Merged Lockerbie bomber alive after 9 months

Alt+F4 said:
That's not how it works. You are the one making the claims, it's you that needs to back them up with evidence.
Click to expand...


Claims? Where did I make any claim at all about this?

You're the one who claimed Megrahi was being treated with this drug. I haven't disputed that, but I didn't claim it. You are the one dreaming up some strange conspiracy theory I'm not quite following, which seemed to start with the assertion that the Scottish doctors should have taken into account its availability when considering his prognosis, even though it isn't available on the NHS even yet, and has morphed into some sort of claim that the drug was obtained illegally for Megrahi after he returned to Libya.

I've asked you which laws of which country were broken and by whom, in acquiring this drug. I'm allowing your assertion that the drug was in fact obtained.

So, get to it.

Rolfe.
 
What I want - as do many, many others - is the whole conviction and case to be re-examined. Because, I don't think its an exaggeration to describe Lockerbie and Megrahi's conviction as one of the worst miscarriages of justice ever perpetrated.

The Camp Zeist trial, where a bunch of superannuated Scottish dodderers sat in judgement as western (read: American) prosecutors pulled the wool over their eyes. And there we were, in rural Holland: two defendants, a battery of international journalists, a prosecution that knew what it was after, a bench that was half asleep most of the time and not a shred of serious evidence.

Sorry, I take that back. There was serious evidence that others were involved in carrying out the atrocity, but it was not admitted in court.

What angers me most about this hideous affair is that, at the time of the ridiculous show trial in Holland’s Camp Zeist, it was already clear that there was no evidence available that would, or should've, be allowed to stand up in any normal western court.

It's one of the many things that alienates me from mainstream politics, because you won't hear any major politician sway from the party line about Megrahi, even though his conviction is objectively and rationally utterly unsound. No one will deviate from the lie.

It's a bit like when you're looking at the colour green, and Barack Obama, David Cameron or Alex Salmond, the people who are meant to be in charge, are saying its blue.

You know its green. They know its green. Yet they're saying its blue. Why?

Too much is at stake to say its blue that's why and that's what's wrong with political life - we live in a perpetual stake of unreality were obvious lies are held up as the truth even though everyone involved knows they're lies.

Abdelhaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi, you don’t know me but I want you to know that, although there are those in the United states and United Kingdom who wish you'd rot in jail, recaptured or face summary 'justice' elsewhere, I know you are innocent.

.
 
Rolfe said:
Claims? Where did I make any claim at all about this?
Click to expand...

Claim 1 by you: The drug is properly licensed.

Claim 2 by you: It's ludicious that the manufactuer would refuse to sell it to a Libyan hospital.
 
zooterkin said:
So, are you now admitting you were wrong when you earlier stated that it should have been considered as a treatment option when estimating Megrahi's prognosis? It's still not available on the NHS, so he could not have been given it if he'd remained in prison.
Click to expand...

Try again. I never said he should have been considered as a participatant in the clinical trials.
 
Alt+F4 said:
Claim 1 by you: The drug is properly licensed.

Claim 2 by you: It's ludicious that the manufactuer would refuse to sell it to a Libyan hospital.
Click to expand...


Fail. I was trying to have a rational discussion with you, but no more.

You assert Megrahi has been receiving this drug. For the sake of argument, I will not contest this assertion.

You appear to be asserting that he could not have received it unless someone broke some law somewhere.

I'm asserting nothing. I'm merely comfortable that an innocent man who has had more than his fair share of crap in his life was doing better than anticipated. You're the one who is getting your panties in a knot about it.

So pony up. Which laws of which country have been broken, and by whom?

Rolfe.
 
Alt+F4 said:
Try again. I never said he should have been considered as a participatant in the clinical trials.
Click to expand...


And for another two points, explain how the anticipated availability of a new drug should have been a factor in refusing a prisoner's application for compassionate release, if he would not then have been given access to that drug.

Rolfe.
 
Someone has actually taken the trouble to look up the actual legal situation as regards prisoners granted compassionate release from a life sentence in Scotland.

http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.com/2011/08/send-megrahi-back-to-chokey.html

Actually, for my money, this decade's platinum award for unconscious irony goes to this quote.

Mitt Rumney said:
It is my hope that Libya will now move toward a representative form of government that supports freedom, human rights, and the rule of law. As a first step, I call on this new government to arrest and extradite the mastermind behind the bombing of Pan Am 103, Abdelbaset Mohmed Ali al-Megrahi, so justice can finally be done.
Click to expand...


The source the Peat Worrier gives for that quote is quite a decent article, though.

http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...dition-of-lockerbie-bomber-from-libya/243979/

Max Fisher said:
But the Lockerbie case is more complicated than it might initially appear, and dredging up Megrahi's case at this moment carries some risks.

First, the case itself is not exactly closed. Megrahi's release by the Scottish government was part of a deal for the Libyan man to drop his appeal of the case. Families of some victims have expressed doubt he was really involved, independent media investigations have discovered a number of holes in the case against him, and as the New York Times put it upon his 2009 release, "those doubts existed outside the murky precincts of the Internet where wild conspiracy theories are spun out." [....]

Uncovering the truth of the bombing -- and of Megrahi's case -- would probably not be served by creating a high-profile international fuss for his extradition. If his conviction turns out to be false, as some observers believe, pushing for his extradition could harm the U.S. image in Libya and beyond at a time when American diplomats are struggling to court increasingly activist (and increasingly suspicious) Arab publics.
Click to expand...


Rolfe.
 
Ocelot said:
Does this count
http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm253055.htm

No as the FDA has no authority or jurisdiction in Libya.

Who do they sell it to if not to hospitals? Or why would they treat a Lybian hospital differently?
Click to expand...

It's not about treating Lybia differently. Only two countries have so far allowed the legal sale of Zytiga, they are Canada and the U.S. It's not about Johnson & Johnson refusing to sell to other countries, it's about those countries first having to allow that drug to be used on humans in that country.

Note that al-Mergrahi spokesperson didn't say he was taking Zytiga (Johnson & Johnson's trade name) but rather just abiraterone, the generic name. Al-Mergrahi is getting it on the black market. I hear there are many good labs in India.
Click to expand...
 
Rolfe said:
And for another two points, explain how the anticipated availability of a new drug should have been a factor in refusing a prisoner's application for compassionate release, if he would not then have been given access to that drug.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

You are really that naive? You really believe that if the Scottish or British government wanted to they couldn't get him this drug (taken orally btw)?
 
Remind me. Why would they want to get it for him?

Especially when it would be illegal for them to do so, according to you....

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
Alt+F4 said:
No as the FDA has no authority or jurisdiction in Libya.

It's not about treating Lybia differently. Only two countries have so far allowed the legal sale of Zytiga, they are Canada and the U.S. It's not about Johnson & Johnson refusing to sell to other countries, it's about those countries first having to allow that drug to be used on humans in that country.
Click to expand...


Who broke which law in which country? Come on now, be specific....

Alt+F4 said:
Note that al-Mergrahi spokesperson didn't say he was taking Zytiga (Johnson & Johnson's trade name) but rather just abiraterone, the generic name. Al-Mergrahi is getting it on the black market. I hear there are many good labs in India.
Click to expand...


Now there's a claim I'd like to see backed up. Evidence?TM
Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
Who broke which law in which country? Come on now, be specific....
Click to expand...

No laws were broken. Zytiga is NOT sold in Libya so Johnson & Johnson did nothing wrong. Gadaffi who made the laws until about last Sunday had no problem with black mail abiraterone being used in Libya because it is/was. Perhaps you don't understand what the difference is between abiraterone and Zytiga.

Now there's a claim I'd like to see backed up. Evidence?TM
Rolfe.
Click to expand...

See above.
 
Alt+F4 said:
No laws were broken. Zytiga is NOT sold in Libya so Johnson & Johnson did nothing wrong. Gadaffi who made the laws until about last Sunday had no problem with black mail abiraterone being used in Libya because it is/was. Perhaps you don't understand what the difference is between abiraterone and Zytiga.
Click to expand...


I think you are very confused. A drug may be described by either its generic or trademark name. Professionals are encouraged always to use the generic name to avoid ambiguity. Calling it abiraterone does not mean it's some sort of black market concoction.

You said Gadaffi made the laws in Libya until about last Sunday. Spot the clue.

Rolfe.
 
Alt+F4 said:
No, even if al-Mergrahi were a perfect candidate for these trials it would have been politically impossible for him to participate. My point is since the "experts" who advised the Scottish governemnt on the "3 months to live" had to have known that abiraterone was very promising and that more than likely al-Mergrahi would be able to obtain it after leaving Scotland....which he did.
Click to expand...


Wait a minute, let me get this straight. Are you seriously suggesting that our government should have looked at a medical report that recommended a prisoner be granted compassionate release, then trawled around for reports of a new drug which had just entered its clinical trial that very month, and said, no, if we release you then you might get hold of this stuff. We won't give it to you of course so you'll die pretty soon, but we can't allow you compassionate release in case you manage to source something that might turn out to extend your life a bit longer.

And then they go off cackling maniacally and start pulling the legs off flies....

The three-month prognosis was always approximate and known to be approximate. It was also quite specifically based on what was expected to happen to Megrahi's health if he remained in prison.

The idea that you deliberately keep a dying prisoner in jail until he dies, because his clinical condition might improve if he is released, is abhorrent, and no part of the Scottish criminal justice system.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
Buncrana said:
What I want - as do many, many others - is the whole conviction and case to be re-examined. Because, I don't think its an exaggeration to describe Lockerbie and Megrahi's conviction as one of the worst miscarriages of justice ever perpetrated.
Click to expand...


I've met worse, but not many. In terms of consequences for the individual, maybe only Sally Clark, Stefan Kiszko and Giuseppe Conlon, post death-penalty. Some people prefer to stick their fingers in their ears and ignore this though. This is an innocent man who is being terrified and monstered in his final months of life, after having served over ten years in jail for somebody else's crime.

Buncrana said:
Abdelhaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi, you don’t know me but I want you to know that, although there are those in the United states and United Kingdom who wish you'd rot in jail, recaptured or face summary 'justice' elsewhere, I know you are innocent.
Click to expand...


What he said. To my shame, if you search through my posts on this forum, you'll find plenty examples where I agree that Megrahi was a bad guy, that he was an evil henchman of Gadaffi, that he probably had a past that would turn sensitive stomachs. I'm not proud of any of that. It was unsceptical and unworthy.

Bunntamas has shown me how wrong I was. There's no evidence at all to support any of that. Nobody believes Megrahi's own account of what he was doing on 20th-21st December 1988, because it's so mundane. But there is plenty evidence to support his version, and none at all to support any other. And there's no evidence he ever had any involvement in the atrocities of the Gadaffi regime, or terrorism, or anything worse than smuggling aircraft parts.

Maybe he was a bad guy, despite the absence of evidence. It's very difficult to prove a negative. But I would rather err on the side of charity, than the side of vicious condemnation.

Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, I am sorry to the bottom of my heart for the injustice and wrong perpetrated against you by the incompetence and malice of my countrymen. I hope you find peace in the new Libya, and avoid the misplaced blood thirst and vengeance of ignorant Americans (and others).

I only provided links before. Here are the pictures. It's a human being who is suffering here, and we need to remember that. On the left, Megrahi in late 1998 aged 46, a few months before surrendering to Scottish custody. On the right, Megrahi in 2009 aged 57, after more than ten years in jail for a crime he didn't commit.

m-1998.jpg
m-2009.jpg


I'm not proud of this. I would hope nobody else is either.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom