Lockerbie bomber may be released

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The point of a life sentence is you die in prison. Period.

[Scam of God]

I am absolutely appalled the people are so laissez faire

We know that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good question. The answer is: we shouldn't. The State has no business enforcing morality through the act of taxation.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Ah, Gordon Brown has the Midas touch in reverse, i.e. everything he touches turns to (well, you know).

From The Mail Online:

Gaddafi embraces Lockerbie bomber and thanks his 'courageous friend' Gordon Brown for releasing himBy James Chapman and Ian Drury
Last updated at 2:52 PM on 22nd August 2009

The international furore over the release of the Lockerbie bomber deepened today after he was seen embracing Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi.
In scenes that will provoke outrage among victims' families and the U.S. government, TV footage showed Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi meeting Gaddafi in Tripoli.

It came as Gordon Brown faced fresh pressure after shocking claims by Libya that the release of the bomber was linked explicity to trade deals benefiting Britain.

[Scam of God]

Good, good. One less opportunity for the State to exert its stranglehold over the monopolization of discipline (and punishment).

[Silent Hunter]

Gordon Brown didn't make the decision though. The Scottish government did.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Gordon Brown didn't make the decision though. The Scottish government did.

Yes Mr. Robot, thank you for the official word on yet another matter.

[Scam of God]

Gordon Brown didn't make the decision though. The Scottish government did.

Yes Mr. Robot, thank you for the official word on yet another matter.

All hail the State! State over all! All hail the State! State over all!

[afleitch]

Gordon Brown didn't make the decision though. The Scottish government did.

Very true. Though I agree with those who are annoyed that he has not given a statement on the matter when he could give a statement on England v Croatia, the death of Michael Jackson and Susan Boyle's mental health.

[dead0man]

It came as Gordon Brown faced fresh pressure after shocking claims by Libya that the release of the bomber was linked explicity to trade deals benefiting Britain.

<ahem>

What are the odds this is related?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Man if only Bush the Lesser was involved somehow!  Then our UK friends would know which side to be on.  This...this is confusing!  I can empathize.

[GMantis]

It's an outrage that the British government deals with this excuse for a human being! And they have the gall to lecture other countries on human rights!

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Ah, Gordon Brown has the Midas touch in reverse, i.e. everything he touches turns to (well, you know).

From The Mail Online:

Gaddafi embraces Lockerbie bomber and thanks his 'courageous friend' Gordon Brown for releasing himBy James Chapman and Ian Drury
Last updated at 2:52 PM on 22nd August 2009

The international furore over the release of the Lockerbie bomber deepened today after he was seen embracing Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi.
In scenes that will provoke outrage among victims' families and the U.S. government, TV footage showed Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi meeting Gaddafi in Tripoli.

It came as Gordon Brown faced fresh pressure after shocking claims by Libya that the release of the bomber was linked explicity to trade deals benefiting Britain.

Except Gordon Brown had nothing to do with this.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

But he's Scottish isn't he! And it was the Scottish Government that released Megrahi, right?!!

---

In all seriousness, the idea that an SNP minister (especially one as flamingly nationalistic as McAskill!) did something because Gordon Brown told him to do it is risible. Maybe Whitehall did think that releasing Megrahi would be good for relations with Libya (it probably will be, fwiw), but no one south of the border was actually in any position to order McAskill (or Salmond) around over this.

[Democratic Hawk]

[CARLHAYDEN]

Ah, Gordon Brown has the Midas touch in reverse, i.e. everything he touches turns to (well, you know).

From The Mail Online:

Gaddafi embraces Lockerbie bomber and thanks his 'courageous friend' Gordon Brown for releasing himBy James Chapman and Ian Drury
Last updated at 2:52 PM on 22nd August 2009

The international furore over the release of the Lockerbie bomber deepened today after he was seen embracing Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi.
In scenes that will provoke outrage among victims' families and the U.S. government, TV footage showed Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi meeting Gaddafi in Tripoli.

It came as Gordon Brown faced fresh pressure after shocking claims by Libya that the release of the bomber was linked explicity to trade deals benefiting Britain.

Except Gordon Brown had nothing to do with this.

Was the Lockerbie release bad diplomacy, or good business?
However lucrative the deals that may result, Megrahi should not have been released, says John Bolton.
 
By John Bolton
Published: 6:58AM BST 24 Aug 2009

Comments 102 | Comment on this article

Outrage was the uniform American response to Scotland's release last week of Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi, the man convicted of blowing Pan Am 103 out of the sky over Lockerbie in December, 1988. Two hundred and seventy innocent people died in that act of terrorism, of whom 189 were Americans, many of them students on their way home to celebrate Christmas with their families.

Outrage also greeted the public celebration of Megrahi's arrival in Libya and his warm reception from Muammar Gaddafi. These manifestations of insensitivity only highlight the shamefulness of Britain's fundamental mistake in letting Megrahi go free, regardless of his condition. "Compassion" has no place here. Releasing him to die at home means that he has spent less than two weeks in jail for each of his 270 victims. They never made it home.

The justifiable disgust over Megrahi's release sadly underlines what amounts to a spectacular failure of American diplomacy. "Obamamania" overseas is a dominant theme of the media, endlessly recounting how the US position in the world has
improved since President Bush's departure. "Engagement" with friend and adversary alike is the Obama administration's hallmark, with diplomatic advances expected to flow like wine.

So what happened? The state department said on Friday that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton worked "for weeks and months" to persuade Britain not to release the murderer. Both Washington and London all but begged Gaddafi not to hold public celebrations on Megrahi's arrival in Tripoli. Yet Britain, the other half of the "special relationship", ignored Clinton's efforts, as did Libya, which only recently resumed full diplomatic relations with America.

This is effective US diplomacy? This is one of the tangible benefits of Obamamania? The purported "decision" by Scotland (under whose laws America, Britain and Libya agreed Megrahi would be tried) was almost surely taken at the behest of Prime Minister Gordon Brown's Government. Even worse, Gaddafi's son, Saif al-Islam, and Lord Trefgarne, president of the Libyan-British Business Council, have both essentially confirmed that Megrahi's release was intended to facilitate enhanced commercial relationships between Britain and Libya. Gaddafi said the release "will be positively reflected for sure in all areas of co-operation between the two countries". Is there any doubt of his meaning?

Cabinet protestations to the contrary are increasingly hollow, as inconvenient new evidence, such as Foreign Office minister Ivan Lewis's letter to Scotland's justice secretary, demonstrates. For sure, there was no "deal" between Brown and Gaddafi or their underlings, no signed contract, no express quid pro quo between Megrahi's release and business for Britain. In reality, of course, that is not the way it's done. All denials of such an explicit transaction are probably "the truth", but not the whole truth. Sequencing the release and the subsequent contracts was designed to enhance official deniability, but the linkage is palpable to all concerned.

Expert Cabinet spin cannot hide the emerging reality. Some say Brown listened to those British victims' families who still doubt Megrahi's guilt. Why does he have so little faith in Scottish justice? And if Scotland (birthplace of two of my grandparents) can't get mass terrorism right, what does that tell foreigners thinking about visiting?

In fact, this is merely the latest example of a fundamentally flawed American approach to international terrorism, begun in the Clinton administration. Although rejected by the Bush administration in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the Clinton philosophy that terrorism was simply a law-enforcement matter is again in vogue in full force under President Obama. Both the first President Bush and President Clinton should have treated the destruction of Pan Am 103 as an attack on the US and responded accordingly. This mass murder was not simply a bank robbery writ large; it was an act of state aggression almost surely directed by Libya's government, then, as now, in Gaddafi's hands.

At the barest minimum, the Clinton administration should never have agreed that Megrahi could be tried in Scotland, which does not provide the death penalty for murder, or even for mass terrorism or any other crime. In America, after a trial at least as fair as Scotland's, and appeals exhausted, Megrahi would not now be in a position to ask for clemency. Nor should the US and the UK have agreed that Megrahi's trial would "not be used to undermine the Libyan regime", in the language of the UN letter that facilitated Megrahi's transfer to Scottish custody 10 years ago. His release will be widely seen, especially by terrorists and their state sponsors, as one more act of Western appeasement. Gaddafi will wonder again why, five years ago, he gave up his nuclear and chemical weapons programmes.

Next month in New York President Obama will preside over a UN Security Council meeting on non-proliferation. All of the council's 15 heads of government are expected to attend, including Brown and Gaddafi. Perhaps the three of them will pose together for the cameras. It should be a very cosy scene, but with no Obamamania.

[Franzl]

Now I oppose the release quite strongly, but John Bolton isn't the brightest fellow, is he?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Bolton obviously doesn't understand how things work in Scotland these days. No one in Westminster or Whitehall was in any position to force the Scottish Government to do anything over this (unless they had photos of Salmond in a compromising position or something. And even then...) The most they could have done - and what they seem to have done - is make it clear that they wouldn't kick up a fuss if he was released.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This is equivalent as to if a Governor granted early release to a rather monstrous killer and then Obama was blamed for it. Actually come to think of it in such a scenario the usual crew probably WOULD blame Obama for it so it's not surprising.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

People so agrivated about this should read this:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n12/mile01_.html

http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2009/01/02/20-years-later-the-lockerbie-terror-attack-is-not-as-solved-as-we-think.html

http://leninology4.blogspot.com/2007/06/paul-foot-john-ashtons-1995.html (This is a copy of a guardian article by Paul Foot and John Ashton in 1995 reviewing the case)

I don't about you, but there seems to be some common ground to show his innocence (and tbh I am still totally unclear on what possible motive Libya would have for doing this.)

[Franzl]

People so agrivated about this should read this:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n12/mile01_.html

http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2009/01/02/20-years-later-the-lockerbie-terror-attack-is-not-as-solved-as-we-think.html

http://leninology4.blogspot.com/2007/06/paul-foot-john-ashtons-1995.html (This is a copy of a guardian article by Paul Foot and John Ashton in 1995 reviewing the case)

I don't about you, but there seems to be some common ground to show his innocence (and tbh I am still totally unclear on what possible motive Libya would have for doing this.)

I understand there are concerns, but he was still convicted by a Scottish court....and although it's not really the real subject of debate (neither on this site or in the media), his release was on "compassionate grounds", not anything having to do with the original verdict. And I don't like the principle of "compassionate" releases due to poor health....my opposition to this isn't entirely based on this case alone.

[bullmoose88]

People so agrivated about this should read this:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n12/mile01_.html

http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2009/01/02/20-years-later-the-lockerbie-terror-attack-is-not-as-solved-as-we-think.html

http://leninology4.blogspot.com/2007/06/paul-foot-john-ashtons-1995.html (This is a copy of a guardian article by Paul Foot and John Ashton in 1995 reviewing the case)

I don't about you, but there seems to be some common ground to show his innocence (and tbh I am still totally unclear on what possible motive Libya would have for doing this.)

I understand there are concerns, but he was still convicted by a Scottish court....and although it's not really the real subject of debate (neither on this site or in the media), his release was on "compassionate grounds", not anything having to do with the original verdict. And I don't like the principle of "compassionate" releases due to poor health....my opposition to this isn't entirely based on this case alone.

That seems to be the rub.  I suppose some forummers could say that the appeals process is inherently biased against the guy, but while there are alternative explanations for the crime none have been sufficient thus far to reverse the conviction, nor has there been any other sort of prejudicial error that could reverse his conviction.

Ah well.

[afleitch]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6814939.ece

' The British government decided it was “in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom” to make Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, eligible for return to Libya, leaked ministerial letters reveal.

Gordon Brown’s government made the decision after discussions between Libya and BP over a multi-million-pound oil exploration deal had hit difficulties. These were resolved soon afterwards.

The letters were sent two years ago by Jack Straw, the justice secretary, to Kenny MacAskill, his counterpart in Scotland, who has been widely criticised for taking the formal decision to permit Megrahi’s release.

The correspondence makes it plain that the key decision to include Megrahi in a deal with Libya to allow prisoners to return home was, in fact, taken in London for British national interests. '

----

This seems to confirm an increasing sentiment in Scottish political circles that we were made the 'fall guy' for a London. If we were indeed deliberately handed a 'hot potato' then I will be pretty pissed off.

It may also explain Gordons silence....

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This seems to confirm an increasing sentiment in Scottish political circles that we were made the 'fall guy' for London.

I can see why it might be tempting to assume that, but it doesn't really fit with any information out there at the moment*, including that article - Megrahi was not sent back to Libya under a prisoner transfer agreement. Of course, that negotiations of various sorts have been going on between British and Libyan governments for a while explains the quiet noises from the former over this - but we knew that already.

*Nor, putting this perhaps a little bluntly, with the tone taken by the Scottish Government at the time of the release. Fall guys don't generally drone on for nearly half an hour about the moral superiority of the justice system**. IMO the reaction to the release has taken both governments by surprise. Probably the best thing to do now would be to hold an inquiry into what actually happend at Lockerbie - things are enough disputed as to warrant that, now the appeal's been dropped.

**I have nothing against the Scottish justice system, many things against MacAskill's incredibly boring voice. Must be the only man north of the border with a boring voice...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Note for Americans thinking about boycotting holiday's to Scotland or whatever - Lockerbie is a nice little town in a beautiful part of the world (Dumfriesshire) and, of course, suffered in the atrocity itself. Note also that it doesn't vote for any of the three parties to have been part of Scottish Governments, being so Tory that all four of its polling divisions voted for the hapless Murray Tosh in 2007. So go on holiday to Lockerbie instead.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Ah, Gordon Brown has the Midas touch in reverse, i.e. everything he touches turns to (well, you know).

From The Mail Online:

Gaddafi embraces Lockerbie bomber and thanks his 'courageous friend' Gordon Brown for releasing himBy James Chapman and Ian Drury
Last updated at 2:52 PM on 22nd August 2009

The international furore over the release of the Lockerbie bomber deepened today after he was seen embracing Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi.
In scenes that will provoke outrage among victims' families and the U.S. government, TV footage showed Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi meeting Gaddafi in Tripoli.

It came as Gordon Brown faced fresh pressure after shocking claims by Libya that the release of the bomber was linked explicity to trade deals benefiting Britain.

Except Gordon Brown had nothing to do with this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6140801/Jack-Straw-admits-Lockerbie-bombers-release-was-linked-to-oil.html

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Carl, Megrahi was not actually sent back to Libya under a prisoner transfer agreement. The Scottish Government (that is, the authority that released him) was actually opposed to letting him serve out his term elsewhere.