US & UK Intelligence Agencies Cosied up to Gaddaffi

[FireGarden]

Yeah, that Galloway is a strong opponent of hypocrisy!

Most hypocrites are! Or they say they are....

 

[Architect]

I had no idea this was specifically about the Megrahi case from the OP>

They key issues raised in the OP and subsequent postings are Menendez, his (very) public pronunciations on hypocrisy, his more recent resolution condeming his the Gaddafi regime and his silence on the US-Libyan cooperation. Apologies if the line of discussion was unclear to you for some reason.

Yeah, that Galloway is a strong opponent of hypocrisy!

See above quotes about trusting the oily little toad as far as I can see him. I'm even happy for you to mention Rula Lenska, if it makes you happy.

Nobody should be surprised that deals are made with despots/dictators/assorted bad guys for economic and political reasons. After all, western democracies are quite happy to make deals with Iran and China and Saudi Arabia. You shouldn't need George Galloway to tell you this.

See comments above re: Menendez

But what sets this case apart is the impression that Scotland was trading justice for 270 murder victims in exchange for an oil contract, which crosses the line of acceptability for many people.

As it would we Scots. If it were true. But it isn't.

All you have to do now, to support your apparent line of arguement, is explain why an SNP diametrically opposed to Westminster and with nothing to gain from a BP deal in Libya would become complicit in such an issue. Hint: The Scottish Press looked in vain and got nowehere, so don't hold your breath whilst you continue the hunt.

It's one thing to trade money or goods, quite another to trade justice.

Correct. And that's why you may wish to avail yourself of the various posts made by Rolfe and others regarding Mr. Tony Gucci and his ever-changing testimony following the offering of a seven-figure payout by US authorities if he gave evidence.

These last two points are, however, something of a derail.

So, Wildcat, when do you expect Menendez to start condeming his government for instigating cooperation with the Libyan regime which he hates so much? Or was Galloway right about the hypocrisy of the USG?

 

[Nogbad]

As far as I can see Scotland was criticised for releasing a sick man whilst Western security forces returned a healthy dissident to Libya to be tortured.

Now I understand that in real politik one has to hold one's nose from time to time when dealing with unsavoury characters but the latter really does seem to be in a league of cosiness that one would expect of the closest ties not reluctant ones.

I'm beginning to think that despite public utterances from some quarters, no one in the actual corridors of power either side of the Atlantic was privately all that bothered when Scotland released Megrahi.

Obviously the chap that was renditioned to Libya by the CIA may have issues (I'm sure most of us would have). Whether this will ultimately impact on longer term relationships is another matter - a little perhaps.

 

[Nogbad]

But what sets this case apart is the impression that Scotland was trading justice for 270 murder victims in exchange for an oil contract, which crosses the line of acceptability for many people. It's one thing to trade money or goods, quite another to trade justice.

Wildcat - can you please state clearly which oil contract the Scottish Government negotiated with Gadaffi?

Why do people persist with this? The Scottish Government would barely give the London Government the time of day. They are two separate political parties who really do not like each other. Under the devolution settlement only the London Government has the power to conduct foreign policy.

Incidentally, the very week Scotland released Megrahi, John McCain and three other senators were in Libya discussing security trade links and signed off on a deal regarding security technology. It wasn't just London who were courting Gadaffi and his improved mood towards the West. This was a real visit discussing real trade as opposed a mythical Scottish contract on oil.

Whatever London and Washington got up to after Megrahi's release is for them to explain, not Edinburgh.

 

[Soapy Sam]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14783071

 

[Rolfe]

Also this. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/sep/04/lockerbie-libya-documents-megrahi-release

Especially this bit.

Darling denied a deal was done to secure Megrahi's release. "There is no doubt that from our point of view we wanted to bring Gaddafi in from the cold because at the time we thought that was possible, and there is no doubt that Gaddafi wanted al-Megrahi out," he told BBC1's The Andrew Marr Show.

"However, all this hangs on the willingness of the British Labour government doing a deal with the Scottish nationalist government, and anyone who knows anything about Scottish politics knows there is such a visceral dislike between the two the idea there was some kind of collaboration between the two just seems to be nonsense."

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Menendez and co. are hypocrites. They're many other things too, like extremely annoying in their grandstanding about "justice" and "the Lockerbie bomber."

I could add more, but I need to cut it off there.

 

[geni]

So what lessons do we draw from this when dealing with Iran and China?

Not comparible. China is the world's second largest economy and iran shares a boader with afganistan. US has no choice but to have dealings with them.

Libya has a far smaller economy and the strategic significance of a banana.

Lessions from libya would be more relivant to dealing with the likes of Equatorial Guinea and Mauritania.

 

[Architect]

The Scottish papers are now pointing out that representatives of the USG visited Libya in order to discuss trade issues at the same time as ol' Tony did the "Deal in the Desert". I'll see if I can find some links.

Menendez will doubtless be preparing a real broadside at his fellow politicians on this. eh?

ETA: Came across this but it's not what I was thinking of:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/24/muammar-gaddafi-us-business-lobby_n_827769.html

 

[commandlinegamer]

From the article in the OP -"The documents, found by Human Rights Watch workers, have not been seen by the BBC or independently verified."

Remember the papers that showed George Galloway was in credit to the tune of a million barrels of oil (or something ridiculous), discovered by I think Christian Science Monitor which turned out to be forgeries.

These security service links may well be genuine but now would also a great time to sow disinformation regarding this, Lockerbie, or any other contentious issue while the régime is in transition.

 

[Architect]

Ah well, so now it seems (note the caution there) that our own intelligence agencies might have been a bit too paly with ol' murdered Gaddaffi:

See reference to "note of caution" and "seems".

 

[Skeptic]

The facts seem to be simple: intelligence agencies who need information are willing to make secret "deals" with shady characters. Said shady character, being a lunatic dictator for over 40 years, is deposed by people so sick of his crap they finally revolt.

Well?

The interpretation of these two rather unsurpirsing facts, so far as I can make it out from the usual anti-USA, ant-western gang, is that the USA is evil because it helped Quadaffi and also that the USA is evil because it toppled Quaddafi.

Ah well, logical consistencyt was never their strong point.

 

[Architect]

So you don't think Menendez & chums are being hypocritical?

 

[Rolfe]

The stuff that was coming out on TV this evening was frankly jaw-dropping. "Cosying-up" doesn't begin to describe it.

Rolfe.

 

[geni]

The facts seem to be simple: intelligence agencies who need information are willing to make secret "deals" with shady characters. Said shady character, being a lunatic dictator for over 40 years, is deposed by people so sick of his crap they finally revolt.

Well?

Handing over the future head of security in tripoli to be tortured is what could be described as a political miscalculation.

I admit the moral highground may not be all it's cracked up to be but that kind of action falls under actively avoiding it.

Even if you prepfer you politics to be completely amoral its still a remarkebly stupid thing to do.

 

[Architect]

And if you do prefer politics to be completely amoral then it's a bit rich having your senators taking pot shots at the UK whilst the USG makes deals with Libya itself.

 

[Architect]

I guess it was just a drive-by spamming from Sceptic.

 

[Johny2x4]

The facts seem to be simple: intelligence agencies who need information are willing to make secret "deals" with shady characters. Said shady character, being a lunatic dictator for over 40 years, is deposed by people so sick of his crap they finally revolt.

Well?

The interpretation of these two rather unsurpirsing facts, so far as I can make it out from the usual anti-USA, ant-western gang, is that the USA is evil because it helped Quadaffi and also that the USA is evil because it toppled Quaddafi.

Ah well, logical consistencyt was never their strong point.

So we should just shrug and accept this? Okaaaay.

 

[jayh]

So now that the Monday morning quarterbacking is over, what about next Sunday's game?

Are we supposed to engage Iran, or are we supposed to isolate them and have nothing to do with them until they become a liberal western democracy? What about China?

Engaging is fine. It is legal with any government. Renditioning prisoners is illegal, and opposed to what supposedly an enlightened democracy stands for. We have no business whatsoever helping them torture at the same time our government condemns those governments human rights records.

 

[Pardalis]

Sometimes I get the feeling the government and the intelligence agencies work against each other. Proves to show that the government is not a monolithic entity that works towards a single goal, but an amalgam of different interests.