Merged [Ed] Convicted Lockerbie bomber released

Architect said:
Let's post another story which Scissorhands seems to have missed:

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/So-why-is-Brown-silent.5578577.jp
Click to expand...

I have wondered also regarding the silent approach from Westminster. The US ire at the highest level is also muted with most of it focussed on how Libya conducts the return.

I wonder if we will get to know in the fullness of time how much it suited everybody for Megrahi to drop the appeal and go home and die quietly. Whether behind the scenes Scotland was given the green light to do this thing. Not so much a conspiracy but simply the usual handling of diplomatic baggage that might be construed as difficult for the public to understand.
 
Architect said:
Let's post another story which Scissorhands seems to have missed:

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/So-why-is-Brown-silent.5578577.jp
Click to expand...


Mmmm, yes. Nice spectcle of Ian Gray announcing that if he had been First Minister he'd have Megrahi rot in jail, and the SNP are .... well, read any of scissorhands' posts and you'll get the general gist.

If he'd been First Minister, he'd have done exactly what Gordon Brown told him to do. Just as Jack McConnell did exactly what Tony Blair told him to do. Which would have been to accede to a Libyan request for a prisoner transfer, as agreed in May 2007 at the Deal in the Desert.

Never mind that this would have been in direct contravention of an explicit agreement with the USA, or that it would have had to involve getting Megrahi's appeal off the table (at a time when nobody had any reason to think he wouldn't live another 20 years).

The Labour party are quite pleased that this has panned out in a way that has got them what they wanted (Megrahi back in Tripoli and the appeal dropped), and they can let the SNP take the flak. They can even add a load more flak of their own.

They may even have taken the opportunity of the imminent compassionate release (which was quite obviously on the cards for about a month before it actually happened) to strike up some more trade deals with Libya. Or maybe the Libyans are lying about that, who knows which of these two parties is the more likely to be lying really.

Then they can even take advantage of the US ignorance of British government to imply that it was the SNP Scottish government who was dabbling in trade agreements, rather than themselves.

Oh well, just another day at the office for the NuLab spin machine.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
Alt+F4 said:
I think the attitude that the Scots are so much more compassionate than the rest of the world and always follow the letter of the law can pretty much be thrown out the window. So much for not bowing down to the pressure of outsiders.

On Friday, Lord Trefgarne, chairman of the Libyan British Business Council, said Mr. Megrahi’s release had opened the way for Britain’s leading oil companies to pursue multibillion-dollar oil contracts with Libya, which had demanded Mr. Megrahi’s return in talks with British officials and business executives.
Click to expand...


Hey Scotland, you're no different than the Americans when it comes to playing politics.

Linky:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/22/world/europe/22lockerbie.html?_r=1&hpw
Click to expand...


I'll just say it again, for the benefit of those who don't understand the difference. These talks were with British officials. That is, the government at Westminster. The Labour government at Westminster, London.

Scotland had nothing to do with this. This isn't a devolved issue, and the Scottish government wouldn't have been involved even if the talks were completely innocuous and above board.

Libya has been demanding Megrahi's return as the price of business co-operation for years. In 2007 Tony Blair, the Labour prime minister in London agreed to do that. However, because the actual return was under Scottish jurisdiction, he couldn't deliver.

Don't you think it's just lovely the way the Labour party is spitting hate at the SNP for doing exactly what Labour hoped it would do, while taking every advantage of the development behind the scenes?

Rolfe.
 
scissorhands said:
If only you could produce some evidence for this, other than from the Gaddafi regime itself?

I mean its not as if they would have any reason to lie to you, Rolfe?:)

Your pathetic attempts at absolving your party at Holyrood of any culpabilty in your conspiracy theory, are getting a bit tiresome now.

Magrahi was always on the table, because the Libyans liked to think they had a bargaining tool and regularly brought him up.

Any oil deals would have happened with or without him being released.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, wasn't there a meeting on such deals a few weeks ago by FCO and wasn't there just a US congressional team in negotiating that very thing while this was all going on? I am sure Gadaffi's team never even mentioned the matter so much as in passing.

Let's get real here. If Megrahi's release was the only obstacle to bringing a now friendly major oil supplier on-side what would happen?
 
Now the FBI is doing its best to make itself another laughing stock.

'...In a letter dated 21 August, Robert Mueller said the decision had made "a mockery of justice" and given "comfort to terrorists around the world". ...'
from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8216122.stm

This just shows how divergent are the values of the UK and the US and from the country which gave the world Guantanamo and the official torture programme about which this person said ......

Presuming he actually knows how ridiculous he is making his organisation look, this nonsense is I guess directed to a fearful US public to keep the US government scaremongering programme at full steam.

And here were we thinking that Obama was going to change things for the better.

The USA might stop trying to scare itself to death and get a grip.
 
A number of posts added to the growing pile in the AAH thread. This is getting ridiculous, people, so our patience is waning. I've reopened the thread, but if you cannot post without casting aspersions on each other, your posts will be removed and you will be subject to further moderation which may include infraction or suspension.

Thank you.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky
 
Nogbad said:
I have wondered also regarding the silent approach from Westminster. The US ire at the highest level is also muted with most of it focussed on how Libya conducts the return.

I wonder if we will get to know in the fullness of time how much it suited everybody for Megrahi to drop the appeal and go home and die quietly. Whether behind the scenes Scotland was given the green light to do this thing. Not so much a conspiracy but simply the usual handling of diplomatic baggage that might be construed as difficult for the public to understand.
Click to expand...


I put a long post in the other thread (in Politics) linking to an number of articles about the affair. This point is covered in some detail, and I recommend having a look.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5035393#post5035393

Rolfe.
 
E.J.Armstrong said:
Beerina said:
Originally Posted by Beerina

In (now merged) separate thread *THIS* is why you don't let him out to go home and die!


Lockerbie convict goes home to hero's welcome.


Any questions?
Click to expand...

About what exactly? Compassion?
Click to expand...

If you like to consider it in that context, sure.

Compassion for a mass-murdering terrorist is completely incorrect, thanks for asking.

He should die cold and alone in his cell, not with his family surrounding him. The people he murdered because he wanted to murder them did not get any such chance.

Thanks for asking.

Unlike the US government apparently, the Scottish government knows it has no control
Click to expand...

A completely different argument from the non-starter and ill-advised, silly "compassion for a mass murderer" argument, keep in mind.

This indicates you have an emotional investment in the position, yet secretely know it's weak.

Why? Glad you asked.

Simple. Because you keep pulling out multiple arguments to support an issue you really believe for one single reason: you want a murderer to be comforted. One who, by the way, would have no problem slitting your throat the second he was released, by you.


...over another sovereign country and luckily the Scottish government correctly rebuffed
Click to expand...

That's an internal issue for the Scottish government. Did they have nobody who agreed the guy should be kept in jail?

And if some extant law really forced their hand, that's sad. They never anticipated that it could cause a legitimate problem some day.

Either way, fail. No, not you. The Scottish government and those who elected them, now and in the past.

Proof? Result of this entire situation. :(


the US government's many sad attempts
Click to expand...

As opposed to what? Happy military ones? Maybe shoot down the plane?

Which is it, bub? Diplomacy or action?


to get us to behave as inhumanely as them.
Click to expand...

I submit anyone who wants a dying mass murderer to die with his family is being inhumane -- to his victims, but more importantly, to future victims of future attacks.


The Scotland government correctly followed Scottish law.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant to the compassion argument, unless you think it was intended to encompass mass murderers. In which case your attitude is wrong as well as the law.


Live with it, or not, as you wish, because there is nothing the US government can do to change it.
Click to expand...

Aside from embarrassing the Scottish government and, more importantly, other European governments with similar laws, so said laws get changed. By sufficient shaming, perhaps the local politicians who defend these laws will find themselves without a job.


Glad ya figured that part out, pal!
 
The law was indeed intended to encompass mass murderers. Just for your information. Nobody is excluded.

And good luck with that attempt to influence the Scottish voting process.

Rolfe.
 
Beerina said:
Did they have nobody who agreed the guy should be kept in jail?
Click to expand...


Now that's an interesting point. It was common knowledge for about a month that Megrahi would be considered for compassionate release. The fact that it was likely to be granted was in the public domain for a week before it was announced.

Did we hear Ian Grey telling us all that if he were First Minister, Megrahi would rot in jail? Did we hear Jack McConnell saying that granting release would drag Scotland's name through the mud? Well, no. They didn't say any of that until after the decision was announced.

Of course we know very well that if either of these guys had been First Minister when Tony Blair signed the Deal in the Desert with Gadaffi to get Megrahi released under a prisoner transfer agreement, they would have said, Yes Tony, when Tony told them to grant the prisoner transfer because the oil trade with Libya required it. Even though this was explicitly breaking the agreement with the USA that this should not happen.

If the Labour party had had its way, Megrahi would have been sent back to Libya in 2007, because it was politically expedient. In spite of the fact that he was perfectly healthy, and the agreement with the USA was that this should not happen. The only reason it didn't happen was that Labour weren't in control of the process in Scotland, and the SNP refused to comply. We know now that the London government told Alex Salmond that the agreement with the USA was not legally binding, and suggested he break it, and Salmond refused. Instead, Megrahi was kept in Scotland so that his appeal could go ahead.

The fatal illness changed all that, and the Scottish government had no interest in keeping a dying man in prison for his final weeks. This happened to coincide with the London government's desire to send him home to secure oil deals. The US government let it be known that they wanted him to stay in Scotland, but that if he had to go back, they would prefer compassionate release to a prisoner transfer.

The London plan was to allow the Scottish government to take the decision, keep quiet, then let them take all the flak from the Americans. Nice one, working well at the moment.

However, that's why we heard not a cheep from anyone in the Labour party about how terrible it would be if he were granted compassionate release. They totally wanted him released, and had no intention of trying to stop it. After all, they tried to get him released two years ago! But now they've got what they wanted, they can play party political games by criticising the release after the fact. That's how it works.

And if the Scottish government had denied release, they could have told everyone how terrible this was, because oil deals were being put at risk.

It's not nearly as simple as Beerina thinks. But in one way it is. You won't frighten or bully the Scottish government into torturing prisoners, even if you carry on that way yourself.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
The law was indeed intended to encompass mass murderers. Just for your information. Nobody is excluded.

And good luck with that attempt to influence the Scottish voting process.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

Then the law is clearly wrong in this case.
This case isnt about some domestic Scottish mass murderer.
The Scottish people can vote for a government to enact as many compassionate laws as they wish regarding that.
This case concerns a convicted international terrorist and mass murderer who killed a large number of non Scots, and the bomb just happened to go off over Scotland.
Had it exploded an hour later we wouldnt be having this discussion.

You find it surprising that the family members in the US would react like this?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8216466.stm

they regard Mr MacAskill's defence of his actions, at his press conference, and live on many news programmes afterwards, as sanctimonious in the extreme.

"Who is he to show mercy to the man who took away the father of my children?" one mother asked me. "Who is he to preach about compassion? What compassion has he shown us?"

To the American families the Scottish government has appeared naive and hopelessly out of its depth.

The relatives have powerful friends in the Senate, and in the FBI - people who have been involved in this case going back to 1988, when Mr MacAskill was a minor politician campaigning against the poll tax
Click to expand...

I thought there was a general understanding that in important cases like this, involving international terrorism, that those actually targetted would be consulted properly and that their views would have an impact on the outcome of any possible release.
Maybe thats just naive of me to assume that.
The damage is done now anyway.
 
Last edited:
This seems like an elaborate puppet show. The more I hear about all the back dealings the worse it sounds for all parties involved. Of course in the end all the governments seem to benefit from the outcome. That doesn't mean the people have to like it. Maybe the public in the UK like it but from what I have seen in the US people think this is rotten. I don't think I've seen anyone try to spin this story in a positive way and like I said before Wolf Blitzer questioned MacAskill harder than I've ever seen him question anyone before.
 
scissorhands said:
The Scottish people can vote for a government to enact as many compassionate laws as they wish regarding that.
This case concerns a convicted international terrorist and mass murderer who killed a large number of non Scots, and the bomb just happened to go off over Scotland.
Click to expand...
Which makes it a case for Scottish jurisprudence.
A few weeks, ago, there was a big debate over the extradition of Gary McKinnon to America. Most Brits thought that the US law was being applied unfairly. Most American public opinion boiled down to: "These are our laws. STFU."

So - these are our laws and you just have to accept the fact.
 
Last edited:
Most Brits thought that the US law was being applied unfairly.
Click to expand...

I expect you have got a poll to back that statement up?

McKinnon is being extradited to face trial, not being let out on compassionate grounds after murdering 270 people.

Dont let that lack of relevance bother you though.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
And good luck with that attempt to influence the Scottish voting process.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

I suspect that those who think they have a right to tell the Scottish Justice Minister what to do are influencing the Scottish voting process.

Although possibly not in the way they would wish to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom