Merged Lockerbie bomber alive after 9 months

Colour me seriously unsurprised.

Rolfe.

ETA, a couple of hours on. I'm surprised this doesn't seem to have surfaced in one of the dedicated Libya threads.
 
Last edited:
It's been two hours. You got all of 18 views and no replies. This, to me, is odd. When I heard the story on the evening TV news, I thought it would be interesting to find out the take of the forumites on this development. I didn't think it would be crickets, I have to say.

Maybe tomorrow.

Rolfe.

It's got 28 views now but still no replies. It's sinking rapidly. Most peculiar.
 
Last edited:
From today's Scottish Sunday Express. More than half of Scots want Lockerbie probe.

MORE than half of Scots believe a Public Inquiry should be held into the Lockerbie bombing, according to an exclusive poll for the Scottish Sunday Express.

Our figures also reveal that most people do not believe Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi was guilty of Britain’s worst terror attack, despite being convicted by a Scottish court.

For the first time, a majority of Scots also back Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill’s controversial decision to send Megrahi home to Tripoli to die from terminal prostate cancer.


Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
The quietness across the Lockerbie boards has been interesting and surprising.

Mostly I'm surprised by the lack of folks piping-up with a "Told you so" response to CIA/MI6/Libya inter-intelligence. The paranoiacs have not played to form. Heck, it seems like even the paranoid have run-out of imagination. Or have the last 20 years entirely passed folk by?

Also the recent lack of vitriol poured upon Libyan "shills" and "whores" has all of a sudden dried up. Jeez, were the USA and UK govts trying to draw a line, moving forward?

Sadly, the impossibility of Mr Megrahi's conviction is not going to be looked at with any seriousness. His guilt of the crime, as determined by Zeist, belongs in the realm of unicorns and faeries. Total woo. Real politic took over the moment the investigation was launched.

We might never know how the plot and execution of the bombing was accomplished, but I hope that Mr Megrahi lives long enough to know that he is exonerated, at an official level, of any wrong doing.

Persons, if any, that could have halted the bomb plot did not do so. The group that caused the disaster might not be brought to justice. Time to deal with it.


CTB
 
Last edited:
I remember all these declarations that evidence of how Lockerbie was accomplished and who did it and how Gadaffi was involved might surface once Tripoli fell. We still have no idea how Megrahi levitated an invisible suitcase on a plane at Luqa without an accomplice and without going airside, or how he whisked it past the x-ray screening at Frankfurt without the radio being spotted, or how he manoeuvred it into the perfect position in the baggage container at Heathrow when he was a thousand miles away.

We do know about some other things, though.

Rolfe.
 
More pictures on BBC News at Ten of Megrahi tonight along with Jeremy Bowen speaking to the former foreign minister who was suggesting that there was a link between prisoner exchange and a deal with BP. But again, that doesn't square with the Scottish Executive line.
 
More pictures on BBC News at Ten of Megrahi tonight along with Jeremy Bowen speaking to the former foreign minister who was suggesting that there was a link between prisoner exchange and a deal with BP. But again, that doesn't square with the Scottish Executive line.


Well, there was a link between the prisoner transfer agreement and a deal with BP. That was in 2007. When the deal was mooted, Tony thought he just had to tell Jack McConnell to agree, and that would be that.

Then the SNP won the election, just about the time the deal was finalised, and Tony found he couldn't deliver. Despite wheedling letters from Jack Straw, Kenny MacAskill told the UK government that he would not agree to the prisoner transfer.

And that's the simple facts, easily verifiable. What happened in 2009 was something else again.

Rolfe.
 
Harrumph; I think Executive has a nicer ring to it. It sounds more grown up. ;)

As maybe, but I would read that the Scottish Executive as being an office of the Westminster parliament in Scotland ie controlled by London. I've heard 'em described as the Scottish Office, even.

The Scottish government, however, is a different ballgame. It wasn't set-up that way, of course.

Since 2007 the Scottish government has been the SNP. They're happy that they're not the Tories or Labour or the whaddya-call 'ems. ( Basically, all Unionist parties )

At best the SNP are contrary to whatever London says.

As for truth, justice and the best interests of the 'people' ? Pah! They're politicians and want an easy ride. Empty suits lacking courage. Intelligence of the average midge. If you want a study in willful ignorance then the current Scottish government is your lesson 101.

Amazingly, for such clueless ineptitude, you'll never see one of 'em blush.

Maybe one day they'll be flat-out corrupt like the Senators-for-Sale in the USA, who are capable of reading any script for the rich.


If there is to be justice regards the bombing of Pan Am 103 then the politicians have to be sidelined first. IMO, buying votes on the back of such tragedy is pathetic.



CTB
 
Last edited:
You know, the more I think where this is all leading, I cannot believe that Salmond and McAskill have opted to put themselves and their respective long and illustrious careers (and perhaps the SNP's astonishing, and merited, resurgence in Scotland) at jeopardy over this whole affair.

Why oh why did they not appreciate how quite obviously woeful the original courts findings were and that together with the very apparent growing scepticism - strengthened by the SCCRC determination - not ensure Megrahi's appeal concluded and granted compassionate release if deemed appropriate? Yes, I understand the huge political ramifications, not too mention the damning indictment of the Scottish justice system. However, allowing the conclusion of the appeal no matter the implications, would have also represented an acknowledgement of the failures this particular huge and complex case had produced, and as Salmond is so keen on reiterating the justice system is a cornerstone of the SNP's claims for complete independence, while reinforcing their own committment to separation, morally and politically, from their old rulers in Westminster.

Essentially, the problem I now foresee is that, one way or another, the absurdity and utter irrational nature of the original conviction of Megrahi will be exposed. Perhaps it will be another 6months, or even another 6 years, but inevitably it will emerge. The growing disbelief, notably from very highly respected sources from within the justice system itself, the pressure being applied from the continuing debating over the JFM petition for an public enquiry, the calls for the SCCRC report to be made public, and on Megrahi's imminent death, the undoubted applications that will be made to take up the dropped appeal, seem to me to have only one inevitable outcome, even if only one of these propositions comes to pass.

This could cause immense damage to the SNP, and almost certainly cast a huge stain on the remarkable career of Salmond and his invaluable role in the incredible revival of the SNP in Scotland bringing about historic results. And yet quite simply taking the bull by the horns with regards to the Megrahi case in 2007 and 2009 may well have firmly established the SNP as not only attempting to right an obvious wrong, none of which had occurred under its administration, but demonstrated their sincerity and seriousness for its ideology of separation and independent of westminster. Sadly, it appears they have, for reasons I may never fully understand, allowed themselves to be complicit in the continuing lies and outrageous miscarriage of justice that was allowed to transpire.

.
 
Last edited:
This could cause immense damage to the SNP, and almost certainly cast a huge stain on the remarkable career of Salmond and his invaluable role in the incredible revival of the SNP in Scotland bringing about historic results. And yet quite simply taking the bull by the horns with regards to the Megrahi case in 2007 and 2009 may well have firmly established the SNP as not only attempting to right an obvious wrong, none of which had occurred under its administration, but demonstrated their sincerity and seriousness for its ideology of separation and independent of westminster. Sadly, it appears they have, for reasons I may never fully understand, allowed themselves to be complicit in the continuing lies and outrageous miscarriage of justice that was allowed to transpire.

Well there are various reasons why from a political POV it would have been a rather risky course.

Probably the most direct one is that the Scottish legal system has picked up certain habits from the English and welsh one and as a result it would in all likelihood react badly to the executive trying to overrule it's decisions.
 
I don't know what's going on in that respect. I think the justice system can lean quite hard on politicians though, and politicians often take briefings at face value without themselves questioning what they are told. I think it's likely that Salmond et al. have been told by their inside advisors that the conviction was sound. Possibly in much the same terms that Ming Campbell was on about.

This isn't that easy to figure out from first principles. If, instead of reading Paul Foot and Hans Kochler, politicians are being briefed by Crown Office insiders, it might look a lot different. Are busy cabinet ministers going to spend their time reading around the subject to see if they can falsify the informed briefings they're being given?

So I think they swallowed the Crown Office line. I also think Alex Salmond in particular is not used to being wrong. He's not often wrong. And admitting he was wrong isn't in his repertoire as far as I know. He's stuck his neck out and stated that he doesn't doubt the safety of the conviction. It probably seemed like a reasonable position to take at the time.

It was quite instructive, having that dialogue with Ming Campbell. He knows best, he has made up his mind on the basis of the evidence, and he is a lawyer so his opinion trumps us mere mortals. Everything anyone said to him (me, Marcello Mega, Robert Forrester and other informed individuals) was either laughed off or dismissed as "I don't agree".

I think when someone gets into that closed-minded position, it is hard to shake them out of it. Nobody can re-think their position unless they are open to the possibility that their position may be wrong. You can present the evidence, but it's like talking to a brick wall. The Gauci identification is fine because a partial identification is perfectly acceptable if there is other evidence, and there was a lot of other evidence. And so on.

I imagine the Scottish government has been subjected to a fairly constant diet of this, and kept well away from Foot, Kochler, Morrison, Mega et al. These people are probably branded "conspiracy theorists". The First Minister and the Justice Secretary do not have the time to read the depth of the discussion on the issues, and frankly they don't have the open minds. They're used to being briefed on the issues, and they accept the contents of the briefings they are given. The briefings say the conviction is sound.

It was a big mistake, but I think it could be some time before any of them realise it. At the moment they're clinging to their preconceived opinion, and you will not reason them out of it because they didn't reason themselves into it in the first place. Until the news comes from those giving them official briefings, they may not allow themselves even to contemplate that they're completely wrong.

Or that's my take on the matter, anyway,

Rolfe.
 

Back
Top Bottom