Merged Lockerbie bomber alive after 9 months

[lionking]

Edit: Not worth it.

 

[lionking]

I have an idea. Why don't Usan politicians learn that they don't run the world and stop embarrassing themselves.

I know its annoying for Usans but there is not going to be any change in the decision. You will just have to suck it up.

Reported for being off topic.

 

[Rolfe]

I know its annoying for Usans but there is not going to be any change in the decision. You will just have to suck it up.

That was roughly the consensus of the Question Time panel. The politicians on the panel (except Nicola, obviously) disagreed with the decision to release Megrahi. Some of this may of course be retrospective, from people who would have had no problem with it if Megrahi had had the decency to die on schedule. However, none of them thought there was any point in an enquiry into it. They know on what basis the decision was made, it was transparent, and although they disagreed, they could see no point in further enquiry.

Rolfe.

 

[geni]

false. EWestminster has absolutely no jurisdiction in this matter.

So we need to add parliamentary sovereignty to the list of concepts you don't understand.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Here's an interview in which the official spokesman of the US Families of Pan Am 103 explains why he's certain Megrahi blew up the plane. It's a pity it's Gorgeous George doing the interviewing, but I swear Paxman couldn't have done a better job.

Hint. Almost everything Duggan says about the case is factually flat wrong, and demonstrably so.



Rolfe.

I feel a little bad not joining in here, but there are many many many discussions about Megrah's "new lease on life," a friggin immortal now. Most do not have Rolfe and a higher than average average member IQ going for them,so I've been needed around.

Thanks for bringing that video here. I thought the worst thing he said was that there was unamymity anong all the U.S family members about Megrahi's guilt. I don't mind that he can't cite the number of families he represents, but that he's able to smugly say all those unknown number of people believe what he does is just slimy as all hell.

True, I've heard nothing to contradict that. The American side seems completely brainwashed. But he doesn't really know what they all think. He's paid, first by the White House to rally all the families behind the official Libya line, and now to represent the united families as 100% in line with the previous alignment.

Frank Duggan was put up for election and elected to lead this sacrosanct group, to harness their emotional outrage and embody them to the point where the Daily Fail calls HIM "families of the 270 Lockerbie victims". This happened when? Some time in 2008, don't have the date. Check it out relative to Megrahi's impending release. I'd wager he was sent down to replace Kara Weipz to circle the wagons more effectively.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Dedicated thread, and I started it, so "bam" here's the spot.

I have a question, which I'll maybe find reading the thread later anyway-but WHO was responsible for the relevant "three-months" assessment? Everyone in the United States- EVERYONE (it seems) - says it was Dr.Sikora's call and nothing else that produced this. Amb. Sheinwald says it was a panel of people besides Sikora. Can anyone give me an awesome explanation to share over here, and save me some time? Is one side right, wrong, both a little wrong, what?

 

[Caustic Logic]

He was looked at by the SPS medical people and they passed the info to the relevant people. The decision was based on that. The other guys inspections were not taken into account.

Do you have a citation handy for that?

I moved this to the non-USA forum, as it is a Scottish subject. Or a middle Eastern subject. But not a USA subject.

Posted By: LibraryLady

Word up. Alive after X months and political interests goes here. The release decision and prognosis behind it is I think at the heart of the whole new wave of American anger. Sorry for picking the wrong spot at first. I get confused sometimes.

eh????
the target of the bomb was a US plane.....is it a scottish subject because the wreckage landed in scotland??

See above. The American indignation and brainwashing angle would best be captured by a thread better formulated around just that. If anyone else beats me to it, I'm not going to jump on starting that one.

As far as this subject goes, I am disturbed to hear the case isn't as solid as one is lead to believe. Though I will quickly point out the equally disturbing feeling of some, when the thread was new, that there was Something Noble in letting the "guilty" guy go home, assuming true guilt.

Dude, that's the coolest comment I've yet gotten [ed - seen - Rolfe scored it]. Can't speak for Rolfe or anyone else, but I aim to disturb. On the rest, I can see both sides of the compassion debate. If I felt there was even a 50% chance he were actually guilty on inspection - which means there is a darn good case - I'd have a hard time getting very riled up. In this case, I'm having a hard time scraping up a generous single digit possibility. It's worth further study.

cont'd...

 

[Caustic Logic]

I think Sikora was just shrugging with a sort of "all bets are off" remark. Word from Libya is that Megrahi is off all active treatment and on a morphine drip. You don't linger very long in that condition.

Rolfe.

MSNBC's fast-talking smart British guy disagrees.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38084497/

doctors say he's no longer getting chemotherapy and he could live with his cancer - his prostate cancer - for another ten years. ... the bomber's father says he's hoping for complete recovery in fact...

why isn't Al-Megrahi dead yet?
Mass murderer Abdel Baset Al-Megrahi...

And other evidence of a lack of knowledge and of having been emotionally manipulated by the corporate media. Fail. You've had this explained since, but I can add that the Best answer for the bolded question was provided bySaif al-Gaddafi (paraphrased): "Ask God."

Even the trolling on this has reached a new low.

Believe it or not, he's representing the view held by pretty much the whole American media establishment. At the link above, MSNBC, the subtext was that Megrahi's whole sickness is faked. Because Sikora said something, mostly.

ETA: Rolfe, your post#184 seems to be at least part of what I'm looking for. Thanks.

 

[Rolfe]

MSNBC's fast-talking smart British guy disagrees.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38084497/

I can't watch that at work. The accompanying article is just another run through the usual stuff.

Believe it or not, he's representing the view held by pretty much the whole American media establishment. At the link above, MSNBC, the subtext was that Megrahi's whole sickness is faked. Because Sikora said something, mostly.

Well, that's just ridiculous. You can't fake something like that, right in the middle of the NHS, where there are dozens of people involved with a patient, and sharing records and results of investigations and so on. It's a CT on a par with the 9/11 no-planers.

What may have happened is that the most pessimistic prognosis possible was latched on to by a convergence of interests who all had good reason to want Megrahi on the next plane home. Even excluding the consideration that the guy probably didn't do it in the first place, I can't see what all the fuss is about. Could I repeat what I said in a different thread?

Why does it matter? If Americans are cross because they think it was all a stitch-up in relation to that BP oil deal (which it wasn't), well, what's the problem? Gadaffi seems to be everybody's new best friend. If the official story is true and Megrahi planted that bomb, he did it because Gadaffi told him to. But somehow it's OK to lionise Gadaffi these days? America is as keen on oil deals as anyone else. America wanted this all sorted out (Megrahi out of the way and Libya in a friendly place) as much as anyone. The rest is just political point-scoring.

The reason it isn't about the oil deal, or not directly, is that the body which had the authority to approve the release couldn't care less about oil deals. In fact, just knowing that the Westminster government wanted Megrahi released because of an oil deal was enough to make them resolve to keep him banged up. However, they also wanted him on the next plane home, so they saved face by refusing to do what Westminster wanted (the prisoner transfer) and went the compassionate release route instead.

Given that anyone who had any influence at all on events wanted Megrahi out of that prison, just who paid whom to provide an agreeable medical report hardly matters. [....]

So, the doctors were split about the prognosis. What would you have done? The guy has cancer. If you decide August is too early, and you're right, you'll only have to go through all this again in a couple of months. And if you still think it's too soon, a couple of months after that, and so on until you finally do release him. Why not just cut to the chase? The more so because if the short prognosis is correct, you could find yourself in the embarrassing position of Megrahi dying in a Scottish jail. This would not be a good thing for UK-Middle East relations, we really don't want that to happen.

So he goes home, and is given another round of chemotherapy, and lives a few months longer than the accepted prognosis.

What's all the fuss about?

There's a lot of serious hypocrisy going on here. The US commentators (up to and including Obama) because they completely fail to acknowledge that it was in the interests of America just as much as anyone else to release Megrahi. The USA wants Gadaffi friendly and on-side, because of all that oil, just as much as anyone else, and Megrahi in jail was an obstacle to that. If you believe Libya blew up Pan Am 103, then it was Gadaffi who was the prime mover anyway, and it's a bit peculiar to be demanding Megrahi's head on a platter while sucking up to Gadaffi. So wht not go the whole hog?

The UK Labour, Conservative and Liberal parties are all busy lambasting the SNP over Megrahi's release, because it suits them. They're political opponents, of course they're going to take any chance they can get to put the boot in. This is hypocritical, because none of them wanted Megrahi to stay in jail either, for much the same reasons. We need Gadaffi as a friendly ally, and this is most certainly not going to be facilitated by keeping Megrahi in jail. And if they can be best pals with the guy they believe masterminded the Lockerbie bombing, then what's the big problem about releasing a relatively junior operative?

And finally, the whole bloody boiling of them, headed up by the SNP, is being massively hypocritical about the primary reason for the release happening when it did. It was the optimum moment to use the prospect of release to persuade Megrahi to abandon his on-going appeal. That appeal had been dragging on for years, with astonishing government back-flips to try to keep certain material from the defence lawyers.

It was a huge no-no for two reasons. One is that it was almost certain to have been successful, because Tony Gauci's evidence had been fatally undermined, and without that evidence there was simply nowhere near enough left to sustain Megrahi's conviction. So they were going to have to release him, and find themselves in the embarrassing position of not having solved the biggest mass murder in Scottish history, and have to start all over again looking for the culprit. Oops.

The undermining of Tony Gauci's evidence was bad enough, in that part of that undermining was the revelation that he and his brother had been paid $3 million by the CIA for their evidence, and are now living in luxury in Australia on the proceeds. However the other bit which is a lot more hazy is that there were further grounds for appeal that weren't to do with the Gaucis, and in some way involved revelations the UK and US governments did not want in the public domain. Would it have been possible to get right through the appeal while keeping this secret? Well, they were trying, but far better to abandon the appeal, given the chance.

Megrahi was pressurised while in jail to give up the appeal, being told that it would help his chances of getting home. So he did that, although previously, before his illness, he had insisted he preferred to stay in jail to fight to clear his name. Now we have Nicola Sturgeon, deputy First Minister, insisting that he gave up the appeal voluntarily, and that he really didn't have to do that. This is a downright lie, frankly.

So it's all quite complex really, but the bottom line is that it was in the US interest as much as the UK interest to keep Gadaffi sweet and let his human sacrifice go. Recognise political point-scoring when you see it, people!

Finally, so Megrahi's dad hopes he'll make a full recovery. Yeah right. You know how? Alternative medicine, that's how. Apparently they're trying some woo-woo snake oil, now the doctors have said there's no more conventional medicine can do.

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Mass murderer Abdel Baset Al-Megrahi, who did just eight years of his life sentence after he was convicted of killing 270 people, was released last year on the dubious grounds that he had just three months to live. He returned to Libya to receive a hero's welcome, and now almost a year later he's living in luxury. What's even more maddening is that apparently, the man is still breathing.

It turns out the diagnosis was based on the opinion of just one doctor who now says that he could live as long as 10 years.

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2010/07/why-isnt-dying-lockerbie-bombe.html

I notice you didn't have much to say, here or there, to support the contents of this article. At the moment, one comment only:

1 Comment

Caustic Logic
July 12, 2010 5:31 AM
Why Isn't Dying Lockerbie Bomber Dead Yet?

His cancer hasn't just yet killed him. Maybe he's driven, like Harrison Ford's characters often are, to clear his name. I think it was Saif that suggested taking that question to God.

Now, why was Sikora's prognosis wrong?I think he's explained that. Why does his flippant *maybe 10 or 20 year* quotes have any weight or meaning? Blasted if I know.

Why do some media outlets only run stories like this, while ignoring others about, for example, Megrahi's mysteriously squashed appeal (Google"appalling choice" and/or "emotional blackmail + Megrahi), or the $3 million handed to the Gauci brothers after they helped land the Lybian, or the radio manual cover PK/689 made "a bit tatty around the edges" by a Semtex blast, but torn to shreds by "forensic tests?" Or the onetime suspect covered for the the Libyans story line, reportedly holed up comfortably in Virginia at the moment? Or about the amazing self-restraint the Libyans showed in never getting us back for that Airbus the Vincennes shot down?

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2010/07/why-isnt-dying-lockerbie-bombe.html#ixzz0tSWhxNEH

Gaddurbitz1!!1 Libyans, and there it is for the world to see...


ETA:And thanks, Rolfe. You should check out that video when you can. It's ever so annoying.

ETA again:
http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/2010/07/some-background-of-carol-sikora.html

 

[Rolfe]

Thanks for bringing that video here. I thought the worst thing he said was that there was unamymity anong all the U.S family members about Megrahi's guilt. I don't mind that he can't cite the number of families he represents, but that he's able to smugly say all those unknown number of people believe what he does is just slimy as all hell.

True, I've heard nothing to contradict that. The American side seems completely brainwashed. But he doesn't really know what they all think. He's paid, first by the White House to rally all the families behind the official Libya line, and now to represent the united families as 100% in line with the previous alignment.

Who knows? There are a lot of US families. Most of them probably want to move on now - it's been over twenty years, after all. One has to remember that these people are all now millionnaires as a result of the huge sums in compensation paid out first by Pan Am when they lost the civil action for liability, and secondly by Gadaffi when he obliquely accepted responsibility and paid up in order to put an end to the sanctions and allow Libya to rejoin the international community.

All that money was predicated on the version of the story where Megrahi put the bomb on the plane at the behest of Gadaffi being true. There's no question of anyone asking for it back if Megrahi's conviction were to be quashed, but I think the people involved might find it a tad embarrassing. So, I can understand it if a lot of the relatives are now just keeping out of it, getting on with their well-heeled lives, and letting Frank Duggan say what he likes.

Yes, Frank Duggan was the US government place-man within the US families group, and his nice little sinecure depends on him continuing to insist that Megrahi is guilty. He's not very good at it though. I could make a better case for Megrahi having done it than he can! (And I'd still get shredded by anyone with a real grasp of the evidence, but that's the way it goes.)

Frank Duggan was put up for election and elected to lead this sacrosanct group, to harness their emotional outrage and embody them to the point where the Daily Fail calls HIM "families of the 270 Lockerbie victims". This happened when? Some time in 2008, don't have the date. Check it out relative to Megrahi's impending release. I'd wager he was sent down to replace Kara Weipz to circle the wagons more effectively.

If Jim Swire, Martin Cadman and Pamela Dix were aware of the Daily Mail saying that, they'd go through the roof. Oh, and Father Keegans as well, who was within about 50 feet of being a Lockerbie victim.

You may think his insistence on the unanimity of the relatives is the worst thing he said - for me it's the appalling ignorance of the specifics of the evidence. To say that Megrahi lied under oath when he didn't even take the witness stand, to say that each of Gauci's statements was given to a different jurisdiction because of the number of different nationalities involved in the disaster - it's unbelievable, from someone who is being paid to know about this.

Dude, that's the coolest comment I've yet gotten. Can'ts peak for Rolfe or anyone else, but I aim to disturb. On the rest, I can see both sides of the compassion debate. If I felt there was even a 50% chance he were actually guilty on inspection - which means there is a darn good case - I'd have a hard time getting very riled up. In this case, I'm having a hard time scraping up a generous single digit possibility. It's worth further study.

The day has not yet come when I would regard Beerina as cool. He's not known for taking on board arguments contrary to his prevailing viewpoint. I suppose for him even to acknowledge the possibility that Megrahi is innocent, after having steadfastly ignored posts to that effect for close on a year, is quite an advance.

There's no question that Megrahi should never have been convicted. The conviction couldn't possibly have stood without Gauci's evidence, and Gauci's evidence wasn't worth a hill of beans. He did sell the clothes that were packed round the bomb in the suitcase, apparently, but who he sold them to is anyone's guess. His eventual, tentative, identification of Megrahi as "looking a little bit exactly like" the purchaser (no more!) was the result of years of training and suggestion and leading the witness, aided by heavy hints of eye-popping amounts of money to come if Megrahi were to be convicted.

The question is, if you take away Gauci's evidence, is what's left sufficient to suggest that Megrahi was guilty anyway, even if it's not enough to stand up in court? I would say not. There are a number of weird coincidences surrounding this case, and the coincidence which might be taken to suggest he put the bomb on the plane is thistledown compared to the weight of evidence that he really couldn't have done it and someobody else did.

This isn't something many people (especially in the USA) want to confront. It's just too embarrassing, over 20 years down the line, to confront the fact that we don't know who carried out that atrocity, and we certainly didn't manage to bring them to justice.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Or about the amazing self-restraint the Libyans showed in never getting us back for that Airbus the Vincennes shot down?

Iranians, me old sport, Iranians....

Rolfe.

 

[Alt+F4]

One has to remember that these people are all now millionnaires as a result of the huge sums in compensation paid out first by Pan Am when they lost the civil action for liability, and secondly by Gadaffi...

And I can GUARANTEE you that every, single one of these people would give up every dollar/euro/pound they got if they could just have back 15 minutes with the person they lost.

Money has nothing to do with this.

 

[Caustic Logic]

And I can GUARANTEE you that every, single one of these people would give up every dollar/euro/pound they got if they could just have back 15 minutes with the person they lost.

Money has nothing to do with this.

You make it sound like Rolfe was suggesting the families actually sold their loved ones across the river Styx to get that money. I think the facts of many million payouts is relevant in why American families haven't spoken up. It can't be the whole picture,as British relatives I think got their share of Libya's money as well.

And that 15 minutes things is not an option anyway, so... they'll probably be keeping it and the complexity that would arise if they ever had to admit Libya wasn'tat fault after all. Can you see how that might be awkward at least?

 

[Caustic Logic]

This is how behind I am. It took me an hour of stumbling around to find Fraser's name, which rings me back to something I remember now from last year.

The Times, 28 August
It emerged that the prognosis that Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi had a life expectancy of only three months or less was supported by an unnamed doctor who had no expertise in terminal prostate cancer. The final report on al-Megrahi's condition, which went to Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, was drawn up by Dr Andrew Fraser, director of health and care with the Scotttish Prison Service.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6812427.ece

Guardian, 20 November
At the time of his release MacAskill was at pains to say the three-month lifespan was an estimate. But he relied entirely on a report by Dr Andrew Fraser, the head of medical services for the Scottish prison service, stating that Megrahi's health had declined significantly in the weeks before his release. "The clinical assessment therefore is that a three-month prognosis is now a reasonable estimate for this patient," Fraser sai
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/20/megrahi-health-lockerbie-bomber

Telegraph, 4 July
The Scottish government insists Kenny MacAskill, the justice minister who took the final decision to release Megrahi, based his ruling on a medical report by Dr Andrew Fraser, director of health and care at the Scottish Prison Service (SPS).
A spokesman said Professor Sikora’s advice to Libya “had no part to play in considerations on the Megrahi case”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...omber-could-survive-for-10-years-or-more.html

So...who's been telling the American mediathat Dr. Sikora's Libyan-paid 3 months prognosis that was responsible? Who has created a situation where one comment I saw described this as 'letting one terrorist diagnose another?'

 

[funk de fino]

So...who's been telling the American mediathat Dr. Sikora's Libyan-paid 3 months prognosis that was responsible? Who has created a situation where one comment I saw described this as 'letting one terrorist diagnose another?'

I don't think they need any encouragement over there to make crap up.

 

[Rolfe]

And I can GUARANTEE you that every, single one of these people would give up every dollar/euro/pound they got if they could just have back 15 minutes with the person they lost.

Money has nothing to do with this.

I imagine that's true for the majority of the relatives - especially those who lost members of their nuclear families, and I'm thinking particularly of the parents of the Syracuse students. There are also, probably, a number of people who lost more distant relatives - quite a few entire nuclear families were wiped out on that plane, as parents and children were travelling togather. It's not a homogenous group.

Just to put it into perspective. In the early 1990s, each family got about £2 million from a civil action for damages against Pan Am. In 2003 Libya agreed to pay a total of £1.7 billion to the relatives. I think the £1 billion handed over in 2008 was the final installment of that. Each family is said to have received about £6 million in total from Gadaffi. (That's pounds sterling, with a variety of exchange rates to the dollar I imagine - the payouts happened over a long period.)

I imagine there are very few families who would prefer the money to their lost loved one. It's also questionable whether money contributes at all to coming to terms with that sort of grief. Indeed, the money could be actively destructive - the Pan An compensation alone destroyed David and Steven Flannigan, who didn't even live long enough to benefit from Gadaffi's contribution. Nevertheless it exists, and platitudes about preferring poverty with one's son or daughter alive don't change that, however true.

How different is it, to lose a son or daughter to a terrorist attack, or a drunk driver, or an armed robber, or a climbing accident? I don't know. But unlike the latter categories, the Lockerbie relatives are now multi-millionaires. (Indeed, they were already multi-millionaires before Gadaffi paid out a penny.)

So if we see a paid spokesman with no idea at all about the specifics of the evidence shouting down anyone who points out that the conviction was clearly unsafe and likely to have been overturned on appeal, I think it's relevant to remind ourself of the full circumstances. The families have been wealthy for nearly 20 years, and getting wealthier as further installments are paid. It doesn't go away just because thinking about it is uncomfortable.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

You make it sound like Rolfe was suggesting the families actually sold their loved ones across the river Styx to get that money. I think the facts of many million payouts is relevant in why American families haven't spoken up. It can't be the whole picture,as British relatives I think got their share of Libya's money as well.

They're a very disparate group. It's common knowledge that some of the families refused to touch a penny, either because they saw it as tainted blood money, or because they didn't believe the Official Version of what happened. Who these people are is not known, though. I imagine it would be a very difficult offer to refuse unless you were already independently wealthy.

And that 15 minutes things is not an option anyway, so... they'll probably be keeping it and the complexity that would arise if they ever had to admit Libya wasn'tat fault after all. Can you see how that might be awkward at least?

I don't think there was ever any question of the relatives having to give up any compensation even if Megrahi's appeal had been successful. But neither would the entire gross GDPs of Libya, Iran and the USA get them even 15 seconds with their lost loved one, never mind 15 minutes, so that's a pretty irrelevant comment.

The money exists. The relatives are wealthy. It's a relevant factor when considering how events are unfolding at the moment.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

This is how behind I am. It took me an hour of stumbling around to find Fraser's name, which rings me back to something I remember now from last year.

So...who's been telling the American mediathat Dr. Sikora's Libyan-paid 3 months prognosis that was responsible? Who has created a situation where one comment I saw described this as 'letting one terrorist diagnose another?'

Sorry, I could probably have found it sooner. I just can't get that aerated about the exact identity of the doctor who provided the acceptable prognosis.

There was quite a bit of annoyance at the time that more specialist doctors apparently hadn't been consulted, but this wasn't about Karol Sikora, it was about Andrew Fraser being "the single doctor" whose opinion was relied on. A doctor who was part of the establishment, employed by the prison service.

Karol Sikora was on TV, sounding impressive, but he was only the consultant retained by Libya, and nobody was under any obligation to listen to him. I think it was more of an ego-trip than anything.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

I don't think they need any encouragement over there to make crap up.

Well, true, but who cares? Nothing's going to change no matter how much they foam at the mouth.

I'd prefer to see them getting aerated about how come anyone could be convicted of murder on that evidence, but that ain't gonna happen, obviously.

Rolfe.