Merged [Ed] Convicted Lockerbie bomber released

[Fiona]

I have an idea. Why isn't this thread merged with the Amenda Knox one? Where zealots who agree absolutely that there has been a conspiracy by a First World government and judiciary to convict an innocent person can be in violent agreement? Two rather than one threads to avoid.

Wouldn't work: I believe this was a miscarriage and that wasn't. Or did you intend to remove content and just have a splutter-fest?

 

[Rolfe]

I have an idea. Why isn't this thread merged with the Amenda Knox one? Where zealots who agree absolutely that there has been a conspiracy by a First World government and judiciary to convict an innocent person can be in violent agreement? Two rather than one threads to avoid.

Well, you know, I haven't posted on the Amamda Knox thread since the first few pages, because I couldn't keep up and I decided I didn't care enough. But I don't go in and make flip remarks, because I'm not really in a position to comment, not being up to speed.

I imagine it matters to some people, probably quite a few people, who killed Meredith Kercher. The Megrahi affair seems to matter to a lot more people, judging by the recent furore. But actually, I think people who can't be bothered getting up to speed on it should just refrain from meaningless comment.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Let's. Had Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill admitted he was releasing Megrahi because he was innocent, then at least there would be some small hope in salvaging some dignity and respect for himself and his government. However, MacAskill and the Scottish government do not get to vacuum their conscience and establish credibility by substituting pusillanimous perfidy for admitting error all around. You can't have it both ways. Either Magrahi was guilty and released on "compassionate" grounds, or he was innocent and released because there was a miscarriage of justice. Pick one.

You seem determined to make this about the "dignity and respect for the Scottish government". Who the hell cares? OK, I agree some do and you just need to log on to Newsnet Scotland to meet them. Nevertheless, and I speak as an active member of the party of government in Scotland, I think it's a side issue.

I agree, the affair reflects extraordinarily badly on the Scottish justice system. And although the present Scottish government had precisely nothing to do with either the original indictment or the biassed trial, they have not exactly covered themselves in glory in their recent handling of the matter.

However, your "pick one" invitation is a false dichotomy.

Megrahi was innocent, but released under the compassionate release provisions because he had cancer, with a huge sigh of relief on the part of the Scottish justice system, because that course of action meant that his appeal, which was in progress at the time, could be halted. This was absolutely in their interests because it meant they could go on ignoring the fact that an innocent man was convicted, and avoid facing up to the consequences of having the miscarriage of justice made official.

What about this is so hard for you to understand?

Also, you keep sidestepping the start of all this, which is that it was the CIA and the US DoJ who fitted Megrahi up in the first place, by procuring perjured evidence against him. The Scottish Crown Prosecution Service went right along with it like good little poodles, but this was a US operation from the beginning.

Rolfe.

 

[funk de fino]

My question marks were referring to your post about a "dog and pony show". You didn't say who should be involved.

No-onefrom my country anyway. If your senators want to play silly games in the sandpit then crack on. Don't drag us into your pathetic CT's.

 

[funk de fino]

That might have to do with the fact that only after the "compassionate release" turned out to be a sham, where those who released him were suckered into believing he is deathly ill, did people suddenly turn to considering whether or not he was actually guilty.

This is either stupendously ignorant or a ridiculous lie. It is jaw dropping in it's wrongness.

 

[funk de fino]

Let's. Had Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill admitted he was releasing Megrahi because he was innocent, then at least there would be some small hope in salvaging some dignity and respect for himself and his government. However, MacAskill and the Scottish government do not get to vacuum their conscience and establish credibility by substituting pusillanimous perfidy for admitting error all around. You can't have it both ways. Either Magrahi was guilty and released on "compassionate" grounds, or he was innocent and released because there was a miscarriage of justice. Pick one.

The Scottish govt already did. Same as they did with every prisoner that met the criteria so far. Now why would you want him to be treated differently?

 

[volatile]

I have an idea. Why isn't this thread merged with the Amenda Knox one? Where zealots who agree absolutely that there has been a conspiracy by a First World government and judiciary to convict an innocent person can be in violent agreement? Two rather than one threads to avoid.

What prompts the "zealots" accusation? It's quite clear that Rolfe, in particular, has read, studied and digested the vast amounts of information on this case and has come to a conclusion based on the best evidence available. Why do you insist on painting this as a conspiracy theory forwarded by zealots?

Have you read the reports she's recently linked for Ducky? Perhaps once you have read them, you'll come back and let us know whether you still think only "zealots" think there's been a miscarriage of justice here?

 

[Rolfe]

This is either stupendously ignorant or a ridiculous lie. It is jaw dropping in it's wrongness.

Pick one. I go for the former.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

The Scottish govt already did. Same as they did with every prisoner that met the criteria so far. Now why would you want him to be treated differently?

That's sort of my gripe with the government. They did pick one, when neither was applicable. They picked "guilty and released on compassionate grounds", completely ignoring the findings of the SCCRC report, and all the rest of the mountains of evidence that he wasn't guilty.

For anyone who has access to the full SCCRC report and the rest of the documentation to assert blandly that "the Scottish government has no doubts about the safety of the verdict" is simply ridiculous.

Creep.

I'm qute intrigued by the way Cicero keeps snipping out of my posts the sections where I point out the primary role the US played in the miscarriage of justice, though.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

It's been ten days now....

Perhaps I'm being premature with this remark, and Alt+F4 and Skeptic will be back with reasoned comment. However, what has disturbed me about the Lockerbie threads for some time is the repeated disappearance without trace of people who were originally fulminating that Megrahi was obviously guilty and any suggestions to the contrary were pure twooferism. Only McHrozni had the grace to say that he had realised the evidence against Megrahi was in fact a lot weaker than he had originally assumed, before quitting the discussion. Everybody else, as far as I recall, has simply vanished without comment.

Where's the open-mindedness? Where's the willingness to take on board new ideas, and to change one's viewpoint according to the evidence presented?

Come to that, where's the absolute bloody outrage that the CIA, the US DoJ, the Scottish Crown Prosecution Service and the Lord Advocate fitted this guy up for one of the most notorious terrorist acts of the 20th century, and let the real perpetrators off scot-free? If the issue is worth getting worked up about from one side, then isn't it equally worth getting worked up about when one's perspective is forcibly changed by exposure to some facts?

Nobody came back. Sigh.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Perhaps this is the best thread for this. The question of Megrahi being pressurised by the Scottish government to drop his appeal as a condition of being granted compassionate release (even though there was no legal requirement for him to do that) has surfaced again today.

Quite a long article in Scotland on Sunday, revisiting the alleged government whistleblower who has been alleging this for months now.

THE man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing was forced to abandon his appeal to secure compassionate release on the grounds of his terminal cancer, a justice department whistleblower claims.

Three senior sources close to Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi, who has now exceeded the three months he was expected to live by more than ten months, have confirmed the whistleblower's version of events. [....]

It was claimed at the time that the government had made the dropping of the appeal a condition of his release, in order to spare any damage to the reputation the Scottish justice system. The government has always denied the allegations.

The whistleblower's information appeared in an e-mail received last year by the Nationalist MSP Christine Grahame, who met Megrahi after viewing a documentary that convinced her of his innocence. She continues to lobby for justice for him. The message came from someone in the Scottish Government's Justice department. Although Grahame is protecting the identity of the writer, she says the e-mail was sent by someone "very senior" who had access to the top level discussions on Megrahi.

The e-mail reads: "The minister seemed set to do the decent thing, allow a dying man to go home and the appeal to continue. However the department has strongly intimated to the Libyans that if Megrahi is to be granted compassionate release he must first drop his appeal. This was the (sic) rammed home to the Libyans at their meeting with the minister yesterday.

"Megrahi is desperate and will do anything to get home, including dropping his appeal, as his prisoner transfer request demonstrates. The department knows it, as does the minister."

There's something not quite right about that. Megrahi did not apply for prisoner transfer. He couldn't, because the PTA wasn't written that way. Only the Libyan government could make such an application, and indeed Megrahi didn't even get a say in it. The Libyan government chose to make the application in May 2009, as soon as the PTA was ratified, even though it would have required the dropping of the appeal for it to be granted - and even though compassionate release was also a live issue at that time.

My take on that has been that it was his own government, at least as much as the Scottish government, who were leaning on Megrahi to drop that appeal. They have said many times they want to put the events on the 1980s behind them, and it seems as if that includes not wanting to open the Lockerbie can of worms again. However, this version from the insider, has the Scottish government pressurising Libya on that front.

Whichever way round it was, it did appear very much that Megrahi was being seriously leaned on. The unanimity among government entities that that appeal should not be heard is really quite striking.

Rolfe.