You know, that
Fox News piece, and the comments on Prof Black's blog by Michael, perfectly illustrate the way false beliefs can be upheld, contrary to many indisputable inquiries on the conviction itself, and is actually something that should be, in the end, pitied. If only Fox, or anyone who continually aligns themselves with such blatantly subjective reporting, could apply the same amount of effort, insight and scepticism to the original judgement and its irrational and unsound conclusions, then perhaps everyone, perhaps even the fervid, ever-angry and misinformer Frank Duggan, may find themselves more at ease with the doubters and their own positions. Give
us a break eh Frank?
I mean come on, all the talk of an absent catheter or if his bed clothes aren't sufficiently creased is quite pathetic. As I said, pitiful really.
Even accepting the assertions made in the
Fox report that a terminally ill man may not be quite on his 'death bed' (in the midst of civil war) as it might appear, what exactly is this assertion, were it true, meant to achieve or justify?
To assuage the feelings held by many, in spite of the doubts over the conviction, and that they are unable to counter or challenge? To reinforce long-held prejudices, and that if he is caught lying about how close to death he might be, then this merely shows that he is a liar = terrorist that bombed 103? That it demonstrates how he should be immediately dumped back into a prison cell because he is a liar and that, once again obviously, proves that the man is not to be trusted and he is terrorist who should rot in a cell?
The wiley ole 'Shep' then goes on to more critical areas of Megrahi's unsound conviction in the discussion on Fox: his release for nothing less than an oil deal between the UK, BP and Libya. Is it just a
Fox thing where the entire crux of any discussion, not to mention the facts, are simply disregarded in order fit with the editorial and viewers preconceived opinions? Because that is exactly all they achieve in this piece. Perhaps I'm unfair to single out Fox on this, given much the same is parrotted on various US and UK media outlets, but a more skewed, and yet obviously detailed, report I find hard to recall.
They also appear to be quite determined to avoid any mention and thus implication of Tony Blair, dare I say darling to the right-wing warmongers, in any of the shenanigans involved in the deal in the desert with Gadaffi. Oil contracts in the Libyan fields that only emerged from the initial payment of compensation to the Pan Am relatives being made by the Libyan govt, which also allowed the lifting of sanctions opening up further lucrative possibilities that Sen McCain and Ms Rice were also quick to take advantage of under the Bush administration.
(Of course, what is always used as a backdrop, not only to our recent intervention in Libya and the fact that the Libyan govt were a bad lot, but as basis that 'Libya is bad', it should also be noted is that while the Libyan govt were apparently not only ordering the blowing up of airliners but also supplying arms to an assortment of terror groups, all the while the US and UK govt's were arming Saddam in Iraq and providing economic and military support to an aparteid regime in South Africa.)
As a side note to any discussions on the deal in the desert and Blair being unaware that judicial matters were not for the UK govt to determine, it must be remembered that when Blair met with Gadaffi for the 'deal in the desert', and the memo of understanding for Prisoner Transfers, it was not the SNP govt who were in charge of the Scottish parliament or would take decisions relating to the Scottish justice system. It was Labour under Jack McConnell. Say no more.
Of course, none of this is subjected to the same scrutiny as Fox's and Shep's view that clearly Scottish govt's false and corrupt reasoning for the compassionate release, while the UK govt and Gordon Brown sought to place pressure on the SNP while all the time smoothing the diplomatic road for the 'transfer' in the background. What the 'Scot's' had to gain from capitulation is not made clear - and any reference to any possible pressure from an on-going second appeal is not in-keeping with the 'Fox line', and is just as alien as is the merest suggestion of compassion for a terminally ill man.
As William Clifford claimed, perhaps demanding too stringent parameters, that any belief held on inadequate inquiry or insufficient evidence is wrong. Blind faith as he called it, and although his entire argument does face challenges, amended to the thought that were people are able to inquire, as they most certainly are with regards to the Megrahi conviction, then they
ought to only hold beliefs supported by the evidence presented. Otherwise falsely held beliefs by some will have to be seen to be supported by other associated or unrelated received 'truths' which do nothing to address the fundamental and most critical values held up to be true.
Fox News and its viewers should need an apparent 'no spin zone' after that dizzying spin on the 'facts' on Megrahi. If only some other distantly Irish descendant loon could provide that…O'Really?
.
