why sharing a few negative traits with a country is 'keeping company', while sharing many more positive traits with another is not. It is as if people select only facts that support their view, and then ignore the rest.
The complaint by the US btw, is not that Scotland failed to kill someone we thought was guilty. The complaint is that under pressure from a major oil company, Scotland set a criminal free in order to get a better oil contract with Libya. The rest is a fine and elegantly worded distraction, but still, a distraction.
But that comment shows how ignorant the USA senators are about the governance of the UK.
Rolfe
Adult human female
I think it's unreasonable to expect people who find the death penalty abhorrent to ignore this just because Americans are splendid chaps in quite a lot of ways otherwise.
Now that this thread has been merged, could I suggest you have a look over what has already been written about this? Your statement is complete nonsense, has been shown to be nonsense every which way to Tuesday, and the constant repetition of an accusation that has been firmly refuted, by people who seem perversely determined not to learn any better, is beginning to get irritating.
Rolfe.
Kopji
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2003
- Messages
- 8,004
Well nothing to argue with there, I'll move on. Even if it were true, about the only argument I would probably make is that we have some experience in this kind of thing (government corruption).
Ack. I hate homework but I'll do it for you. (So far (pg 1) this thread is mostly nonsense, but I'll slog on).
I'm not really sure what you are calling nonsense though, I'm merely restating a fact of what US Senators would like to investigate. The accusation may or may not be nonsense, but I don't see the relationship with capital punishment.
Last edited: