Merged [Ed] Convicted Lockerbie bomber released

scissorhands said:
Well Ive just looked through their grounds for referral and I cant find any mention of this matter of CIA involvement at all, as a reason for referral to appeal.
Perhaps you can point it out?
Click to expand...

The main reason for granting the appeal is that Gauci was an unreliable witness - they didn't publish all of the evidence that led them to that conclusion. The defence team also allege that he was taken away on fishing trips and put up in the Hilton by the Scottish police. He also identified a Palestinian terrorist (Abo Talb) as the purchaser on another occasion and even when he DID identify Megrahi, it was after Megrahi's picture had been published in the papers, and he said that he looked like the man, but a lot younger.
 
Some more interesting points from that document.


3.5 The evidence relied upon by the trial court to convict the applicant was
as follows:
• Anthony Gauci’s evidence that the purchaser of the items resembled
the applicant “a lot”.
• Evidence from various sources that Mr Gauci sold the items on 7
December 1988, a date on which the applicant was proved to be in
Malta staying in a hotel close to Mary’s House.
• Evidence that on 20-21 December 1988 the applicant was in Malta
travelling on a “coded” passport (i.e. a passport in a false name issued
by the Libyan passport authority); and that on 21 December 1988 he
was at Luqa airport at a time when baggage for flight KM180 was being
checked in.
• Evidence that in 1985 the applicant was a member of the Libyan
intelligence service (“JSO”, later named “ESO”) and until January 1987
was head of the airline security section of that organisation.
6
• Evidence of the applicant’s association with Mr Bollier and with various
members of the JSO and Libyan military who purchased MST-13
timers from him.
Click to expand...
 
scissorhands said:
Some more interesting points from that document.
Click to expand...


Well, yeah, we know that. That's just the background of the original conviction. If the SCCRC thought it was all watertight, then they wouldn't have granted leave to appeal.

Nobody's denying that Megrahi was a Libyan intelligence agent, or that he was in Malta. Just like nobody ever denied that Barry George had been interested in guns and lived very close to Jill Dando.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
Shaun from Scotland said:
Hypocrisy knows no bounds
Click to expand...


To be fair, I don't think it's hypocrisy as far as the average American is concerned. You can only be hypocritical if you know there's another side to the story, and most of these people don't.

Mr Rivers said Americans had been told that the Scottish legal system was the "gold standard" for the world at the time of Megrahi's trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands in 2001, and there had not been the same controversy over Megrahi's conviction in the US as there has been elsewhere.

He added: "Now that these questions have been raised once again Americans are saying 'I don't want to go back to square one and have to re-examine evidence and rethink.'

"They are saying 'Megrahi is the one who done it - how can you guys release him?'"
Click to expand...


I can just imagine the flak if this had gone the other way. What, you refused compassionate leave to a dying man because you knew that Americans were going to be offended? What sort of monster are you? Have you no consideration for the BP oil deals and the other trade agreements your decision has put in jeopardy?

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
scissorhands said:
McKinnon is being extradited to face trial, not being let out on compassionate grounds after murdering 270 people.
Click to expand...

Megrahi's release - or otherwise - is not for the USA to decide.
We in the UK didn't like it when US judges gave refuge to IRA terrorists over many years. But it was the US legal system making decisions about people on US soil, so basically that was just tough luck on us.
 
What, you refused compassionate leave to a dying man because you knew that Americans were going to be offended?
Click to expand...

You mean you refused compassionate leave to a dying convicted terrorist and mass murderer ?

Doesnt sound so unreasonable put like that, does it?
 
Last edited:
GlennB said:
Megrahi's release - or otherwise - is not for the USA to decide.
We in the UK didn't like it when US judges gave refuge to IRA terrorists over many years. But it was the US legal system making decisions about people on US soil, so basically that was just tough luck on us.
Click to expand...

Those decisions were made by judiciary, not politicians.
Kenny MacAskill isnt a judge.
 
scissorhands said:
Those decisions were made by judiciary, not politicians.
Kenny MacAskill isnt a judge.
Click to expand...


Indeed, the proposition that such decisions should not be loaded on to one single person in this way, but should instead be carried out by some sort of independent review committee, was being seriously advanced this morning.

Who was advancing it? One of the politicians who was justice secretary during the McConnell administration. He said that he himself had felt it was unreasonable to burden him with sole responsibility for the decisions at the time, and he had to deal with murderers and rapists and all sorts.

At least McAskill is a lawyer, and one with ten years legal practice under his belt. None of the previous justice secretaries have been lawyers. Nevertheless, it's a perfectly reasonable criticism of the system, and one which is likely to lead to reform. One might question why the interviewee I heard this morning didn't put the idea forward when he was justice secretary, if he was so disturbed by the responsibility.

But that doesn't help the present situation. Legally, the decision was MacAskill's, and there's no point shouting that he shouldn't have taken a decision which was his responsibility to take.

Rolfe.
 
Legally, the decision was MacAskill's, and there's no point shouting that he shouldn't have taken a decision which was his responsibility to take.
Click to expand...

That isnt what I am arguing.
I am pointing out that the decisions made in the US by judiciary arent comparable with a politician making them in Scotland.
MacAskill had to make the decision, he just chose the wrong one.
 
scissorhands said:
MacAskill had to make the decision, he just chose the wrong one.
Click to expand...


In your opinion. Funny thing though, it wasn't up to you.

Ever thought about why no Labour politician on either side of the border said a word about what they thought the decision should be, before it was announced?

Rolfe.
 
Trying to drag it down to party political bickering again?
Blaming and smearing anyone but the person responsible for the decision?
You have already tried to taint me with accusations of "NuLab" affiliations and I have already told you I am not affiliated with any political party.
You are becoming desperate.
 
scissorhands said:
Trying to drag it down to party political bickering again?
Blaming and smearing anyone but the person responsible for the decision?
You have already tried to taint me with accusations of "NuLab" affiliations and I have already told you I am not affiliated with any political party.
You are becoming desperate.
Click to expand...


Not at all. You maintain that the decision in favour of compassionate release was self-evidently the wrong one. I merely enquire as to why, if the "right" decision was a clear-cut as you suggest, and considering that it was an open secret that McAskill was going to make the "wrong" one for at least a week before he announced it, nobody in any of the other political parties, particularly Labour, said anything at that stage.

I mean, if he sees every indication that a Minister is going to make a decision he believes is blatantly wrong and will damage the country, why would an opposition politician not be telling the press all that, perhaps in time to avert the damaging decision?

Rolfe.
 
Perhaps because it is not right for politicians to interfere in legal processes?
 
Fiona said:
Perhaps because it is not right for politicians to interfere in legal processes?
Click to expand...


I don't know. They don't seem to have too much trouble making their opinions known on other occasions.

I would have expected a responsible opposition politican who was aware that a decision he regarded as disastrous for his country was in the offing to make his view known. Not to keep completely silent, then charge out of the gate screaming "disgrace" and "resign" after the event.

Rolfe.
 
Fiona said:
Perhaps because it is not right for politicians to interfere in legal processes?
Click to expand...

"Interfere" might not be the right word. Some politicians have a perfect right to make decisions of a legal nature. The UK Home Secretary, for example, US presidents too. Who pardoned Richard Nixon? A judge?
 
I think you have missed my point GlennB. That the Justice Minister should make the decision in accord with the law and on the basis of all the relevant facts is the process. For other politicians to comment on what they believe that decision should be before it is taken is an attempt to influence without all the relevant facts. And that is inappropriate
 
You may be right. However, I can't agree that it is appropriate to stay silent about something you believe will damage the country, and then launch vitriolic criticism after the decision is made when you have access to no more facts than you did previously.

Rolfe.
 
I completely agree that the comment from politicians after the event, as reported, is also very inappropriate. A debate about the merits in parliament is one thing. That kind of irresponsible nonsense is quite another
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom