Al Megrahi Released

[Moulin Yarns]

Just announced. released on compassionate grounds, rather than prisoner transfer.

served two weeks in prison for every victim.

Heading back to Libya to a heroes welcome no doubt.

[flash]

Wrong forum surely. Incidentally maybe they can think about locking up whoever actually did it.

[Gatecrasher]

shame, he looked some player as well :agree:

[PC Stamp]

If he hadn't been released my concern would be that Scotland then becomes a front line terrorist target. We've already had the Glasgow Airport incident which only by the grace of God wasn't catastrophic.

Release one individual who is medically proven as likely to die within 3 months or run the risk of an atrocity in which hundreds more innocents could die?

That's before we discuss (as Flash says) whether or not he was indeed the real perpetrator.

[Beefster]

shame, he looked some player as well :agree:

Inappropriate.

[Woody1985]

If he hadn't been released my concern would be that Scotland then becomes a front line terrorist target. We've already had the Glasgow Airport incident which only by the grace of God wasn't catastrophic.

Release one individual who is medically proven as likely to die within 3 months or run the risk of an atrocity in which hundreds more innocents could die?

That's before we discuss (as Flash says) whether or not he was indeed the real perpetrator.

So you think giving into the *******s is better? **** the terrorists, **** their religion or their political aim (I include all religions/politics in that).

Terrorist GTF ya bunch of sad *****.

Just my tuppence worth :greengrin

[hibsdaft]

Wrong forum surely. Incidentally maybe they can think about locking up whoever actually did it.

:agree::agree:

[Pete70]

Wrong forum surely. Incidentally maybe they can think about locking up whoever actually did it.


He was convicted in a court of law with the best defence available. Thats good enough for me. None of his civil liberties were infringed either. He showed no compassion in murdering 270 people so he should have been left to rot in prison.

Just my tuppence worth.

[--------]

So you think giving into the *******s is better? **** the terrorists, **** their religion or their political aim (I include all religions/politics in that).

Terrorist GTF ya bunch of sad *****.

Just my tuppence worth :greengrin


Oh dear. :rolleyes:

Like it or not, there is considerable doubt about the safety of Al-Megrahi's conviction.

Second, the US has absolutely NO right to lecture ANYONE on the subject of law or justice. The nation that invented Guantanamo Bay and extraordinary rendition should keep silence on those subjects.

Third, Ken MacAskill's decision on legal and humanitarian grounds will possibly gain Scotland a bit of respect in the Arab/Muslim world - a lot more than if he'd rolled over and done what Clinton and the Magnificent Seven were trying to bully him into doing.

[Gatecrasher]

Inappropriate.


jeezo, just a play on the OP being posted on the wrong forum ....

[Ritchie]

He was convicted in a court of law with the best defence available. Thats good enough for me. None of his civil liberties were infringed either. He showed no compassion in murdering 270 people so he should have been left to rot in prison.

Just my tuppence worth.

it was one of the biggest cover ups in history... the Iranian Goverment were to blame.... Al Megrahi had nothing to do with it.

just my tuppence worth.

[Pete70]

it was one of the biggest cover ups in history... the Iranian Goverment were to blame.... Al Megrahi had nothing to do with it.

just my tuppence worth.


What evidene do you have to support your statement. He was convicted in a Scottish court based on evidence submitted by the prosecution. If he had nothing to do with it he would have been found not guilty, no?

[--------]

What evidene do you have to support your statement. He was convicted in a Scottish court based on evidence submitted by the prosecution. If he had nothing to do with it he would have been found not guilty, no?


The evidence was supplied to the prosecution by the American and British intelligence services.

The SAME American and British intelligence services who were so certain that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction aimed at Israel and Europe and ready to go at (what did Bliar say in the Commons?) 45 minutes notice.

Just a question - whatever happened to the captain of the USS Vincennes?

[Pete70]

Oh what a dull world this would be without conspiracy theorists

[Onceinawhile]

Oh what a dull world this would be without conspiracy theorists

Your right we should all just accept whatever we are told without even thinking to question it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rs-nHQYY6Fg

[hibsdaft]

Oh what a dull world this would be without conspiracy theorists

not conspiracy theorys, folk high up in the court case know it was all very wrong and i have heard that near enough first hand.

tbh who knows if this decision was made based on what they're saying at face value or part of wider deals with Libya (i remember Blair visiting and signing an oil deal a few years ago i think ? ) or whatever

i doubt theres many out there who know what the true story on this is -murky stuff imo

[--------]

Oh what a dull world this would be without conspiracy theorists


Like Jim Swires, d'you mean?

And it's not 'conspiracy theory' to suggest that the nation that gave a heroes' welcome to the captain and crew of the Vincennes, and which has yet to make any sort of official apology for their actions, should be a little bit less self-righteous about Pan-Am 103?

[Groathillgrump]

The evidence was supplied to the prosecution by the American and British intelligence services.

The SAME American and British intelligence services who were so certain that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction aimed at israel and Europe and ready to go at (what did Bliar say in the Commons?) 45 minutes notice.

Just a question - whatever happened to the captain of the USS Vincennes?

As I'm sure you know Doddie, Captain William C Rogers, who in 1988 ordered a missile attack on an Iranian passenger plane which killed 290 innocent civilians, was awarded the Legion of Merit decoration "for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service as commanding officer ... from April 1987 to May 1989."

The award was given for his service as the Commanding Officer of the Vincennes, and the citation made no mention of the downing of Iran Air 655.*

*Source Wikipedia

A clear case of double standards by the Americans.

[Ritchie]

What evidene do you have to support your statement. He was convicted in a Scottish court based on evidence submitted by the prosecution. If he had nothing to do with it he would have been found not guilty, no?

suppose, they always get it right.... evidence has never been doctored in the past.....

this whole thing was bigger than the Scottish Court.... Much bigger.
we were only told what the Americain & British Goverments wanted us to hear.

the US blow a plane out the sky in Iran.... Iran get revenge by blowing a Pan Am flight out the sky....

sad tittle tattle politics which does nothing but do damage to innocent peoples. :agree:

[hibsdaft]

i'd never even heard of that plane the US blew up

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

[--------]

As I'm sure you know Doddie, Captain William C Rogers, who in 1988 ordered a missile attack on an Iranian passenger plane which killed 290 innocent civilians, was awarded the Legion of Merit decoration "for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service as commanding officer ... from April 1987 to May 1989."

The award was given for his service as the Commanding Officer of the Vincennes, and the citation made no mention of the downing of Iran Air 655.*

*Source Wikipedia

A clear case of double standards by the Americans.



You're right. I DID know.

What I DON'T know is why we should just assume that Libya should be responsible for downing an American airliner with nearly 300 people on board just a few months after an American warship had downed an Iranian airliner with nearly 300 people on board.

Now, maybe I'm oversimplifying here, but isn't it a wee bit more likely that it just might have been the Iranians who took down PA 103?

Especially in view of the way the destruction of IranAir 655 was treated by the American government and media ...

ALL I'm saying is that in view of the Vincennes/IranAir 655 incident - not to mention rendition, G'namo, etc - the US and its representatives should be a lot more circumspect in how they approach another country on the subjects of terrorism, law, justice, and what's right or wrong in dealing with legal cases resting entirely within that other country's jurisdiction ...

... not to mention the fact that the Westminster government allows the US to extradite British citizens for trial in the US, while the US refuses to allow any reciprocal arrangement. Including Scots, btw.

[--------]

i'd never even heard of that plane the US blew up

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655


Not surprised. We're the good guys - us and our Yanqui chums.

We don't do things like that. :rolleyes:

[Hibs Class]

You're right. I DID know.

What I DON'T know is why we should just assume that Libya should be responsible for downing an American airliner with nearly 300 people on board just a few months after an American warship had downed an Iranian airliner with nearly 300 people on board.

Now, maybe I'm oversimplifying here, but isn't it a wee bit more likely that it just might have been the Iranians who took down PA 103?

Especially in view of the way the destruction of IranAir 655 was treated by the American government and media ...

ALL I'm saying is that in view of the Vincennes/IranAir 655 incident - not to mention rendition, G'namo, etc - the US and its representatives should be a lot more circumspect in how they approach another country on the subjects of terrorism, law, justice, and what's right or wrong in dealing with legal cases resting entirely within that other country's jurisdiction ...

... not to mention the fact that the Westminster government allows the US to extradite British citizens for trial in the US, while the US refuses to allow any reciprocal arrangement. Including Scots, btw.

In April 1986 a US air attack on Libya killed on of Gadaffi's daughters, and I believe the attack began in, or was assisted by Britain. Not saying that it proves Libya was behind Lockerbie, but if you're looking for a motive then it fits the bill.

[--------]

Yeah. I'm not saying that the Libyans couldn't have done it. But in terms of timescale and the 'tit-for-tat' nature of the two incidents, Iran had the better motive.

I aklso object strongly to Hilary Clinton and the Magnifcent Seven issuing public statements telling our Justice Minister what to do.

They got us to do their dirty work in 2001-2. They shouldn't assume that the Scottish Judiciary exists as an instrument of their revenge.

Maybe Ken MacAskill and Alec Salmond should have asked them if they'd have preferred a full, frank, and entirely free Fatal Accident Inquiry into the incident? As Scots Law allows? Truth and closure, anyone? :cool2:

[NYHibby]

Third, Ken MacAskill's decision on legal and humanitarian grounds will possibly gain Scotland a bit of respect in the Arab/Muslim world - a lot more than if he'd rolled over and done what Clinton and the Magnificent Seven were trying to bully him into doing.

I've been flipping between between our MSNBC news channel and BBC world news (don't know if their coverage is different from what you get) and you can see a huge difference in how this is being covered. MSBNC is a kind of left lending channel but they are going on about how this is the worst thing that could happen. Scotland is being portrayed as some sort of lawless country with this super flawed legal system. One guy can had the audacity to try to suggest how the Scottish legal should be reformed. A victim brother's said he was calling on America to have a embargo on all commerce with the UK.

I didn't know about this Iranian flight. BBC has been saying that he may not have done it while the US channel hasn't mentioned that this is a possibility.

[Sylar]

His release on compassionate grounds doesn't exonerate him or proclaim his innocence.

If they're confident of his imminent death, it's perhaps nothing more than a money saver as any death within custody would result in an inquiry, even if unsuspicious (standard practice if there's a death within custody).

My uncle is a warden at a prison which previously held Megrahi and he doesn't believe he's guilty having reviewed his file on a couple of occasions.

[blaikie]

http://www.newsvine.com/_question/2009/08/19/3169384-should-the-lockerbie-bomber-be-released-on-compassionate-grounds

Jeezo some of those comments on the story from the MSBNC website are a bit strong. :bitchy:

[hibsdaft]

I aklso object strongly to Hilary Clinton and the Magnifcent Seven issuing public statements telling our Justice Minister what to do.

that if for no other reason is why i am glad that MacKaskil stood his ground.

whether you agree with his decision or not the worst thing for Scotland would have been for him to crumble on the back of pressure from outside.

[NYHibby]

I should add that a lot of these people talking this morning on American TV are victims' relatives.

A senator from New Jersey was on, and he seemed almost personally offended. He said that the Scottish legal system is corrupt and pompous.

[Ritchie]

more reason to hate americans..... they are the most corrupt people in the world.

most the trouble in this world stems from teh USA :grr:

[Sylar]

more reason to hate americans..... they are the most corrupt people in the world.

most the trouble in this world stems from teh USA :grr:

I used to think some of your posts were either tongue in cheek or used to initiate discussion.

Now I just think you're a half-wit.

[Ritchie]

I used to think some of your posts were either tongue in cheek or used to initiate discussion.

Now I just think you're an half-wit.

thanks :thumbsup:

[Darth Hibbie]

His release on compassionate grounds doesn't exonerate him or proclaim his innocence.

If they're confident of his imminent death, it's perhaps nothing more than a money saver as any death within custody would result in an inquiry, even if unsuspicious (standard practice if there's a death within custody).

My uncle is a warden at a prison which previously held Megrahi and he doesn't believe he's guilty having reviewed his file on a couple of occasions.

Totally correct. Given the high profile nature of the person involved the enquiry could cost a fortune. As it is I am sure there will be more than one theory as to how he got the cancer in the first place.



that if for no other reason is why i am glad that MacKaskil stood his ground.

whether you agree with his decision or not the worst thing for Scotland would have been for him to crumble on the back of pressure from outside.

:agree:

Once the decision was made then he had to stick to it. The debate about his guilt will never be concluded IMO of course.

[blaikie]

more reason to hate americans..... they are the most corrupt people in the world.

most the trouble in this world stems from teh USA :grr:
Your bordering racist to say you hate Americans, Would be much more accurate to say you hate the American government's foreign policy. Which I agree has caused many problems around the world but mostly in the Middle East. :agree:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_United_States

[Woody1985]

Oh dear. :rolleyes:

Like it or not, there is considerable doubt about the safety of Al-Megrahi's conviction.

Second, the US has absolutely NO right to lecture ANYONE on the subject of law or justice. The nation that invented Guantanamo Bay and extraordinary rendition should keep silence on those subjects.

Third, Ken MacAskill's decision on legal and humanitarian grounds will possibly gain Scotland a bit of respect in the Arab/Muslim world - a lot more than if he'd rolled over and done what Clinton and the Magnificent Seven were trying to bully him into doing.

I'm aware of that and have watched associated documentries in relation to it. I'm still undecided on his part to play in things and whether he should be in jail or not. I've no doubt that there were other bigger fish involved.

However, at the current time he is convicted of the crime and I'm undecided on whether he should be released or not on compassionate grounds. This probably comes down to the ambiguity of his conviction.

The point I was objecting to is the comment made about releasing convicted terrorists so other terrorist don't attack us again.

[Ritchie]

Your bordering racist to say you hate Americans, Would be much more accurate to say you hate the American government's foreign policy. Which I agree has caused many problems around the world but mostly in the Middle East. :agree:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_United_States

i think most people (well i hope) would know thats what i meant. :agree:

its not as if i go up town abusing american tourists. :rolleyes:

it is crazy however the difference between the american's media and british medias views and coverage of these events.

thanks for putting it a bit more grown up and 'pc' for me. :wink:

[blaikie]

i think most people (well i hope) would know thats what i meant. :agree:

its not as if i go up town abusing american tourists. :rolleyes:

it is crazy however the difference between the american's media and british medias views and coverage of these events.

thanks for putting it a bit more grown up and 'pc' for me. :wink:
Wont be too many now. As we are seen as terrorist sympathizers in the eyes of the yanks :cool2:

[NYHibby]

Your bordering racist to say you hate Americans, Would be much more accurate to say you hate the American government's foreign policy. Which I agree has caused many problems around the world but mostly in the Middle East. :agree:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_United_States

Not to shift the direction of this thread, but in the Middle East , America is only messing up what the British and French screwed up in the first place.

[Sylar]

i think most people (well i hope) would know thats what i meant. :agree:

its not as if i go up town abusing american tourists. :rolleyes:

it is crazy however the difference between the american's media and british medias views and coverage of these events.

thanks for putting it a bit more grown up and 'pc' for me. :wink:

In which case, I will duly apologise, but clarity is key, as most people won't bother trying to decyfer hidden meaning on here.

[Ritchie]

In which case, I will duly apologise, but clarity is key, as most people won't bother trying to decyfer hidden meaning on here.

i will try be clearer in future posts. :wink:

[PC Stamp]

I'm aware of that and have watched associated documentries in relation to it. I'm still undecided on his part to play in things and whether he should be in jail or not. I've no doubt that there were other bigger fish involved.

However, at the current time he is convicted of the crime and I'm undecided on whether he should be released or not on compassionate grounds. This probably comes down to the ambiguity of his conviction.

The point I was objecting to is the comment made about releasing convicted terrorists so other terrorist don't attack us again.

And rightly so. But that's not really what I meant although I can see reading it back how it reads as such. Yes it's possibly a minor knock on benefit but it's a largely secondary one in the big scheme of things. So whilst I said it concerned me, nowhere was I suggesting or even attempting to suggest that we should give in to terrorists per se for such a reason. I'm looking at this one particular case in isolation concerning an individual whom expert medical opinion states has less than three months to live. If Al Megrahi was still fit and healthy then under no circumstances would I or I suspect anyone have been approving of his release. Maybe it's just a case that I don't really believe in an eye for an eye and all that. All that happens there is people keep losing eyes! Compassion is in short supply throughout the human race and I think the reason for the decision taken was well explained by Kenny Mackaskill.

As an aside, what's the difference between this situation and our own government releasing hundreds of convicted terrorists in Northern Ireland via the Good Friday agreement, most of whom I expect were in perfectly good health and in no need of compassion? One murder, five murders, a hundered plus murders ... a life is a life and murder is murder. I may be wrong but I don't recall such outpourings over that decision.

PS - I wouldn't want to add the possibility that some of those objecting loudest are perhaps doing so for political reasons rather than any other? :wink:

[Zondervan]

Interesting article written by Jim Swire:

http://www.firmmagazine.com/features/592/The_Fallout_From_Lockerbie_-_by_Jim_Swire.html

[Onceinawhile]

Yeah. I'm not saying that the Libyans couldn't have done it. But in terms of timescale and the 'tit-for-tat' nature of the two incidents, Iran had the better motive.

I aklso object strongly to Hilary Clinton and the Magnifcent Seven issuing public statements telling our Justice Minister what to do.

They got us to do their dirty work in 2001-2. They shouldn't assume that the Scottish Judiciary exists as an instrument of their revenge.

Maybe Ken MacAskill and Alec Salmond should have asked them if they'd have preferred a full, frank, and entirely free Fatal Accident Inquiry into the incident? As Scots Law allows? Truth and closure, anyone? :cool2:

Who are the "magnificent seven" out of interest?

And Fwiw, for the reasons detailed in numerous other posts I agree with the Scottish governments decision. The US can shove it

[Zondervan]

Who are the "magnificent seven" out of interest?

And Fwiw, for the reasons detailed in numerous other posts I agree with the Scottish governments decision. The US can shove it

They are the seven US Senators who wrote to Kenny MacAskill demanding that he did not free al-Megrahi.

[shamo9]

Aren't about 84% of Americans Christian? Doesn't that religion constantly preach about forgiving others etc etc?

"Forgiving others may seem to be a choice, and in one sense it is a choice, but God has been very clear about forgiveness. He has given us specific direction in numerous Scriptures, all of which can be summed up in just one word -- forgive! God's Word says, "And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins" (Mark 11:25). "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven" (Luke 6:37).

God is saying that it is in our own best interest to forgive! He is not talking about what is in the best interest of the person who needs to be forgiven. We are the ones who God is trying to protect. We are the ones who receive the most benefit from forgiveness, not the other person. A spirit of unforgiveness complicates and compromises our daily walk with God. Forgiving others releases us from anger and allows us to receive the healing we need. The whole reason God has given us specific direction is because He does not want anything to stand between us and Him. God's love for us is beyond our comprehension. Forgiving others spares us from the consequences of living out of an unforgiving heart.

Forgiving others does not carry with it a single decision that we need to ponder. God has not qualified one sin as being more grievous to Him than another and He has not qualified one sin committed against us as warranting forgiveness and another not. For example, God is not saying, "If a person lies to you or steals from you, you should forgive him, but if they abuse you or harm your child, you can hold them in unforgiveness." He is saying to forgive everyone, always, and do it immediately."

I don't have a problem with people following a religion, none what so ever unless it affects me. What I do have a problem with is hypocrites.

Either do it all, or nothing at all.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Wrong forum surely. Incidentally maybe they can think about locking up whoever actually did it.

:thumbsup:

A sensible and compassionate decision. Surely with all the lies over Iraq, Afgahnistan etc people are able to look beyond what governments say, and see the truth?

Now let's jail the murderers responsible for the deaths caused by the West's greed.

[GlesgaeHibby]

I'm glad that Kenny MacAskill has come to this decision and refused to bow to pressure from the USA.

The USA were aware something was going on at the time, there can be no other reason for so many Americans that had tickets not checking in. Why wasn't this knowledge passed on to the pilot and many other innocent victims?

Megrahi is suffering terminal cancer. Anybody who has witnessed somebody with cancer in the latter stages of their life will realise that it is horrendous, and he will be in a massive amount of pain. Surely that is punishment enough?

IF guilty (and it is a very big if) he showed no compassion. Two wrongs don't make a right and I am glad we are showing compassion to him.

[PC Stamp]

The American people may preach Christianity but their American Govt preach an eye for an eye and trying to impose their will on the rest of the world. Simply put they are bullies who can't take not being in control of things. That the US govt have the audacity to criticise the legal system in other countries is beyond belief. The day they start sorting themselves out instead of continually sticking their noses into other countries affairs is the day the world will take a big step to becoming a safer place



Aren't about 84% of Americans Christian? Doesn't that religion constantly preach about forgiving others etc etc?

"Forgiving others may seem to be a choice, and in one sense it is a choice, but God has been very clear about forgiveness. He has given us specific direction in numerous Scriptures, all of which can be summed up in just one word -- forgive! God's Word says, "And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins" (Mark 11:25). "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven" (Luke 6:37).

God is saying that it is in our own best interest to forgive! He is not talking about what is in the best interest of the person who needs to be forgiven. We are the ones who God is trying to protect. We are the ones who receive the most benefit from forgiveness, not the other person. A spirit of unforgiveness complicates and compromises our daily walk with God. Forgiving others releases us from anger and allows us to receive the healing we need. The whole reason God has given us specific direction is because He does not want anything to stand between us and Him. God's love for us is beyond our comprehension. Forgiving others spares us from the consequences of living out of an unforgiving heart.

Forgiving others does not carry with it a single decision that we need to ponder. God has not qualified one sin as being more grievous to Him than another and He has not qualified one sin committed against us as warranting forgiveness and another not. For example, God is not saying, "If a person lies to you or steals from you, you should forgive him, but if they abuse you or harm your child, you can hold them in unforgiveness." He is saying to forgive everyone, always, and do it immediately."

I don't have a problem with people following a religion, none what so ever unless it affects me. What I do have a problem with is hypocrites.

Either do it all, or nothing at all.

[McHibby]

http://www.newsvine.com/_question/2009/08/19/3169384-should-the-lockerbie-bomber-be-released-on-compassionate-grounds

Jeezo some of those comments on the story from the MSBNC website are a bit strong. :bitchy:

Yeah, I just read the Times before coming onto here. Some of the comments are way over the top. Not helped by thick-as-two-planks Americans who think the whole of the UK is called England (that really gets my goat) and that Scotland is run by the BNP

[Phil D. Rolls]

Your bordering racist to say you hate Americans, Would be much more accurate to say you hate the American government's foreign policy. Which I agree has caused many problems around the world but mostly in the Middle East. :agree:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_United_States

:agree:

Good point, America is a massive country. Just as I don't believe what the media tell me about Iran, Libya and co. I know that there are many thinking Americans.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Not to shift the direction of this thread, but in the Middle East , America is only messing up what the British and French screwed up in the first place.

I think it goes a bit further back than that. (tin hat time) I think there is a lot of mileage in considering who pulls the American strings - and their relationship with the "state" of Israel.

[--------]

Who are the "magnificent seven" out of interest?

And Fwiw, for the reasons detailed in numerous other posts I agree with the Scottish governments decision. The US can shove it


Seven Congressmen including Kennedy and Kerry who issued a public statement to the effect that Al-Megrahi should not be released.

FWIW, I would say that while I consider that there are grave doubts as to the safety of his conviction, I would NOT approve his release until those doubts had been tested in court, except in the present circumstances of his terminal illness, which I understand was diagnosed and verified by an independent medical authority. Independent, that is, from the Scottish Judiciary, the US administration, and Al-Megrahi's legal team as well.

What Clinton and Kennedy and Kerry and Co don't seem to understand is that once they had come out with their very public statements pressuring KM to keep Al-Megrahi in gaol, keeping him in gaol as inevitably going to be seen as the Scottish Government and Judiciary acting as the tools and puppets of American foreign policy - I should perhaps say American vengeance which right now appears to be both blind and cruel in the extreme. KM was absolutely right - we need to be better than that, and better than the terrorists as well.

If we had meekly done what Clinton etc were telling us to do, how long does anyone think it would be before Scotland would once more be the target of terrorist extremists?

Just because Brown and Blair and Cameron and Co enjoy having the US's arm up their backs manipulating them and telling them what to say, Scotland doesn't have to do likewise.

Today I can truly say I'm proud of my country's Government (that's Holyrood, in case there's any misunderstanding) and proud to be a Scot.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Seven Congressmen including Kennedy and Kerry who issued a public statement to the effect that Al-Megrahi should not be released.

FWIW, I would say that while I consider that there are grave doubts as to the safety of his conviction, I would NOT approve his release until those doubts had been tested in court, except in the present circumstances of his terminal illness, which I understand was diagnosed and verified by an independent medical authority. Independent, that is, from the Scottish Judiciary, the US administration, and Al-Megrahi's legal team as well.

What Clinton and Kennedy and Kerry and Co don't seem to understand is that once they had come out with their very public statements pressuring KM to keep Al-Megrahi in gaol, keeping him in gaol as inevitably going to be seen as the Scottish Government and Judiciary acting as the tools and puppets of American foreign policy - I should perhaps say American vengeance which right now appears to be both blind and cruel in the extreme. KM was absolutely right - we need to be better than that, and better than the terrorists as well.

If we had meekly done what Clinton etc were telling us to do, how long does anyone think it would be before Scotland would once more be the target of terrorist extremists?

Just because Brown and Blair and Cameron and Co enjoy having the US's arm up their backs manipulating them and telling them what to say, Scotland doesn't have to do likewise.

For once, I can truly say I'm proud to be a Scot.

:agree:

[Betty Boop]

Seven Congressmen including Kennedy and Kerry who issued a public statement to the effect that Al-Megrahi should not be released.

FWIW, I would say that while I consider that there are grave doubts as to the safety of his conviction, I would NOT approve his release until those doubts had been tested in court, except in the present circumstances of his terminal illness, which I understand was diagnosed and verified by an independent medical authority. Independent, that is, from the Scottish Judiciary, the US administration, and Al-Megrahi's legal team as well.

What Clinton and Kennedy and Kerry and Co don't seem to understand is that once they had come out with their very public statements pressuring KM to keep Al-Megrahi in gaol, keeping him in gaol as inevitably going to be seen as the Scottish Government and Judiciary acting as the tools and puppets of American foreign policy - I should perhaps say American vengeance which right now appears to be both blind and cruel in the extreme. KM was absolutely right - we need to be better than that, and better than the terrorists as well.

If we had meekly done what Clinton etc were telling us to do, how long does anyone think it would be before Scotland would once more be the target of terrorist extremists?

Just because Brown and Blair and Cameron and Co enjoy having the US's arm up their backs manipulating them and telling them what to say, Scotland doesn't have to do likewise.

Today I can truly say I'm proud of my country's Government (that's Holyrood, in case there's any misunderstanding) and proud to be a Scot.
A case of double standards from Ted Kennedy, bumping his gums about the release of Al-Megrahi, but was an IRA sympathiser at the time of the troubles, as were many Americans. The UK Government gave him an honorary knighthood though so that's all right then! :blah:

[Moulin Yarns]

His release on compassionate grounds doesn't exonerate him or proclaim his innocence.

If they're confident of his imminent death, it's perhaps nothing more than a money saver as any death within custody would result in an inquiry, even if unsuspicious (standard practice if there's a death within custody).

My uncle is a warden at a prison which previously held Megrahi and he doesn't believe he's guilty having reviewed his file on a couple of occasions.

here's another consparacy theory. Watched the whole release on BBC online, and then the tea time news, and there is no clear picture of Megrahi getting on the plane. His hace is never visible. I said to some folk at work, "what if he had actually died in prison and this whole release on compassionate grounds was a face saving exercise for Scotland while Libya also looked good in the Arab world"

And if he dies outside prison, no enquiry needed

[IWasThere2016]

I'm undecided on his role in all this but given he'd a fair trial and was found guilty he should have died in prison. Same goes for Biggs - who was clearly guilty :grr:

[Onceinawhile]

I'm undecided on his role in all this but given he'd a fair trial and was found guilty he should have died in prison. Same goes for Biggs - who was clearly guilty :grr:

But if we are trusting and agreeing with our justice system when they decide to put someone away, should we not trust and agree with them when they decide to release someone?

[PC Stamp]

I'm undecided on his role in all this but given he'd a fair trial and was found guilty he should have died in prison. Same goes for Biggs - who was clearly guilty :grr:

That seems to be just one of many points up for debate.

[lyonhibs]

In which case, I will duly apologise, but clarity is key, as most people won't bother trying to decyfer hidden meaning on here.

I don't care how American you are, that doesn't excuse such abysmal spelling :cool2::greengrin

As mentioned before, the one country in the world with absolutely no legitimacy to lecture/opine on how others should deal with terrorists on their own soil is America.

[Ants]

Kenny MacAskills speech was very well written and presented.
He was in a no win position, but the Scottish law for persons imprisoned does not dilute down to offences committed or religion, when it has been diagnosed that they will die within 3 months.

Law of the land is there for a reason, hence the Americains are not letting the young Scottish lad who hacked into their defence system any sympathy or repreive.

On a down side, just seen he reception into Tripoli, the Libyians have now let Kenny MacAskill down badly, Megraghi is being hailed as a hero, as a few saltires are being waved.

[Sir David Gray]

Absolutely disgraceful decision.

Whether people think he was guilty or not, he was tried in a court of law and was found guilty of murdering 270 people. That will do for me.

He should have spent LIFE behind bars, i.e. he should have been in jail until the day he dies.

He didn't have any compassion for the scores of innocent people that he blew up that day.

This is a slap in the face to all the families of every single victim in that atrocity.

Kenny MacAskill should be utterly ashamed of himself.

[JE89]

Absolutely disgraceful decision.

Whether people think he was guilty or not, he was tried in a court of law and was found guilty of murdering 270 people. That will do for me.

He should have spent LIFE behind bars, i.e. he should have been in jail until the day he dies.

He didn't have any compassion for the scores of innocent people that he blew up that day.

This is a slap in the face to all the families of every single victim in that atrocity.

Kenny MacAskill should be utterly ashamed of himself.

Sums up what I think. Decision has made Scotland a laughing stock.
Only the SNP :rolleyes:

[khib70]

Wont be too many now. As we are seen as terrorist sympathizers in the eyes of the yanks :cool2:
Reading this board every day, I'm not surprised.

Releasing this mass murderer on so called compassionate grounds is a callous insult to the victims and their families. They were not given the chance to die in their own country with their families around them. But of course, according to this board's battalion of conspiracy theorists, blinded by their knee jerk anti-Americanism, he didn't do it.:yawn:

And comparisons of a premeditated act of mass murder with a horrible and tragic mistake made by servicemen under pressure just beggars belief. Clearly some of the sanctimonious Yankee-haters on here have never served on a warship at action stations.

McCaskill is a pompous clown who can't even do an interview without it sounding like a sermon. The Scottish Government have disgraced themselves by letting this despicable character go.

And well done everyone else who has risked the usual gang-up abuse dished out on here to anyone who steps outside the party line in order to express their justifiable disgust that compassion has been wasted on this individual.

[Fantic]

Scotland has handed an olive branch from the western world. The man will die soon so he's hardly away jumping with joy.. he will be judged by a higher authority (imo:wink:)

Good move and good will come of it.

[Betty Boop]

The UK Government has lucrative business deals with Libya in the offing, according to Newsnight. I wondered why they were so silent on the subject. :rolleyes:

[Sir David Gray]

Sums up what I think. Decision has made Scotland a laughing stock.
Only the SNP :rolleyes:

:agree: I voted for them at the last Scottish elections (mainly because my local SNP candidate was the only one to write to me as a first time voter) but I won't be voting for them again.

This case has just helped to make up my mind even more.


Scotland has handed an olive branch from the western world. The man will die soon so he's hardly away jumping with joy.. he will be judged by a higher authority(imo:wink:)

Good move and good will come of it.

I believe he will be judged by a higher authority when he dies, (as we all will) but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't serve a full prison sentence whilst you are alive.

[Fantic]

:agree: I voted for them at the last Scottish elections (mainly because my local SNP candidate was the only one to write to me as a first time voter) but I won't be voting for them again.

This case has just helped to make up my mind even more.



I believe he will be judged by a higher authority when he dies, (as we all will) but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't serve a full prison sentence whilst you are alive.



If you believe that God forgives our sins then we must forgive others that sin against us. The man has suffered. No sympathy for him just forgiveness.

[Jamie]

should have let him die in a scottish prison

[smurf]

Kenny MacAskills speech was very well written and presented.

:faf:

[hibsdaft]

This is a slap in the face to all the families of every single victim in that atrocity.

not so for Dr Jim Swire who actively campaigned for his release, and whose daughter died on the plane.

[thekaratekid]

Seven Congressmen including Kennedy and Kerry who issued a public statement to the effect that Al-Megrahi should not be released.

FWIW, I would say that while I consider that there are grave doubts as to the safety of his conviction, I would NOT approve his release until those doubts had been tested in court, except in the present circumstances of his terminal illness, which I understand was diagnosed and verified by an independent medical authority. Independent, that is, from the Scottish Judiciary, the US administration, and Al-Megrahi's legal team as well.

What Clinton and Kennedy and Kerry and Co don't seem to understand is that once they had come out with their very public statements pressuring KM to keep Al-Megrahi in gaol, keeping him in gaol as inevitably going to be seen as the Scottish Government and Judiciary acting as the tools and puppets of American foreign policy - I should perhaps say American vengeance which right now appears to be both blind and cruel in the extreme. KM was absolutely right - we need to be better than that, and better than the terrorists as well.

If we had meekly done what Clinton etc were telling us to do, how long does anyone think it would be before Scotland would once more be the target of terrorist extremists?

Just because Brown and Blair and Cameron and Co enjoy having the US's arm up their backs manipulating them and telling them what to say, Scotland doesn't have to do likewise.

Today I can truly say I'm proud of my country's Government (that's Holyrood, in case there's any misunderstanding) and proud to be a Scot.

said better than i ever could


:top marks

[NYHibby]

A case of double standards from Ted Kennedy, bumping his gums about the release of Al-Megrahi, but was an IRA sympathiser at the time of the troubles, as were many Americans. The UK Government gave him an honorary knighthood though so that's all right then! :blah:

In Kennedy's defense, he's all but dead. I'm sure he didn't play an active role in drafting the comments. Probably just one of his staffers OKed adding his name.

[steakbake]

Reading this board every day, I'm not surprised.

Releasing this mass murderer on so called compassionate grounds is a callous insult to the victims and their families. They were not given the chance to die in their own country with their families around them. But of course, according to this board's battalion of conspiracy theorists, blinded by their knee jerk anti-Americanism, he didn't do it.:yawn:

And comparisons of a premeditated act of mass murder with a horrible and tragic mistake made by servicemen under pressure just beggars belief. Clearly some of the sanctimonious Yankee-haters on here have never served on a warship at action stations.

McCaskill is a pompous clown who can't even do an interview without it sounding like a sermon. The Scottish Government have disgraced themselves by letting this despicable character go.

And well done everyone else who has risked the usual gang-up abuse dished out on here to anyone who steps outside the party line in order to express their justifiable disgust that compassion has been wasted on this individual.

http://i-p-o.org/lockerbie_observer_mission.htm - website of the official UN monitor of the trial who described it as a miscarriage of justice, and his report - http://i-p-o.org/lockerbie-report.htm - on the trial.

I disagree with MacAskill because I do not believe that Al Megrahi is guilty. I have no quarrel with America, or people who are shocked by the decision to let Al Megrahi home but I wonder just how many of the people who are so outraged at it have taken time to read all the information and evidence about the original trial?

http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/editorial/display.var.2526624.0.Compassion_for_the_Lockerbie _bomber.php

[Phil D. Rolls]

There's some fascinating politics unfolding here. It seems to me that the real issue is between the UK government and the Scottish government. I think the UK has put Scotland in a position where a decision had to be made, in the hope that the will make the one which is less popular to the electorate.

It seems to me that yesterday, MacAskill scored an early goal, in making a decision which appears to have the support of the Scottish people. However, maybe in the longer term - especially if Al Megrahi isn't dying, it may not be enough to win the game.

MacAskill has now established a position which he has to defend, whether he can do it or not is open to question. I was impressed with the way he made his statement yesterday, but he wasn't too good at dealing with some real concerns raised by interviewers last night - he just kept reverting to the text of his speech.

What came out to me is that he looked bad because: he took a personal involvement in the case, going to see Al Megrahy in jail - how many other prisoners get their appeal heard face to face with the justice minister. As well as that there is the real issue of does the compassion which has been shown to Al Megrahy balance with the lack of compassion showed by the crime? He will have to defend these positions in the days and months to come.

It was a very interesting day in Scottish politics yesterday.

[steakbake]

There's some fascinating politics unfolding here. It seems to me that the real issue is between the UK government and the Scottish government. I think the UK has put Scotland in a position where a decision had to be made, in the hope that the will make the one which is less popular to the electorate.

It seems to me that yesterday, MacAskill scored an early goal, in making a decision which appears to have the support of the Scottish people. However, maybe in the longer term - especially if Al Megrahi isn't dying, it may not be enough to win the game.

MacAskill has now established a position which he has to defend, whether he can do it or not is open to question. I was impressed with the way he made his statement yesterday, but he wasn't too good at dealing with some real concerns raised by interviewers last night - he just kept reverting to the text of his speech.

What came out to me is that he looked bad because: he took a personal involvement in the case, going to see Al Megrahy in jail - how many other prisoners get their appeal heard face to face with the justice minister. As well as that there is the real issue of does the compassion which has been shown to Al Megrahy balance with the lack of compassion showed by the crime? He will have to defend these positions in the days and months to come.

It was a very interesting day in Scottish politics yesterday.

Mandela and Kofi Annan have also visited him in prison. It is a very unique case.

[Beefster]

:agree: I voted for them at the last Scottish elections (mainly because my local SNP candidate was the only one to write to me as a first time voter) but I won't be voting for them again.

This case has just helped to make up my mind even more.

While I'm far from a nationalist, you had better scrub Labour off your list too.

Mandelson met Gaddafi's son a week or so ago. Coincidence? I doubt it.

There is no way that the Scottish Executive made this decision alone. The meeting and the fact that the UK government isn't taking this opportunity to criticise the SNP would suggest that too.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Mandela and Kofi Annan have also visited him in prison. It is a very unique case.

I agree, but Kenny didn't defend that point very well.

I thought he could have easily defended some of the points about what Cameron and the US were saying, by simply pointing out that it was for the Scottish people to decide how this matter was resolved, and as their elected representative he carried out what he thought was closest to their wishes.

[sleeping giant]

Wrong forum surely. Incidentally maybe they can think about locking up whoever actually did it.
:agree:
I was trying to explain this to my wife last night.
He may have been involved but why are the Government not following up on the other suspects.

The public needed someone to blame !!!!

[J-C]

This is the real reason he should've been left to die in prison, a heroes welcome back home.:grr::confused:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Lockerbie-Bomber-Abdelbaset-Ali-Mohmed-al-Megrahi-Released-From-Prison-To-Go-Home-To-Libya/Article/200908315365842?lpos=UK_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15365842_Lockerbie_Bomber_Abdelbaset_A li_Mohmed_al_Megrahi_Released_From_Prison_To_Go_Ho me_To_Libya

[Phil D. Rolls]

This is the real reason he should've been left to die in prison, a heroes welcome back home.:grr::confused:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Lockerbie-Bomber-Abdelbaset-Ali-Mohmed-al-Megrahi-Released-From-Prison-To-Go-Home-To-Libya/Article/200908315365842?lpos=UK_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15365842_Lockerbie_Bomber_Abdelbaset_A li_Mohmed_al_Megrahi_Released_From_Prison_To_Go_Ho me_To_Libya

It doesn't look good does it? There appear to be quite a lot of people in that picture, and I wonder where some of them got the Saltires from? You'd almost think it was organised by someone wanting Scotland to look bad.

[Betty Boop]

Deary me! http://www.nowpublic.com/world/boycott-scotland-movement-growing-after-lockerbie-bomber-freed :bitchy:

[thekaratekid]

Deary me! http://www.nowpublic.com/world/boycott-scotland-movement-growing-after-lockerbie-bomber-freed :bitchy:

http://www.boycottscotland.com/

:saltireflag

[Beefster]

Jesus, some Americans astonish me. Are folk screeching about boycotting their country because of extrordinary rendition, their use of the death penalty or their other foreign policies? Not really.

I hope they don't do to us what they did to France at the time of the invasion of Iraq. It's bad enough that they call it 'Scotch' but I'm not sure I could stand them renaming it 'Freedom'. :rolleyes:

[Betty Boop]

http://www.boycottscotland.com/

:saltireflag

"The influence of British Petroleum in this entire charade has been well known and discussed quite often" :rolleyes:

[Phil D. Rolls]

What about those demonstrators (BNP?) outside the prison. One of them managed to spit at a vehicle carrying a dying man, and another shouted "die ya ********".

[marinello59]

What about those demonstrators (BNP?) outside the prison. One of them managed to spit at a vehicle carrying a dying man, and another shouted "die ya ********".

Hopefully they will decide to boycott Scotland as well then.

[CropleyWasGod]

It doesn't look good does it? There appear to be quite a lot of people in that picture, and I wonder where some of them got the Saltires from? You'd almost think it was organised by someone wanting Scotland to look bad.

Like it or not, to some Libyans the man IS a hero. He is either a jihadist who struck a blow at the Great Satan.... or he is an innocent man who suffered at the hands of the Great Satan.

[ArabHibee]

Deary me! http://www.nowpublic.com/world/boycott-scotland-movement-growing-after-lockerbie-bomber-freed :bitchy:

Some of the replies on this are class. The person who wrote the article can't even get their facts right about who actually died in the aeroplane.


http://www.boycottscotland.com/

:saltireflag

:faf:

My thoughts on his release are mixed. He is dying of cancer, so should be shown some compassion. However, I only realised recently that it was only 8 years that he has been in prison, I did think it was a lot longer.

The one thing that really got my goat on this one was the American Government trying to tell our Government what to do. Hilary Clinton GTF!!

[hibsdaft]

what is annoying me is those who are using this as a stick to beat the SNP (who i am no supporter of btw). total hypocrits

the arrival of Megrahi in Tripoli is being totally misreported by the media as some sort of heroes welcome for a bomber, when in fact Libyan public opinion has always been that he is merely an innocent man who has been subject to a miscarriage of justice - theres a dirty incinuation from some Labour and all the Tories that they are celebrating this guy as a murderer but that is most definitely not the case, even though the welcome is a misjudgement and not exactly helpful.

i don't understand why all those bleeting about this decision from the Labour party, the Tory party, in London, in the US, and those even on hibs.net were silent when Blair and Brown met with Gaddafi to agree massive business deals in the last few years?

where was the London/US media indignation then?

[hibsdaft]

Like it or not, to some Libyans the man IS a hero. He is either a jihadist who struck a blow at the Great Satan.... or he is an innocent man who suffered at the hands of the Great Satan.

your getting your ideologies mixed up here, Libya and Gadaffi are no Jihadi's i doubt he is even a fully practicing muslim - sure he's used islam as a political tool from time to time to shore up support as did Saddam Hussein but these guys are polar opposites from Al Qaeda who they are at war with.

this is one reason why we are now allies with Libya and entering into big business deals with them.

and the greeting he got was arranged by the Gaddafi youth wing apparently. deffo not Jihadists.

[Sauzee 62]

Just sent a wee email to boycottscotland.com:

Correct me if I am wrong but when deciding how to try Abdel Baset al-Megrahi in 2000 all parties (including the US) agreed that the best and fairest way to progress the trial was in a Scottish Court under Scots Law? So why now are you hypocrites upset that he has been released under the same law that was agreed upon at the beginning of the trial? Perhaps we should have tried him under US law and murdered him in the name of “justice” or perhaps flown him to Eastern Europe and tortured him until he gave up the name of his accomplices? Get your own house in order before you start attacking others – a concept it seems is completely lost on American foreign policy.

And to claim that this decision is in any way connected to “the never ending and relentless acquisition of oil revenues” makes a complete mockery of your point, yourself and your country. You are the one who should hang their head in shame not Kenny McAskill. He made the correct decision and I have nothing but respect for him for making such a brave decision.

I’m interested, exactly what is it about Scotland that you are boycotting? Haggis, Kilts and Mel Gibson movies? Or are you boycotting everything that is Scottish like television, telephones, toilets, refrigerators, lawnmowers? Oh, and good luck next time you have an operation with out anaesthetic, antiseptic or penicillin.

[Hibs Class]

Just sent a wee email to boycottscotland.com:

Correct me if I am wrong but when deciding how to try Abdel Baset al-Megrahi in 2000 all parties (including the US) agreed that the best and fairest way to progress the trial was in a Scottish Court under Scots Law? So why now are you hypocrites upset that he has been released under the same law that was agreed upon at the beginning of the trial? Perhaps we should have tried him under US law and murdered him in the name of “justice” or perhaps flown him to Eastern Europe and tortured him until he gave up the name of his accomplices? Get your own house in order before you start attacking others – a concept it seems is completely lost on American foreign policy.

And to claim that this decision is in any way connected to “the never ending and relentless acquisition of oil revenues” makes a complete mockery of your point, yourself and your country. You are the one who should hang their head in shame not Kenny McAskill. He made the correct decision and I have nothing but respect for him for making such a brave decision.

I’m interested, exactly what is it about Scotland that you are boycotting? Haggis, Kilts and Mel Gibson movies? Or are you boycotting everything that is Scottish like television, telephones, toilets, refrigerators, lawnmowers? Oh, and good luck next time you have an operation with out anaesthetic, antiseptic or penicillin.


Very good. I suspect their breaking point will be a refusal to boycott McDonalds.

[hibsbollah]

Just sent a wee email to boycottscotland.com:

Correct me if I am wrong but when deciding how to try Abdel Baset al-Megrahi in 2000 all parties (including the US) agreed that the best and fairest way to progress the trial was in a Scottish Court under Scots Law? So why now are you hypocrites upset that he has been released under the same law that was agreed upon at the beginning of the trial? Perhaps we should have tried him under US law and murdered him in the name of “justice” or perhaps flown him to Eastern Europe and tortured him until he gave up the name of his accomplices? Get your own house in order before you start attacking others – a concept it seems is completely lost on American foreign policy.

And to claim that this decision is in any way connected to “the never ending and relentless acquisition of oil revenues” makes a complete mockery of your point, yourself and your country. You are the one who should hang their head in shame not Kenny McAskill. He made the correct decision and I have nothing but respect for him for making such a brave decision.

I’m interested, exactly what is it about Scotland that you are boycotting? Haggis, Kilts and Mel Gibson movies? Or are you boycotting everything that is Scottish like television, telephones, toilets, refrigerators, lawnmowers? Oh, and good luck next time you have an operation with out anaesthetic, antiseptic or penicillin.

Love it:top marks

[PC Stamp]

Love it:top marks

:agree:

I wonder how many of these indignant Americans even know where Scotland is to consider boycotting it! :greengrin

[Moulin Yarns]

Just sent a wee email to boycottscotland.com:

Correct me if I am wrong but when deciding how to try Abdel Baset al-Megrahi in 2000 all parties (including the US) agreed that the best and fairest way to progress the trial was in a Scottish Court under Scots Law? So why now are you hypocrites upset that he has been released under the same law that was agreed upon at the beginning of the trial? Perhaps we should have tried him under US law and murdered him in the name of “justice” or perhaps flown him to Eastern Europe and tortured him until he gave up the name of his accomplices? Get your own house in order before you start attacking others – a concept it seems is completely lost on American foreign policy.

And to claim that this decision is in any way connected to “the never ending and relentless acquisition of oil revenues” makes a complete mockery of your point, yourself and your country. You are the one who should hang their head in shame not Kenny McAskill. He made the correct decision and I have nothing but respect for him for making such a brave decision.

I’m interested, exactly what is it about Scotland that you are boycotting? Haggis, Kilts and Mel Gibson movies? Or are you boycotting everything that is Scottish like television, telephones, toilets, refrigerators, lawnmowers? Oh, and good luck next time you have an operation with out anaesthetic, antiseptic or penicillin.

I bet the whisky industry is worried though, all the more for me :greengrin

[(((Fergus)))]

i'd never even heard of that plane the US blew up

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

apart from 1 italian it was only wogs that were on it

[Gus]

Its not a the surprise the guy has been released. Yes he was found guilty but the evidence surrounding the case are somewhat indifferent. IMO i think the Iranian "theory" should of been looked at in alot GREATER detail. or was it more the point at the time the Americans & British were trying to infilitrate the natural resources of the middle east...

Libya has the largest (or the 2nd largest) petroleum reserve in Africa. It is only being used as a good will gesture to soften the Libyan goverment for these reasons. Tony blair signed a deal with Gadaffi a couple of years ago regarding extracting the resources into europe. To say it is on compassionate grounds is nothing more than an excuse. Yes the man is dying........but does that make it right to release him on such grounds.......i don't think so. Although what cost to the scottish tax payer was he.............ALOT. I would prefer that the money was spent on making someone deserving more comfortable in their last few months.

I do think the scottish goverment should be praised though for not caving into to the bully boy tactics of the american goverments policy.

As for some of the comments by the American people on those forums are disgraceful......whats the saying."don't chuck stones if you stay in glass houses"

The American people beleive what they see on fox as gospel. Its all proganda across the pond.

My tuppence worth

[hibsbollah]

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/hans-kchler-i-saw-the-trial-ndash-and-the-verdict-made-no-sense-1775217.html

The UN observer at the original trial on why he could never understand the Guilty verdict.

Hans Köchler: I saw the trial – and the verdict made no sense

</EM>


I am always surprised when people refer to Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi as the Lockerbie bomber. Even if he is guilty – something which, personally, I do not believe – he would only be a Lockerbie bomber, just one of many people who carried out a crime which would have taken a large network of people and lots of money to carry out. It amazes me that the British and American governments act as if the investigation into the bombing is somehow complete.


But I welcome the release of Megrahi, because I firmly believe that he is innocent of the charges made against him. Believe me, if I thought he was guilty I would not be pleased to see him released from jail.

His decision to drop his appeal, however, is deeply suspicious – I believe Megrahi made that decision under duress. Under Scottish law he did not need to abandon his appeal in order to be released on compassionate grounds. So why did he do it? It makes no sense that he would suddenly let it go.

In my time as the UN's observer at Megrahi's trial, I watched a case unfold that was based on circumstantial evidence. The indictment against him and al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah went to great lengths to explain how they supposedly planted a bomb on Flight 103, and yet Fhimah was acquitted of all the charges against him. It made no sense that Megrahi was guilty when Fhimah was acquitted.

The prosecution produced key witnesses that lacked credibility or had incentives to bear false witness against Megrahi. Tony Gauci, the Maltese shopkeeper who supposedly sold him the clothes that went around the bomb, had been fêted by the Scottish police who took him fishing. The Americans paid him cash following his testimony. The weakness of that testimony would have been a key component of Megrahi's appeal.

We will probably never really know who caused the Lockerbie bombing. So much key information was withheld from the trial. A luggage storage room used by Pan Am at Heathrow was broken into on the night of the bombing, and yet this information was withheld. The British have yet satisfactorily to explain why.

I want to know when the bomb was placed on the plane and by whom. We have to look more closely into the "London theory" – that the bomb was placed on the plane at Heathrow and not in Malta.

It would be childish to be satisfied with the conviction of just one person for a crime that clearly involved a large number of people. I find it very difficult to understand why there seems to be so little pressure from the British and American public on their governments to investigate the bombing properly.

The UK regularly talks of the need to pursue all terrorist atrocities. Yet how can the Government assure the public they really believe that, when they have virtually abandoned their investigation into the worst terrorist attack in the country's history?

We have to know what happened and the only way is a full public inquiry, either mandated by the House of Commons or by an investigative commission voted for by the UN's General Assembly. Time is of the essence. This crime is already 21 years old. To find out the truth we must act now.

[NYHibby]

The American people beleive what they see on fox as gospel. Its all proganda across the pond.


I don't have the time to post a longer reply right now, but go back and see my first post. MSNBC, probably the most liberal news channel, was probably the most outraged yesterday. The people on MSNBC were talking about a boycott before Al Megrahi even got to the plane. The little I watched Fox, they were more reasonable. Its Obama, Clinton, and other Democratic senators who are making these comments. For you to blindly blame Fox News, you're not much better as you're just repeating what other have told you.

So I don't get attacked while I'm away, my comments here should show I don't agree with the extreme comments some Americans are making.

[hibsdaft]

Its Obama, Clinton, and other Democratic senators who are making these comments.

why is that do you think NYHibby? to deflect any criticism in advance maybe :confused:

[Gus]

I don't have the time to post a longer reply right now, but go back and see my first post. MSNBC, probably the most liberal news channel, was probably the most outraged yesterday. The people on MSNBC were talking about a boycott before Al Megrahi even got to the plane. The little I watched Fox, they were more reasonable. Its Obama, Clinton, and other Democratic senators who are making these comments. For you to blindly blame Fox News, you're not much better as you're just repeating what other have told you.

So I don't get attacked while I'm away, my comments here should show I don't agree with the extreme comments some Americans are making.

you are right lad, I beleive what michael moore tells me. Its the same with any country i guess. Its not JUST Fox.
Hope i didnt cause offence, just airing my views.

[Gatecrasher]

Just sent a wee email to boycottscotland.com:

Correct me if I am wrong but when deciding how to try Abdel Baset al-Megrahi in 2000 all parties (including the US) agreed that the best and fairest way to progress the trial was in a Scottish Court under Scots Law? So why now are you hypocrites upset that he has been released under the same law that was agreed upon at the beginning of the trial? Perhaps we should have tried him under US law and murdered him in the name of “justice” or perhaps flown him to Eastern Europe and tortured him until he gave up the name of his accomplices? Get your own house in order before you start attacking others – a concept it seems is completely lost on American foreign policy.

And to claim that this decision is in any way connected to “the never ending and relentless acquisition of oil revenues” makes a complete mockery of your point, yourself and your country. You are the one who should hang their head in shame not Kenny McAskill. He made the correct decision and I have nothing but respect for him for making such a brave decision.

I’m interested, exactly what is it about Scotland that you are boycotting? Haggis, Kilts and Mel Gibson movies? Or are you boycotting everything that is Scottish like television, telephones, toilets, refrigerators, lawnmowers? Oh, and good luck next time you have an operation with out anaesthetic, antiseptic or penicillin.


thats a quality email, :faf:

i take it you have had no reply? :greengrin

[Betty Boop]

In case you missed it "It happened in Lockerbie", in four parts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_USFvnaSSU&feature=fvw

[blaikie]

http://www.boycottscotland.com/

:saltireflag
Brilliant stuff, So this could be the end of the "special relationship" :wink:

Love it or leave it, Alba Go Bragh :saltireflag

[Pete]

:agree:
I was trying to explain this to my wife last night.
He may have been involved but why are the Government not following up on the other suspects.

The public needed someone to blame !!!!

I think Scotland has been hung out to dry here....we will now be seen as the bad guys who let the terrorist get away with it in the eyes of the American public.

As Margo McDonald said there has been deal upon deal upon deal done over this affair. We're just a pawn in a big game that can be solved if the right people wanted it to be.

I wouldn't mock the significance of this for our economy. If American tourists turn their back on Scotland then we will suffer big time. It's time for hands across the water...not aggressive emails!

[Betty Boop]

Gordon Brown and his double standards http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/aug/20/gordon-brown-labour-libya-megrahi

[hibsdaft]

I wouldn't mock the significance of this for our economy. If American tourists turn their back on Scotland then we will suffer big time. It's time for hands across the water...not aggressive emails!

this will blow over sharpish i reckon, theres too much hypocrisy for them (the US and UK politicians who are all brokering oil deals with Libya ) for them to keep this righteous indignation up for too long

make no mistake this has worked out like a dream for the US, Labour, Tories the lot - they get to hang some wee country and the SNP (the latter which they all hate lets be honest) out to dry, clean up a messy affair without a damaging appeal (now dropped mind) and then get to be the ones coming out all enraged by this playing the tough anti terrorists routine

what a bunch of *****

MacKaskil - let out an innocent man
Them? They do deals with the folk they have say ordered the crime in the first place !

they must think we're all ****ing stupid.

[Sir David Gray]

not so for Dr Jim Swire who actively campaigned for his release, and whose daughter died on the plane.

Doesn't Jim Swire believe that Al Megrahi is innocent though, so that would obviously explain why he would campaign for his release.

I can't believe that any of the other victims' relatives, who actually believe that Al Megrahi is guilty of the bombing, would be campaigning for him to be released from prison.


While I'm far from a nationalist, you had better scrub Labour off your list too.

Mandelson met Gaddafi's son a week or so ago. Coincidence? I doubt it.

There is no way that the Scottish Executive made this decision alone. The meeting and the fact that the UK government isn't taking this opportunity to criticise the SNP would suggest that too.

Don't worry, I wouldn't vote Labour either.

It's between the Tories and UKIP for me. The main thing that puts me off the Tories is that they are full of upper class snobs and toffs, but I do agree with quite a few of their policies and principles, particularly when it comes to law and order. I just don't think a UK Conservative government would be great for Scotland as they really only care about "Middle England".

I wouldn't mind a Conservative Scottish government, though.

I certainly won't be voting SNP or Labour anyway, put it that way.

[The Harp Awakes]

Doesn't Jim Swire believe that Al Megrahi is innocent though, so that would obviously explain why he would campaign for his release.

I can't believe that any of the other victims' relatives, who actually believe that Al Megrahi is guilty of the bombing, would be campaigning for him to be released from prison.



Don't worry, I wouldn't vote Labour either.

It's between the Tories and UKIP for me. The main thing that puts me off the Tories is that they are full of upper class snobs and toffs, but I do agree with quite a few of their policies and principles, particularly when it comes to law and order. I just don't think a UK Conservative government would be great for Scotland as they really only care about "Middle England".

I wouldn't mind a Conservative Scottish government, though.

I certainly won't be voting SNP or Labour anyway, put it that way.

Conservatives :shocked: UKIP :shocked::shocked:

If you think UKIP, the UK Conservatives or even the 'Scottish' Conservatives and Unionist Party give a flying monkeys cack about Scotland mate then I despair. If they had their way there would be no Scotland or even a Union, we'd just be a region of Ingerlund.

[lyonhibs]

That protest website is the most pathetic, half baked pile of pish I've ever read. I love America and Americans for the most part, but the basement dwelling, brainless ***** that concoct that kind of pish can stay on their side of the pond, thank you very much.

Of course, I'll eat my hat if we see a significant drop in USA - Scotland trade. Which serious minded, credible businessman is going to take notice of a pash, blinkered and really more comic than anything else pile of steamin' e-dog ***** like that "enraged protest website"

Very, very few I'd venture - oh, and FWIW, all the Americans I know still curl up into a ball and cringe when reminded of the "Freedom Fries" episode.

[500miles]

It's worrying that people are admitting that there are major doubts over his conviction, but still think he should have died in jail. The great irony is that THEY are accusing the government of callousness.

This case stinks worse than the Kenny Ritchie debacle. The Americans didn't want to lose face, so they freed him as soon as he stopped protesting his innocence to make it seem as if they 'won'.

If this causes any of the families involved any hurt, then i feel for them, honestly. However, they are NOT an impartial source, and will be looking for someone, anyone, to blame to give them piece of mind.

[Dashing Bob S]

To be honest, I never even knew he had signed. Must have been from the Collins era.



Whoops...sorry, wrong forum.

[Beefster]

If they had their way there would be no Scotland or even a Union, we'd just be a region of Ingerlund.

When was that proposed? I missed it.

[Moulin Yarns]

Just sent a wee email to boycottscotland.com:

Correct me if I am wrong but when deciding how to try Abdel Baset al-Megrahi in 2000 all parties (including the US) agreed that the best and fairest way to progress the trial was in a Scottish Court under Scots Law? So why now are you hypocrites upset that he has been released under the same law that was agreed upon at the beginning of the trial? Perhaps we should have tried him under US law and murdered him in the name of “justice” or perhaps flown him to Eastern Europe and tortured him until he gave up the name of his accomplices? Get your own house in order before you start attacking others – a concept it seems is completely lost on American foreign policy.

And to claim that this decision is in any way connected to “the never ending and relentless acquisition of oil revenues” makes a complete mockery of your point, yourself and your country. You are the one who should hang their head in shame not Kenny McAskill. He made the correct decision and I have nothing but respect for him for making such a brave decision.

I’m interested, exactly what is it about Scotland that you are boycotting? Haggis, Kilts and Mel Gibson movies? Or are you boycotting everything that is Scottish like television, telephones, toilets, refrigerators, lawnmowers? Oh, and good luck next time you have an operation with out anaesthetic, antiseptic or penicillin.


I think the USofA needs to think long and hard if they want to boycott everything Scottish

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_inventions_and_discoveries

[Phil D. Rolls]

I think the USofA needs to think long and hard if they want to boycott everything Scottish

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_inventions_and_discoveries

To be honest, I thought they had been boycotting us for years. Apart descendents of the Scottish diaspora, how much does the average Yank give us, or do for us, or know about us.

An American boycott? I'm shaking in my boots, I really am.

[Moulin Yarns]

To be honest, I thought they had been boycotting us for years. Apart descendents of the Scottish diaspora, how much does the average Yank give us, or do for us, or know about us.

An American boycott? I'm shaking in my boots, I really am.


Hi FR, are you not a taxi driver? do you not get americans as fares? maybe that's why you think they've ben boycotting Scotland.

where I live Tourism is the largest earner and we actually do rely on the yanks. Although to be honest it is the minority of independant travellers who are worth more money, the coach loads spend EFF all:bitchy:

Agree that it is likely to be the 'Roots hunters' that come here anyway.

I would really like them to say "we will not have anything to do with Scotland" and then for them to realise just what that means in as much as they have no idea of the influence of Scotland on the world at large.

I mean, what have they given the world, in comparison?

What we don't want is this sort of thing http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/8178163.stm

Drunken rant over!!

[Phil D. Rolls]

Hi FR, are you not a taxi driver? do you not get americans as fares? maybe that's why you think they've ben boycotting Scotland.

where I live Tourism is the largest earner and we actually do rely on the yanks. Although to be honest it is the minority of independant travellers who are worth more money, the coach loads spend EFF all:bitchy:

Agree that it is likely to be the 'Roots hunters' that come here anyway.

I would really like them to say "we will not have anything to do with Scotland" and then for them to realise just what that means in as much as they have no idea of the influence of Scotland on the world at large.

I mean, what have they given the world, in comparison?

What we don't want is this sort of thing http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/8178163.stm

Drunken rant over!!

Not driving a cab anymore. When I did I found that people came to Scotland because they had a deep interest in the culture and I honestly don't expect them to be put off by this verdict. If anything it underlines what an interesting place Scotland is to live.

Like you say, the people most likely to be swayed by this are the types that go on coaches. I don't think we should worry about them too much as they will have forgotten about it by the time they book their Europe in 14 days vacations.

British people were supposed to find Franco repugnant, but it didn't stop them going to Spain.

[Fantic]

The head of the FBI - Robert Mueller has said ''the decision has made a mockery of justice''
:faf::faf::faf:

[Sir David Gray]

Conservatives :shocked: UKIP :shocked::shocked:

If you think UKIP, the UK Conservatives or even the 'Scottish' Conservatives and Unionist Party give a flying monkeys cack about Scotland mate then I despair. If they had their way there would be no Scotland or even a Union, we'd just be a region of Ingerlund.

I would have reservations about ever voting for the UK Conservatives because, as you rightly say, I don't think they could care less about Scotland.

But I do agree with many "small-c" conservative beliefs and principles and I think I could be persuaded to vote for the Scottish Conservatives in Scottish elections, even although I'm not really a lover of the Conservative party. If the choice was between Conservative, Labour, SNP and Liberal Democrats, it would have to be the Tories for me.

UKIP appeals to me but I realise that they are a bit of a wasted vote in Scotland as they hardly have any support up here.

The perfect party for me would be something like the Free Scotland Party, the only problem is, they have even less support than UKIP.

I do support the idea of Scottish independence but not under the guidance of the SNP or any of the other left wing socialist parties.

Anyway that's a bit of a digression from the thread topic so I'll leave it at that.

[The Green Goblin]

Excellent post in today`s Independent. This is a response to an article about the release of Al-Meghrahi. Yes, it`s long, but well worth a read.

GG


WALRUS BULLS BELLOWING ON A BEACH
chuckman_john wrote:

This is my recent take on these events:

I am disappointed with the view of some knowledgeable commentators over Scotland’s release of the dying man who was convicted of the Lockerbie-airline bombing.

From a purely power-politics point of view, of course, they are right: judging by the ugly noises echoing across the oceans from America, Scotland has done itself no favor.

But if all affairs are to be carried on in every country from that point of view, it seems to me that it is acceptance of America's right to dictate every matter over the planet, including such intimate matters as how individual countries interpret justice and the government of laws.

This is the acceptance of a de facto aristocracy running the world since American voters - and only about half of eligible Americans bother to vote - represent only a percent or so of the planet’s population. It is remarkable how many Americans do not understand the basic point that not everything a democracy does is democratic or decent or even acceptable, especially things done outside its borders.

Democracies abuse power just as surely as any other form of government, and a democracy with the immense military power of the United States – a power virtually cancerous to genuine democratic values - provides a case study in the inexorable workings of Lord Acton’s dictum.

It would also represent a repression of all the better motives from which individuals and societies act now and then, surprising us and raising the standard of human behavior from the violent-chimpanzee standard that tends to hold for much of humanity and is especially notable in America’s international affairs.

That is unacceptable to most people who are not Americans or who are not dedicated flatterers of America seeking leftovers being dropped from its groaning table.

You only have to ask yourself how Americans themselves would react to others telling them how they should run their court system. The sound would be deafening, like the bellowing of walrus bulls on a stony beach in mating season, which is actually pretty close to the sound of some of America’s professional-victim families today.

Mercy is never misplaced, and I think Scottish justice has reached an admirable decision despite the bellowing of the unthinking American families we have heard from for years.

Apart from that, and a very important consideration, it is almost certain that al-Megrahi is innocent, having been fitted up by American intelligence desperate for a scapegoat with the relentless political pressure of the walrus-bull families.

I have to say, also, I always find it troubling to read the press repeating the lines about 270 victims for the thousandth time. It is an American mantra, emphasizing the special and precious nature of American lives over all others, at least, that is, the lives of upper middle-class Americans.

Rarely do we read an accurate perspective on the Lockerbie event.

The United States Navy stupidly shot down an Iranian airliner with 300 souls aboard as it observed the devastation of the Iran-Iraq War, a devastation America had an important hand in extending.

Those 300 innocent men, women, and children received no mercy, and their horrible deaths certainly never saw any justice. Their families never received compensation. And no apology was even offered by Americans, a disgusting set of behaviors, entirely.

Lockerbie was absolutely clearly revenge, but no one knows who actually committed the act of revenge.

I might offer the observation, too, that it is the same bellowing Americans always ready to use capital punishment or torture and assassinate opponents or, indeed, to invade the lands of those with whom they disagree, bombing and killing countless innocents – three million just in Vietnam, another million or so in the Cambodia they de-stabilized, and another million or so in Iraq.

The whole pattern of the two acts of wanton destruction explains the basis for the so-called War on Terror. It is simply America's saying, “I can do to you, but you can't do to me.”

[The Green Goblin]

apart from 1 italian it was only wogs that were on it

WTF? :confused:

GG

[hibsdaft]

WTF? :confused:

GG

i think Fergus is imitating the attitude of some that meant that that tragedy is not higher in Western conciousness rather than stating his own opinion.

[hibsdaft]

apparently the Royal's may not be visiting Libya now.

they were willing to visit the man they think ordered the Lockerbie bombing before, but not now that the guy they think planted it has been released.

they're sitting there with their invitation from Gaddafi on the mantelpiece watching Sky News saying oh no how terrible that Scotland has released that bomber.

sickening hypocrisy.

this must all be very frustrating for BP.

[The Green Goblin]

i think Fergus is imitating the attitude of some that meant that that tragedy is not higher in Western conciousness rather than stating his own opinion.

cheers. that`s what I thought. It just caught me by surprise. :wink:

GG

[the_ginger_hibee]

apparently the Royal's may not be visiting Libya now.

they were willing to visit the man they think ordered the Lockerbie bombing before, but not now that the guy they think planted it has been released.

they're sitting there with their invitation from Gaddafi on the mantelpiece watching Sky News saying oh no how terrible that Scotland has released that bomber.

sickening hypocrisy.

this must all be very frustrating for BP.

Barry Penderville? :confused:

The way I see it is, Libya love us, America now hate us! Fair deal IMO. We were England with skirts on to them anyway, our national identity over there was been stolen by the Irish ages ago! :greengrin

[blaikie]

Barry Penderville? :confused:

The way I see it is, Libya love us, America now hate us! Fair deal IMO. We were England with skirts on to them anyway, our national identity over there was been stolen by the Irish ages ago! :greengrin
Way off topic .... But your new sig :faf::top marks

[GhostofBolivar]

It occurs to me that since America's last great contribution to justice was the phrase 'extraordinary rendition' they should - perhaps - put their own house in order before criticizing the legal systems of other countries.

[--------]

It occurs to me that since America's last great contribution to justice was the phrase 'extraordinary rendition' they should - perhaps - put their own house in order before criticizing the legal systems of other countries.


Remember that somewhere among the ranks of America's Finest there is a regiment with the name 'My Lai' listed in its battle honours.

And a US Navy warship with 'Iran Air 556' inscribed on a little aeroplane silhouette sewn to its battle ensign.

[Betty Boop]

Remember that somewhere among the ranks of America's Finest there is a regiment with the name 'My Lai' listed in its battle honours.

And a US Navy warship with 'Iran Air 556' inscribed on a little aroplane silhouette sewn to its battle ensign.
Hi Doddie thought you might be interested in this, if you have time to watch it? :greengrin http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7160854996287567609

[CropleyWasGod]

And a US Navy warship with 'Iran Air 556' inscribed on a little aroplane silhouette sewn to its battle ensign.

... and, in a curious example of serendipity, let us not forget that that same US Navy was founded by a Scot :devil:

[--------]

Hi Doddie thought you might be interested in this, if you have time to watch it? :greengrin http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7160854996287567609


I'll save it and catch it later. Ta.

I don't know for sure that Al-Megrahi is innocent - but I do reckon that at the very least, with all the uncertainty, a Scots JURY (as opposed to Scots judges) might very well have brought in a verdict of 'not proven'. (Which is probably why he was tried before a bench of judges and not a jury. Judges can be told what to do much more easily than a jury. Fewer of them.)

One thing that IS relevant, though - Muslims do respect the Old Testament, and one OT concept they've taken into Islamic law is the concept of 'an eye for an eye'. If justice isn't forthcoming, revenge is permissible - this isn't law, btw, but it is in the culture and mindset - and Pan-Am 103 is almost exact retribution for IranAir 655, and only a few months later. Fits far better than the idea of Ghaddafi looking for revenge for the bombing of his palace 2 years before.

[hibsdaft]

here we go, brace yourselves from some stomach churning hypocrisy from the Labour and Tory stooges over at Holyrood.

[--------]

here we go, brace yourselves from some stomach churning hypocrisy from the Labour and Tory stooges over at Holyrood.


Don't forget wee tavish and his Libbidem freends. :devil:

[hibsdaft]

we're all ashamed apparently, according to Gray. what a worm.

[CropleyWasGod]

Amid all the mayhem, it's always worth listening to the UN. Not always the voice of reason, sure, but often the organisation with the least agenda.

At the weekend, their official observer wrote in SoS that he thought the decision to release al-Megrahi was the correct one. Not surprising, of course, given that the UN have long said that the guilty verdict was a miscarriage of justice.

He also referred to the payment of the star prosecution witness by the FBI/CIA. Ironic, given the FBI's soapbox stuff at the weekend.

[--------]

we're all ashamed apparently, according to Gray. what a worm.


At one time, one or two of us were preening themselves that he was/is (allegedly) a Hibee.

If he is, I AM ashamed.



Of him.

[Hiber-nation]

Don't forget wee tavish and his Libbidem freends. :devil:

Amazing....and here was me thinking the Liberals were the compassionate ones :rolleyes:

[--------]

He's doing OK.

Keep it up, Kenny-boy! :agree:

[Betty Boop]

Annabel Goldie and Margaret Curran said "why was he not sent to a hospice in Scotland?" :yawn: Ludicrous!!

[JimBHibees]

Remember that somewhere among the ranks of America's Finest there is a regiment with the name 'My Lai' listed in its battle honours.

And a US Navy warship with 'Iran Air 556' inscribed on a little aeroplane silhouette sewn to its battle ensign.

The story of My Lai. Now that is shameful.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-485983/Found-The-monster-My-Lai-massacre.html

[ancienthibby]

Thought it was a quite redoutable performance from Kenny. He and the Scottish Parliament came of age today.

And warm words too for Malcolm Chisholm who went against his party's unprincipled stance and supported Kenny's decision!! Well done that man.:agree:

Interesting now just how many others are coming out from hiding and saying the decision was correct.

Lords Fraser and Steel, the UN, the churches, the Herald, the Independent - but where, oh where, is that coward Pa Brown??

[--------]

Annabel Goldie and Margaret Curran said "why was he not sent to a hospice in Scotland?" :yawn: Ludicrous!!


Just what all the other patients would have needed - wall-to-wall security, armed polis in every ward, and some nutter from Jawja or Nooyawk coming after the guy with his Second Amendment hardware.

Oh yes, and the press and paparazzi surrounding the place.

[--------]

Thought it was a quite redoutable performance from Kenny. He and the Scottish Parliament came of age today.

And warm words too for Malcolm Chisholm who went against his party's unprincipled stance and supported Kenny's decision!! Well done that man.:agree:

Interesting now just how many others are coming out from hiding and saying the decision was correct.

Lords Fraser and Steel, the UN, the churches, the Herald, the Independent - but where, oh where, is that coward Pa Brown??


Rumbles, McLetchie and some weasel from the Sclabs still want their debate, though.

Not out of the woods yet.

McLetchie doesn't seem to have got it yet that the Justice Minister at Westmonster CAN'T "instruct" the Justice minister at Holyrood to do ANYTHING.

Devolution, David. Heard of it?

The Apparatchiks will be sharpening the knives for Malcom Chisholm, though. That WAS a surprise. A Scottish Labour MSP with principles.

[JoeT]

How much has this debate cost the tax payer?

Decision made - get over it

[CropleyWasGod]

The Apparatchiks will be sharpening the knives for Malcom Chisholm, though. That WAS a surprise. A Scottish Labour MSP with principles.

Not that much, Doddie. IIRC, he resigned from his Whitehall post some years back over... single parent benefits I think? Anyways, this isn't the first time he has shown backbone.

Also had a few dealings with him as a constituency MP/MSP. To me, one of the better guys.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Can I just set the record straight? When MacAskill made his announcement I said things like "proud to be Scottish", "humanistic values" and "who cares about America". Like many other Scots I thought I was part of a majority who cared about our country's values and how it is perceived in the rest of the world.

Reading the papers in the last few days has fairly openened my eyes to the reall issues here. I appreciate now that the majority of Scots are sickened by freeing this man, and that MacAskill has been very silly indeed. It's people like him that give Scotland a bad name.

Hopefully this will lead to a Labour government at Holyrood again, and we can get back to the things that made this great (but wee) country what it is today. I look forward to checking with London if it is OK to do things again, as it is clear we really can't govern ourselves.

I would like to thank the Scottish Daily Mail, The Scottish Daily Express and the The Daily Record, in particular for making me see the error of my ways. I am still proud to be a Scot, but deeply deeply ashamed of those bad men in the SNP, for daring to speak for the Scottish people - even if they were elected to do that.

What must people think of us?

[marinello59]

Thought it was a quite redoutable performance from Kenny. He and the Scottish Parliament came of age today.

And warm words too for Malcolm Chisholm who went against his party's unprincipled stance and supported Kenny's decision!! Well done that man.:agree:

Interesting now just how many others are coming out from hiding and saying the decision was correct.

Lords Fraser and Steel, the UN, the churches, the Herald, the Independent - but where, oh where, is that coward Pa Brown??

Macavity will be continuing his record of being gutless, indecisive and self serving right to the end of his disastrous period as PM.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Thought it was a quite redoutable performance from Kenny. He and the Scottish Parliament came of age today.

And warm words too for Malcolm Chisholm who went against his party's unprincipled stance and supported Kenny's decision!! Well done that man.:agree:

Interesting now just how many others are coming out from hiding and saying the decision was correct.

Lords Fraser and Steel, the UN, the churches, the Herald, the Independent - but where, oh where, is that coward Pa Brown??

Macavity will be continuing his record of being gutless, indecisive and self serving right to the end of his disastrous period as PM.

Not the first time Chis has broken ranks with his party. I'm starting to like that man.

[steakbake]

Not that much, Doddie. IIRC, he resigned from his Whitehall post some years back over... single parent benefits I think? Anyways, this isn't the first time he has shown backbone.

Also had a few dealings with him as a constituency MP/MSP. To me, one of the better guys.

:agree:

He is a people's representative first and a party politician second. One of the few on all sides, I would say.

[--------]

Can I just set the record straight? When MacAskill made his announcement I said things like "proud to be Scottish", "humanistic values" and "who cares about America". Like many other Scots I thought I was part of a majority who cared about our country's values and how it is perceived in the rest of the world.

Reading the papers in the last few days has fairly openened my eyes to the reall issues here. I appreciate now that the majority of Scots are sickened by freeing this man, and that MacAskill has been very silly indeed. It's people like him that give Scotland a bad name.

Hopefully this will lead to a Labour government at Holyrood again, and we can get back to the things that made this great (but wee) country what it is today. I look forward to checking with London if it is OK to do things again, as it is clear we really can't govern ourselves.

I would like to thank the Scottish Daily Mail, The Scottish Daily Express and the The Daily Record, in particular for making me see the error of my ways. I am still proud to be a Scot, but deeply deeply ashamed of those bad men in the SNP, for daring to speak for the Scottish people - even if they were elected to do that.

What must people think of us?

:agree: So true. So very, very true.

Your post brought tears to my eyes, FR.

How could I have been so blind?

I too remain proud to be a Scot, but like that 'silent majority' of whom that Great and Good Man Iain Gray spoke so movingly yesterday, I am sickened and embarrassed that Kenny MacAskill should ever have dared to do anything without clearing it with Gordo the Great and Jack 'Clutching At Straws' Straw in Westmonster.

How we could have forgotten that the ONLY function appropriate to our elected representatives in Scotland is to be on hand to pick up the soap whenever the Great and Good of Westmonster drop it in the shower?

Hopefully the US will send us lots of nice men with guns to patrol our streets and set up adventure playgrounds (like they did in Iraq and Cuba) where we can be dressed in nice orange jump-suits and re-educated to take up our place in the civilised world once again as obedient and compliant serfs to our Betters and Masters. I believe that the CIA will lay on a free aeroplane ride to get you there.

"Jump, Massa Gordo? Why, sho', Massa Gordo! How high should I jump, Massa Gordo?"


Note to Admin: Could you please hurry along the "snivelling Jocko cringe-ball" smiley? It will be needed.

[CropleyWasGod]

.... and don't forget the Death Panels.

[--------]

.... and don't forget the Death Panels.



No one EVER expects the DEATH PANELS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :hnetinq:


Just a wee thought - do the DEATH PANELS work anything like the same way that the US SUPREME COURT does?

Like, telling people, "YOU'RE gonna DIE - 'COS WE'RE gonna KILL YA!"

Just asking. :devil:

[CropleyWasGod]

No one EVER expects the DEATH PANELS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :hnetinq:


Just a wee thought - do the DEATH PANELS work anything like the same way that the US SUPREME COURT does?

Like, telling people, "YOU'RE gonna DIE - 'COS WE'RE gonna KILL YA!"

Just asking. :devil:

Only if Sara P ever finds herself in front of one... :greengrin

[JimBHibees]

:agree:

He is a people's representative first and a party politician second. One of the few on all sides, I would say.

Is this the same guy that voted for the Iraq war then changed his mind the day after?

[--------]

SCOTLAND'S SHAME.

http://northbritain.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/jack-mcconnell-in-kilt.jpg


:faf: :faf: :faf: :faf: :faf: :faf: :faf: :faf: :faf: :faf:

[steakbake]

Is this the same guy that voted for the Iraq war then changed his mind the day after?

He has at least a conscience. There's plenty who voted for the Iraq War and still think it was right.

[ancienthibby]

SCOTLAND'S SHAME.

http://northbritain.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/jack-mcconnell-in-kilt.jpg


:faf: :faf: :faf: :faf: :faf: :faf: :faf: :faf: :faf:

That's no fair, Doddie, trying to poke fun at Wee Joke Ma(c)wali!!:devil:

[khib70]

:agree: So true. So very, very true.

Your post brought tears to my eyes, FR.

How could I have been so blind?

I too remain proud to be a Scot, but like that 'silent majority' of whom that Great and Good Man Iain Gray spoke so movingly yesterday, I am sickened and embarrassed that Kenny MacAskill should ever have dared to do anything without clearing it with Gordo the Great and Jack 'Clutching At Straws' Straw in Westmonster.

How we could have forgotten that the ONLY function appropriate to our elected representatives in Scotland is to be on hand to pick up the soap whenever the Great and Good of Westmonster drop it in the shower?

Hopefully the US will send us lots of nice men with guns to patrol our streets and set up adventure playgrounds (like they did in Iraq and Cuba) where we can be dressed in nice orange jump-suits and re-educated to take up our place in the civilised world once again as obedient and compliant serfs to our Betters and Masters. I believe that the CIA will lay on a free aeroplane ride to get you there.

"Jump, Massa Gordo? Why, sho', Massa Gordo! How high should I jump, Massa Gordo?"


Note to Admin: Could you please hurry along the "snivelling Jocko cringe-ball" smiley? It will be needed.
Nice mocking of the "silent majority" idea. However while you lot are all piling on here congratulating each other on how witty and anti-American you can be (on a forum where dissent from your point of view is barely tolerated), very many other Scots, including me, are thoroughly disgusted at the situation.

This decision certainly appalls me, and I don't read red-top papers, and can string the odd word together. But it's good enough for the Holy Grounders on the simplistic basis that a) the Americans don't like it, and b) it's the braveheart Scottish Government sticking two fingers up at Westminster.

The Scottish government is my government too, and I am disgusted with it and ashamed of it. I will not be voting SNP again, and that's for sure. Gloat all you like about this, but don't gloat in my name, and don't pretend you even represent a significant minority of Scots.

[JimBHibees]

He has at least a conscience. There's plenty who voted for the Iraq War and still think it was right.

I would have had more respect for him if his conscience kicked in prior to a very tight commons vote though.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Nice mocking of the "silent majority" idea. However while you lot are all piling on here congratulating each other on how witty and anti-American you can be (on a forum where dissent from your point of view is barely tolerated), very many other Scots, including me, are thoroughly disgusted at the situation.

This decision certainly appalls me, and I don't read red-top papers, and can string the odd word together. But it's good enough for the Holy Grounders on the simplistic basis that a) the Americans don't like it, and b) it's the braveheart Scottish Government sticking two fingers up at Westminster.

The Scottish government is my government too, and I am disgusted with it and ashamed of it. I will not be voting SNP again, and that's for sure. Gloat all you like about this, but don't gloat in my name, and don't pretend you even represent a significant majority of Scots.

That's what democracy is about. I have a clear view of how I see this, and using my values and beliefs I think it is right. I do respect the rights of others to feel differently about it though. The one thing I hope comes from it is that the Scots take responsibility for the decision and don't try to palm the blame off onto others.

I have been getting angrier and angrier watching the news the last couple of nights, with commentators from all over showing Scotland disrespect. I think it was News at Ten last night that took the biscuit. They said that we will have to wait till (the UK) Parliament reconvenes next week before we can get a debate on it.

Add to that Americans coming on TV thinking that their values transfer to every country in the world, and I am becoming more bullish about defending Scotland.

There can be nothing wrong with compassion in my book. That said I do acknoweldge that for others justice is equally important. My feeling is that if someone is going to die then it is pretty macabre to feel disappointed that they don't die in prison.

[Woody1985]

It seems there are a lot of people happy that we've gone against America's thoughts rather than looking at the wider picture and the impact on our country for years to come.

If this was any other terrorist I'd be delighted for them to be in jail and rot without any compassion. The fact is that some people don't deserve compassion.

I think it's easier for people to be compassionate about this guy because there is ambiguity about his guilt and because he / someone were part of a bigger plot. If this guy was guilty then there should have been no compassion. The same with the Glasgow bombers, they should have let the **** burn rather than put the fires out.

I suspect this will have much bigger ramifications in years to come and won't blow over easily.

IMO there's been an almighty great wedge been driven between us and America. Whether that's a good thing or not I'm not sure. However, I don't think it makes us any less of a target for terrorists as we're potentially out on our own now.

[--------]

Nice mocking of the "silent majority" idea. However while you lot are all piling on here congratulating each other on how witty and anti-American you can be (on a forum where dissent from your point of view is barely tolerated), very many other Scots, including me, are thoroughly disgusted at the situation.

This decision certainly appalls me, and I don't read red-top papers, and can string the odd word together. But it's good enough for the Holy Grounders on the simplistic basis that a) the Americans don't like it, and b) it's the braveheart Scottish Government sticking two fingers up at Westminster.

The Scottish government is my government too, and I am disgusted with it and ashamed of it. I will not be voting SNP again, and that's for sure. Gloat all you like about this, but don't gloat in my name, and don't pretend you even represent a significant majority of Scots.


I think if you cast your eye back over the thread you'll find that my support of Ken MacAakill is based on more than just sticking it to the US and Westminster.

I have grave doubts regarding the safety of Al-Megrahi's conviction.

That conviction was in large part based on evidence placed before a Scottish court by the intelligence services of the United States of America, in particular the CIA.

The main witness cited by the CIA is now living in Australia having received a seven-figure payment from them.

Since the trial the CIA has been involved in providing the 'incontrovertiable' evidence that Saddam Hussein was preparing weapons of mass destruction to be used in an attack on Israel and the West. We went into an aggressive war with Iraq on the assumption that this evidence would stand up. NO WMDs have been found. Tens of thousands of Iraqis (most of them 'collateral damage' as we would now term them) have died, as well as hundreds of British soldiers, in a war that was certainly illegal.

You'll pardon me if I'm angry that my country's judiciary was dragged into the business of what looks increasingly like an operation to stitch up a man who if not exactly innocent of all wrong-doing, was very probably NOT responsible for the horrendous crime of which he stood accused.

THEN we're being lectured on morality and the rule of law by the national government that gave the world Extraordinary Rendition, the Guantanamo Bay dention centre, and the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (don't you just LOVE their way with words?) that are at present under investigation by the US Attorney-General Eric Holder's Special Prosecutor John Durham?

Not to mention judicial technological innovations like the electric chair, the gas chamber, and lethal injection?

While Gordon Brown says nothing? About anything at all? And Obama (having said HIS piece) is now on holiday and incommunicado?

I'm sorry, but I can't quite see people like Iain Gray, David McLetchie, and Tavish Scott as the fearless defenders of freedom that they're pretending to be.

More like poltical time-servers jumping on a band-wagon in the name of political expediency and self-serving opportunism.

What was it Tony Bliar used to say every time the Labour Party was caught with its hand either in the till or up some lassie's skirt?

"Time to draw a line under this and move on?" :devil:

[(((Fergus)))]

It seems there are a lot of people happy that we've gone against America's thoughts rather than looking at the wider picture and the impact on our country for years to come.

If this was any other terrorist I'd be delighted for them to be in jail and rot without any compassion. The fact is that some people don't deserve compassion.

I think it's easier for people to be compassionate about this guy because there is ambiguity about his guilt and because he / someone were part of a bigger plot. If this guy was guilty then there should have been no compassion. The same with the Glasgow bombers, they should have let the **** burn rather than put the fires out.

I suspect this will have much bigger ramifications in years to come and won't blow over easily.

IMO there's been an almighty great wedge been driven between us and America. Whether that's a good thing or not I'm not sure. However, I don't think it makes us any less of a target for terrorists as we're potentially out on our own now.

If we have to compromise our principles in order to keep a friend sweet, then they are not really a friend.

As for the terrorist threat, we should not seek safety by hiding behind America (who don't really give a **** about us anyway) but by a) ensuring that our principles are correct and b) sticking to them. If we conduct ourselves properly and don't mix in other people's affairs then they will not mix in ours. "Do as you would be done by".

[cad]

Great read the last 4 posts Filled Rolls , Woody , Doddie, Fergus .
How I think is somewhere in that lot ,a friend of mind just sent me this from the States ,seems the Colonials aint happy ,well some of them which brings me back to what Woody said .


IMO there's been an almighty great wedge been driven between us and America. Whether that's a good thing or not I'm not sure.



http://www.boycottscotland.com/

This is how this link begins ,for the full show click the link have your lunch first its huge :-



Boycott Scotland and the United Kingdom

Abdel Baset al-Megrahi has been set free by Scotland

But we will not allow Gaddafi to win.

Boycott Libya (http://www.boycottlibya.com/)



''It is very hard to get at the truth, and yet [leading Labour Party peer]


Lord Mandelson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Mandelson) is seen with the Libyan President's son. It is very clear



that the British Government are in this up to their neck. I view all this noise



as party politics in a rather crude way."



— Lord Owen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Owen), Former British Foreign Secretary



Source: US ire grows as Lockerbie bomber gets hero's welcome (http://www.theage.com.au/world/us-ire-grows-as-lockerbie-bomber-gets-heros-welcome-20090821-etu6.html)




The government of Scotland has decided to release convicted Lockerbie terrorist bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdelbaset_Ali_Mohmed_Al_Megrahi) on "compassionate grounds."
The government of the United Kingdom has washed its hands of the entire affair, allowing the Scottish government total freedom in taking this perfidious action against the families of the victims of Pan Am Flight 103 (http://www.victimsofpanamflight103.org/).

[CropleyWasGod]

If we have to compromise our principles in order to keep a friend sweet, then they are not really a friend.

As for the terrorist threat, we should not seek safety by hiding behind America (who don't really give a **** about us anyway) but by a) ensuring that our principles are correct and b) sticking to them. If we conduct ourselves properly and don't mix in other people's affairs then they will not mix in ours. "Do as you would be done by".

Agree with the first point 100%.

As for the terrorist "threat", I don't see how it could have been affected one way or another by recent events. Terrorists aren't stupid... they know exactly what has gone on here, overtly and covertly. They know that Scotland, and its Government, are carrying the can for the deeds and omissions of others.

Glasgow airport aside (which I still believe was not their original target), we have never been a target for the bombers. We are just too small and insignificant in their eyes. I can't see that changing.

[Twa Cairpets]

I think iof you cast your eye back over the thread you'll find that my support of ken MacAakill is based on more than just sticking it to the US and Westminster.

I have grave doubts regarding the safety of Al-Megrahi's conviction.

That conviction was in large part based on evidence placed before a Scottish court by the intelligence services of the United States of America, in particular the CIA.

The main witness cited by the CIA is now living in Australia having received a seven-figure payment from them.

Since the trial the CIA has been involved in providing the 'incontrovertiable' evidence that Saddam Hussein was preparing weapons of mass destruction to be used in an attack on Israel and the West. We went into an aggressive war with Iraq on the assumption that this evidence would stand up. NO WMDs have been found. Tens of thousands of Iraqis (most of them 'collateral damage' as we would now term them) have died, as well as hundreds of British soldiers, in a war that was certainly illegal.

You'll pardon me if I'm angry that my country's judiciary was dragged into the business of what looks increasingly like an operation to stitch up a man who if not exactly innocent of all wrong-doing, was very probably NOT responsible for the horrendous crime of which he stood accused.

THEN we're being lectured on morality and the rule of law by the national government that gave the world Extraordinary Rendition, the Guantanamo Bay dention centre, and the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (don't you just LOVE their way with words?) that are at present under investigation by the US Attorney-General Eric Holder's Special Prosecutor John Durham?

Not to mention judicial technological innovations like the electric chair, the gas chamber, and lethal injection?

While Gordon Brown says nothing? About anything at all? And Obama (having said HIS piece) is now on holiday and incommunicado?

I'm sorry, but I can't quite see people like Iain Gray, David McLetchie, and Tavish Scott as the fearless defenders of freedom that they're pretending to be.

More like poltical time-servers jumping on a band-wagon in the name of political expediency and self-serving opportunism.

What was it Tony Bliar used to say every time the Labour Party was caught with its hand either in the till or up some lassie's skirt?

"Time to draw a line under this and move on?" :devil:

If your stance is based on concern over the conviction, then that is fine.

However, your stance and the reason for the release are different. If you had confidence in the conviction, would you still have supported the release on the grounds of compassion? It is this that is causing the furore.

[Twa Cairpets]

If we have to compromise our principles in order to keep a friend sweet, then they are not really a friend.

As for the terrorist threat, we should not seek safety by hiding behind America (who don't really give a **** about us anyway) but by a) ensuring that our principles are correct and b) sticking to them. If we conduct ourselves properly and don't mix in other people's affairs then they will not mix in ours. "Do as you would be done by".

Great sentiment for the playground, potentially less effective in the realm of international realpolitik.

"If we conduct ourselves properly and don't mix in other people's affairs then they will not mix in ours." :ostrich: (no yam insult intended)

[ancienthibby]

If your stance is based on concern over the conviction, then that is fine.

However, your stance and the reason for the release are different. If you had confidence in the conviction, would you still have supported the release on the grounds of compassion? It is this that is causing the furore.

TC,

The compassion exercised by Kenny Macaskill has to be applied regardless of any views on the first part of your point. In other words confidence in the first in no way excludes confidence in the second.

There is a rightly valid view that no one is beyond the law, but there also is a rightly valid view that no one is beyond compassion. It is to the credit of Macaskill and the justice system that he serves that both principles could be applied in this instance!

[Twa Cairpets]

If your stance is based on concern over the conviction, then that is fine.

However, your stance and the reason for the release are different. If you had confidence in the conviction, would you still have supported the release on the grounds of compassion? It is this that is causing the furore.

TC,

The compassion exercised by Kenny Macaskill has to be applied regardless of any views on the first part of your point. In other words confidence in the first in no way excludes confidence in the second.

There is a rightly valid view that no one is beyond the law, but there also is a rightly valid view that no one is beyond compassion. It is to the credit of Macaskill and the justice system that he serves that both principles could be applied in this instance!

My own view on this is not strong, but I tend towards the view that he should have been kept incarcerated in Scotland. I was wondering if Doddies view was soleley based on his belief that the conviction was unsound. As the release was apparently on the grounds of compassion, it seems to me that it is better to defend that stance rather than defend a position that had nothing to do with his release and therefore, in the grander scheme of things, is irrelevant. "confidence in the first in no way excludes confidence in the second." /true, because it has nothing to do with it.

[khib70]

I think iof you cast your eye back over the thread you'll find that my support of ken MacAakill is based on more than just sticking it to the US and Westminster.

I have grave doubts regarding the safety of Al-Megrahi's conviction.

That conviction was in large part based on evidence placed before a Scottish court by the intelligence services of the United States of America, in particular the CIA.

The main witness cited by the CIA is now living in Australia having received a seven-figure payment from them.

Since the trial the CIA has been involved in providing the 'incontrovertiable' evidence that Saddam Hussein was preparing weapons of mass destruction to be used in an attack on Israel and the West. We went into an aggressive war with Iraq on the assumption that this evidence would stand up. NO WMDs have been found. Tens of thousands of Iraqis (most of them 'collateral damage' as we would now term them) have died, as well as hundreds of British soldiers, in a war that was certainly illegal.

You'll pardon me if I'm angry that my country's judiciary was dragged into the business of what looks increasingly like an operation to stitch up a man who if not exactly innocent of all wrong-doing, was very probably NOT responsible for the horrendous crime of which he stood accused.

THEN we're being lectured on morality and the rule of law by the national government that gave the world Extraordinary Rendition, the Guantanamo Bay dention centre, and the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (don't you just LOVE their way with words?) that are at present under investigation by the US Attorney-General Eric Holder's Special Prosecutor John Durham?

Not to mention judicial technological innovations like the electric chair, the gas chamber, and lethal injection?

While Gordon Brown says nothing? About anything at all? And Obama (having said HIS piece) is now on holiday and incommunicado?

I'm sorry, but I can't quite see people like Iain Gray, David McLetchie, and Tavish Scott as the fearless defenders of freedom that they're pretending to be.

More like poltical time-servers jumping on a band-wagon in the name of political expediency and self-serving opportunism.

What was it Tony Bliar used to say every time the Labour Party was caught with its hand either in the till or up some lassie's skirt?

"Time to draw a line under this and move on?" :devil:
Your statement that your stance is based on more than "sticking it up to the US and Westminster" would be more convincing had you not gone on spend a substantial part of your post detailing the tired old litany of alleged American crimes. And several of your previous ones making the ludicrous comparison between Lockerbie and the Vincennes incident. And your finishing off with another dig at the Labour party and the UK Government.

Putting that aside, the assumption that this is purely a Scottish matter is naive and a little arrogant. To suggest that the intelligence services of the country which owned the aircraft, and of which the majority of victims were citizens, should have no input into the investigation, or that the evidence they produce should be disregarded, is an indefensible "ad hominem" argument.

The target of this attack was the US. Scottish jurisdiction in this matter is the result of a cruel accident. The bomb was intended to destroy this American plane over the Atlantic, along with its mainly American passengers and crew. The plane was delayed and a horrible event took place on Scottish soil, with the tragic loss of Scottish lives. There was no Scottish Government in 1988, only legal jurisdiction over the crime scene. For the present minority Scottish government to claim total and exclusive rights to any kind of authority in the case is arrogant, and undoubtedly politically motivated.

The suspected bomber was tried in a Scottish court on neutral soil at the insistence of Lybia. The Scottish judiciary were not "dragged" into anything. There was no jury, as an impartial jury of Scots would have been hard to find in the light of the horrific nature of the crime. Al-Megrahi was found guilty. He was found guilty again on appeal. Strange that those of you with such confidence in Scottish politicians to make the correct decision have none whatsoever in nine separate Scottish judges.

And as others have posted, McAskill cast no doubt at all on the safety of the conviction, and in one of the more coherent parts of his statement, emphatically underlined Al-Megrahi's guilt. Therefore, he did not make his decision on the basis of guilt or innocence, and these issues are irrelevant to the decision to release him.

His statement, which he then repeated verbatim to the Scottish Parliament, was reeking of the sanctimonious pseudo-sprituality more associated with happy-clappy vicars. It majored on the compassion issue, and in my view, and I suspect the view of the majority of Scots, the decision was the wrong one.

To emphatically state that someone is a despicable mass murderer, then announce that you are letting him jet off to a hero's welcome is asking for rather more trouble than McAskill has so far got. If I have a criticism of his political opponents it is that they backed off from a confidence vote and removing the hapless Justice Secretary from doing any further damage to our nation.

[Twa Cairpets]

Your statement that your stance is based on more than "sticking it up to the US and Westminster" would be more convincing had you not gone on spend a substantial part of your post detailing the tired old litany of alleged American crimes. And several of your previous ones making the ludicrous comparison between Lockerbie and the Vincennes incident. And your finishing off with another dig at the Labour party and the UK Government.

Putting that aside, the assumption that this is purely a Scottish matter is naive and a little arrogant. To suggest that the intelligence services of the country which owned the aircraft, and of which the majority of victims were citizens, should have no input into the investigation, or that the evidence they produce should be disregarded, is an indefensible "ad hominem" argument.

The target of this attack was the US. Scottish jurisdiction in this matter is the result of a cruel accident. The bomb was intended to destroy this American plane over the Atlantic, along with its mainly American passengers and crew. The plane was delayed and a horrible event took place on Scottish soil, with the tragic loss of Scottish lives. There was no Scottish Government in 1988, only legal jurisdiction over the crime scene. For the present minority Scottish government to claim total and exclusive rights to any kind of authority in the case is arrogant, and undoubtedly politically motivated.

The suspected bomber was tried in a Scottish court on neutral soil at the insistence of Lybia. The Scottish judiciary were not "dragged" into anything. There was no jury, as an impartial jury of Scots would have been hard to find in the light of the horrific nature of the crime. Al-Megrahi was found guilty. He was found guilty again on appeal. Strange that those of you with such confidence in Scottish politicians to make the correct decision have none whatsoever in nine separate Scottish judges.

And as others have posted, McAskill cast no doubt at all on the safety of the conviction, and in one of the more coherent parts of his statement, emphatically underlined Al-Megrahi's guilt. Therefore, he did not make his decision on the basis of guilt or innocence, and these issues are irrelevant to the decision to release him.

His statement, which he then repeated verbatim to the Scottish Parliament, was reeking of the sanctimonious pseudo-sprituality more associated with happy-clappy vicars. It majored on the compassion issue, and in my view, and I suspect the view of the majority of Scots, the decision was the wrong one.

To emphatically state that someone is a despicable mass murderer, then announce that you are letting him jet off to a hero's welcome is asking for rather more trouble than McAskill has so far got. If I have a criticism of his political opponents it is that they backed off from a confidence vote and removing the hapless Justice Secretary from doing any further damage to our nation.

:top marks

Excellent post. I look forward to reading Doddies and Fergus' replies in particular.

By the way - Doddie using an ad hominem or straw man logical fallacy in his points? Some mistake surely...

[JimBHibees]

Your statement that your stance is based on more than "sticking it up to the US and Westminster" would be more convincing had you not gone on spend a substantial part of your post detailing the tired old litany of alleged American crimes. And several of your previous ones making the ludicrous comparison between Lockerbie and the Vincennes incident. And your finishing off with another dig at the Labour party and the UK Government.

Putting that aside, the assumption that this is purely a Scottish matter is naive and a little arrogant. To suggest that the intelligence services of the country which owned the aircraft, and of which the majority of victims were citizens, should have no input into the investigation, or that the evidence they produce should be disregarded, is an indefensible "ad hominem" argument.

The target of this attack was the US. Scottish jurisdiction in this matter is the result of a cruel accident. The bomb was intended to destroy this American plane over the Atlantic, along with its mainly American passengers and crew. The plane was delayed and a horrible event took place on Scottish soil, with the tragic loss of Scottish lives. There was no Scottish Government in 1988, only legal jurisdiction over the crime scene. For the present minority Scottish government to claim total and exclusive rights to any kind of authority in the case is arrogant, and undoubtedly politically motivated.

The suspected bomber was tried in a Scottish court on neutral soil at the insistence of Lybia. The Scottish judiciary were not "dragged" into anything. There was no jury, as an impartial jury of Scots would have been hard to find in the light of the horrific nature of the crime. Al-Megrahi was found guilty. He was found guilty again on appeal. Strange that those of you with such confidence in Scottish politicians to make the correct decision have none whatsoever in nine separate Scottish judges.

And as others have posted, McAskill cast no doubt at all on the safety of the conviction, and in one of the more coherent parts of his statement, emphatically underlined Al-Megrahi's guilt. Therefore, he did not make his decision on the basis of guilt or innocence, and these issues are irrelevant to the decision to release him.

His statement, which he then repeated verbatim to the Scottish Parliament, was reeking of the sanctimonious pseudo-sprituality more associated with happy-clappy vicars. It majored on the compassion issue, and in my view, and I suspect the view of the majority of Scots, the decision was the wrong one.

To emphatically state that someone is a despicable mass murderer, then announce that you are letting him jet off to a hero's welcome is asking for rather more trouble than McAskill has so far got. If I have a criticism of his political opponents it is that they backed off from a confidence vote and removing the hapless Justice Secretary from doing any further damage to our nation.

Alleged US crimes where have you been? I am happy enough for the guy to be sent home on compassionate grounds to be fair and Scottish law deems that this can be passed by the Justice Secretary so fair enough and while the US and the victims have a right to an opinion it isnt their decision to make.

The other point is whether the guy is genuinely guilty, I happen to think he isnt. The UN Representative at the trial stated he thought it was a miscarraige of justice and having read the transcript of the case at the time I happen to agree with him as do others such as Jim Swire.

[hibsbollah]

in my view, and I suspect the view of the majority of Scots, the decision was the wrong one.



I havent seen any statistics or opinion poll to bear this out. Are you engaging in wishful thinking when you put yourself in the 'silent majority'? Personally, I would tend to think the Scottish population are split fairly evenly on this issue, and I also suspect that the kind of hysterical Scottish-Govt bashing that is going on in some sections of the UK press, and on the other side of the Atlantic, will make more Scots support Kenny McAskill's stance than would otherwise be the case.

[khib70]

Alleged US crimes where have you been? I am happy enough for the guy to be sent home on compassionate grounds to be fair and Scottish law deems that this can be passed by the Justice Secretary so fair enough and while the US and the victims have a right to an opinion it isnt their decision to make.

The other point is whether the guy is genuinely guilty, I happen to think he isnt. The UN Representative at the trial stated he thought it was a miscarraige of justice and having read the transcript of the case at the time I happen to agree with him as do others such as Jim Swire.
And I don't. But more importantly, neither does the Justice Secretary, who you accept should have the final decision on this. He was in no doubt about Al-Megrahi's guilt.

And a representative of the UN is about the last person on the planet from whom to expect an objective, politically neutral ,analysis.

Therefore, I repeat, it comes down to the compassion issue, which is always going to be a matter of personal opinion. It is not a matter of having big testicles and "standing up to the Yanks" as some people seem to think.

[hibsbollah]

And a representative of the UN is about the last person on the planet from whom to expect an objective, politically neutral ,analysis.



To try and paint the UN (whatever their other faults) as somehow politically partial or biased only serves to throw doubt on your own ability to be objective.

[khib70]

I havent seen any statistics or opinion poll to bear this out. Are you engaging in wishful thinking when you put yourself in the 'silent majority'? Personally, I would tend to think the Scottish population are split fairly evenly on this issue, and I also suspect that the kind of hysterical Scottish-Govt bashing that is going on in some sections of the UK press, and on the other side of the Atlantic, will make more Scots support Kenny McAskill's stance than would otherwise be the case.
I said "I suspect, the majority of Scots" - meaning that I genuinely don't know but that would be my best guess. All I can say with total conviction is "not in my name!". You may have heard that expression before.

And I would suggest that anyone who thinks the UN (on top of its other faults) is totally objective and politically neutral is demonstrating their own lack of objectivity.

[hibsbollah]

And I would suggest that anyone who thinks the UN (on top of its other faults) is totally objective and politically neutral is demonstrating their own lack of objectivity.

Interesting. Do you think the UN is a liberal organisation? Its usually only hysterical extremeright wing conspiracy theorists and guys such as this http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/m-n/mariani/2005/mariani051605.htm that seriously go in for that. And the World Bank and the IMF? The UN agencies that have done the most to promote world capitalism from their offices in Washington DC? I'm genuinely interested.

[JimBHibees]

And I don't. But more importantly, neither does the Justice Secretary, who you accept should have the final decision on this. He was in no doubt about Al-Megrahi's guilt.

And a representative of the UN is about the last person on the planet from whom to expect an objective, politically neutral ,analysis.

Therefore, I repeat, it comes down to the compassion issue, which is always going to be a matter of personal opinion. It is not a matter of having big testicles and "standing up to the Yanks" as some people seem to think.

McAskill isnt going to say anything other than Megrahi was guilty whether he thinks otherwise I dont know.

A UN representative who sat through the trial came out with the same opinion as many others and was voicing his opinion. What would he have to gain by coming out with this?

[Green Mikey]

To try and paint the UN (whatever their other faults) as somehow politically partial or biased only serves to throw doubt on your own ability to be objective.

The UN is not an impartial organisation. Any recomendations passed by the general assembly are have to be voted through by the member nations. It can't be gauranteed that the member states are viewing the issue impartially or are using the vote to further their own interests.

[Sir David Gray]

Nice mocking of the "silent majority" idea. However while you lot are all piling on here congratulating each other on how witty and anti-American you can be (on a forum where dissent from your point of view is barely tolerated), very many other Scots, including me, are thoroughly disgusted at the situation.

This decision certainly appalls me, and I don't read red-top papers, and can string the odd word together. But it's good enough for the Holy Grounders on the simplistic basis that a) the Americans don't like it, and b) it's the braveheart Scottish Government sticking two fingers up at Westminster.

The Scottish government is my government too, and I am disgusted with it and ashamed of it. I will not be voting SNP again, and that's for sure. Gloat all you like about this, but don't gloat in my name, and don't pretend you even represent a significant minority of Scots.

:top marks Completely agree, particularly with the bits in bold.

I, too, am deeply disgusted and appalled with this decision and it has certainly not been done in my name.

I can understand the people who think that Al Megrahi is innocent, being happy at his release. No-one wants to see an innocent person being sent to prison.

But to congratulate MacAskill on his decision, on the grounds that you don't believe Al Megrahi is guilty, just does not make any sense. MacAskill, at least publicly, has never doubted that Al Megrahi is guilty of the Lockerbie bombing. His sole reason for releasing him is because he has terminal cancer.

By all means congratulate him if you agree that it is right that Al Megrahi be released on compassionate grounds, though.

It also seems to be the case that another major reason for why a lot of people have supported what MacAskill has done, is because it has annoyed America. :confused: I really don't understand that logic, to be honest.

This decision has undoubtedly set a precedent whereby every single violent criminal in Scotland, who contracts a terminal illness, can now apply for release under "compassionate grounds".

I heard him yesterday in the Scottish Parliament and practically everything that he said was just regurgitated from the speech that he made last week as he announced his decision.

Just like yourself, I will not be voting SNP from now on.

[Betty Boop]

:top marks Completely agree, particularly with the bits in bold.

I, too, am deeply disgusted and appalled with this decision and it has certainly not been done in my name.

I can understand the people who think that Al Megrahi is innocent, being happy at his release. No-one wants to see an innocent person being sent to prison.

But to congratulate MacAskill on his decision, on the grounds that you don't believe Al Megrahi is guilty, just does not make any sense. MacAskill, at least publicly, has never doubted that Al Megrahi is guilty of the Lockerbie bombing. His sole reason for releasing him is because he has terminal cancer.

By all means congratulate him if you agree that it is right that Al Megrahi be released on compassionate grounds, though.

It also seems to be the case that another major reason for why a lot of people have supported what MacAskill has done, is because it has annoyed America. :confused: I really don't understand that logic, to be honest.

This decision has undoubtedly set a precedent whereby every single violent criminal in Scotland, who contracts a terminal illness, can now apply for release under "compassionate grounds".

I heard him yesterday in the Scottish Parliament and practically everything that he said was just regurgitated from the speech that he made last week as he announced his decision.

Just like yourself, I will not be voting SNP from now on.
That policy has been in place since 2005 long before Kenny McAskill was Justice Minister.


Section three of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 gives the Scottish Ministers the power to release prisoners on licence on compassionate grounds.

The Act requires that Ministers are satisfied that there are compassionate grounds justifying the release of a person serving a sentence of imprisonment. Although the Act does not specify what the grounds for compassionate release are, guidance from the Scottish Prison Service, who assess applications, suggests that it may be considered where a prisoner is suffering from a terminal illness and death is likely to occur soon. There are no fixed time limits but life expectancy of less than three months may be considered an appropriate period. The guidance makes it clear that all prisoners, irrespective of sentence length, are eligible to be considered for compassionate release. That guidance dates from 2005.

[Woody1985]

That policy has been in place since 2005 long before Kenny McAskill was Justice Minister.


Section three of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 gives the Scottish Ministers the power to release prisoners on licence on compassionate grounds.

The Act requires that Ministers are satisfied that there are compassionate grounds justifying the release of a person serving a sentence of imprisonment. Although the Act does not specify what the grounds for compassionate release are, guidance from the Scottish Prison Service, who assess applications, suggests that it may be considered where a prisoner is suffering from a terminal illness and death is likely to occur soon. There are no fixed time limits but life expectancy of less than three months may be considered an appropriate period. The guidance makes it clear that all prisoners, irrespective of sentence length, are eligible to be considered for compassionate release. That guidance dates from 2005.

I can appreciate compassionate release for someone who has committed fraud for example but someone who has murdered another should never be allowed out on this ruling. It should be updated with certain exclusions.

[CropleyWasGod]

The UN is not an impartial organisation. Any recomendations passed by the general assembly are have to be voted through by the member nations. It can't be gauranteed that the member states are viewing the issue impartially or are using the vote to further their own interests.

..but this wasn't a UN resolution that we are talking about. It's the UN's observer at the trial, who viewed it as a miscarriage of justice. He then underlined his postion at the weekend by saying that MacAskill was right.

[JimBHibees]

:top marks Completely agree, particularly with the bits in bold.

I, too, am deeply disgusted and appalled with this decision and it has certainly not been done in my name.

I can understand the people who think that Al Megrahi is innocent, being happy at his release. No-one wants to see an innocent person being sent to prison.

But to congratulate MacAskill on his decision, on the grounds that you don't believe Al Megrahi is guilty, just does not make any sense. MacAskill, at least publicly, has never doubted that Al Megrahi is guilty of the Lockerbie bombing. His sole reason for releasing him is because he has terminal cancer.

By all means congratulate him if you agree that it is right that Al Megrahi be released on compassionate grounds, though.

It also seems to be the case that another major reason for why a lot of people have supported what MacAskill has done, is because it has annoyed America. :confused: I really don't understand that logic, to be honest.

This decision has undoubtedly set a precedent whereby every single violent criminal in Scotland, who contracts a terminal illness, can now apply for release under "compassionate grounds".

I heard him yesterday in the Scottish Parliament and practically everything that he said was just regurgitated from the speech that he made last week as he announced his decision.

Just like yourself, I will not be voting SNP from now on.

I think the compassionate reason is the right one in this case. I dont think it is a case of people supporting McAskill because it annoyed America however there was an avalanche of very important US politicians putting on pressure prior to the decision and IMO it says alot for him not to bow to that.

Not bowing to that and having a differing opinion to the US lately has been very uncommon in the UK's dealings with them recently so personally dont think it is a bad thing.

[Betty Boop]

Was there the same outrage, when Jack Straw released General Pinochet without facing trial on medical grounds in March 2000?

[CropleyWasGod]

Was there the same outrage, when Jack Straw released General Pinochet without facing trial on medical grounds in March 2000?

Oh, you **** stirrer. :greengrin

Actually, before anyone else says it, the big difference was that Pinochet hadn't been convicted.

He must have been innocent then, eh no? :rolleyes:

[Woody1985]

I think the compassionate reason is the right one in this case. I dont think it is a case of people supporting McAskill because it annoyed America however there was an avalanche of very important US politicians putting on pressure prior to the decision and IMO it says alot for him not to bow to that.

Not bowing to that and having a differing opinion to the US lately has been very uncommon in the UK's dealings with them recently so personally dont think it is a bad thing.

It doesn't say much that he didn't bow to pressure IMO. I think it's an example of the nationalists trying to make a name for themselves. They've made us look like a bunch of ***** and jeopordised our economy and reputation for years to come.

I've always like the SNP, even though I believe we should stay as part of the union, but this decision is beyond a joke. Especially if there is no doubt in the mind of the Justice Secretary that he is guilty. I think it's quite possible that the JS could have just killed his party.

---------- Post added at 05:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:22 PM ----------


Was there the same outrage, when Jack Straw released General Pinochet without facing trial on medical grounds in March 2000?


Oh, you **** stirrer. :greengrin

Actually, before anyone else says it, the big difference was that Pinochet hadn't been convicted.

He must have been innocent then, eh no? :rolleyes:

I was too young for this. Would have only been 14 and haven't read up on it.

Still don't think we should let convicted terrorists go on compassionate grounds.

[hibsbollah]

The UN is not an impartial organisation. Any recomendations passed by the general assembly are have to be voted through by the member nations. It can't be gauranteed that the member states are viewing the issue impartially or are using the vote to further their own interests.

You're missing the point. As cropley has explained, we are talking about a UN employee, who was charged with observing the trial and assessing its merits objectively. The way the member nations vote on the General Assembly has nothing to do with this. However, Khibs believes a UN representative 'is the last person on the planet' from whom to expect an impartial view. I'm wondering why this is?

[Betty Boop]

Oh, you **** stirrer. :greengrin

Actually, before anyone else says it, the big difference was that Pinochet hadn't been convicted.

He must have been innocent then, eh no? :rolleyes:

He was released after intervention from his great friends Maggie Thatcher and President Ronnie Reagan IIRC? :wink:

[(((Fergus)))]

Great sentiment for the playground, potentially less effective in the realm of international realpolitik.

"If we conduct ourselves properly and don't mix in other people's affairs then they will not mix in ours." :ostrich: (no yam insult intended)

If you give in to compromise and corruption, don't complain if your life gets complicated.

[The Green Goblin]

Your statement that your stance is based on more than "sticking it up to the US and Westminster" would be more convincing had you not gone on spend a substantial part of your post detailing the tired old litany of alleged American crimes. And several of your previous ones making the ludicrous comparison between Lockerbie and the Vincennes incident.
.


How can you possibly argue that they are not related? Vincennes "incident"? Even your language is different. It wasn't an 'incident" - it was the deliberate slaughter of 270 civilians (60 children) by a warship. Just like Lockerbie - which was the deliberate slaughter of 270 civilians by a terrorist's bomb.

What exactly do you think is the difference between them, that makes a comparison "ludicrous"?

GG

[Green Mikey]

You're missing the point. As cropley has explained, we are talking about a UN employee, who was charged with observing the trial and assessing its merits objectively. The way the member nations vote on the General Assembly has nothing to do with this. However, Khibs believes a UN representative 'is the last person on the planet' from whom to expect an impartial view. I'm wondering why this is?

Sorry,I have missed the point! When you mentioned the organisation I just presumed you were talking about the UN not an observer.

The UN obeserver should be impartial and after looking at this case it seems that he was and reported the truth. Unless he was a Libyan:wink:

[ancienthibby]

Your statement that your stance is based on more than "sticking it up to the US and Westminster" would be more convincing had you not gone on spend a substantial part of your post detailing the tired old litany of alleged American crimes. And several of your previous ones making the ludicrous comparison between Lockerbie and the Vincennes incident. And your finishing off with another dig at the Labour party and the UK Government.

No tired litanies whatsoever. The American way since one of the Roosevelts coined the phrase 'walk humbly, but carry a big stick' has been the modus operandi for US foreign policy since then. Whither it's Abu Grabhi or Guantanamo Bay, to this day America goes about it foreign business on the basis of 'you don't mess with Uncle Sam'. And just to remind you, America's latest tactic in dealing with those who it chooses to inter as subervives is 'water-boarding'!

Putting that aside, the assumption that this is purely a Scottish matter is naive and a little arrogant. To suggest that the intelligence services of the country which owned the aircraft, and of which the majority of victims were citizens, should have no input into the investigation, or that the evidence they produce should be disregarded, is an indefensible "ad hominem" argument.

The agencies you refer to have had all the time and input necessary and, given the gap of eight years or so since the trial in the Netherlands, it is quite clear that there is a stack of information that should have been available to the trial but was not, and now, there is a further stack of information that needs to be formally aired in the appropriate forum.

The target of this attack was the US. Scottish jurisdiction in this matter is the result of a cruel accident. The bomb was intended to destroy this American plane over the Atlantic, along with its mainly American passengers and crew. The plane was delayed and a horrible event took place on Scottish soil, with the tragic loss of Scottish lives. There was no Scottish Government in 1988, only legal jurisdiction over the crime scene. For the present minority Scottish government to claim total and exclusive rights to any kind of authority in the case is arrogant, and undoubtedly politically motivated.

The Scottish Government do not claim what you state in your last sentence. On the contrary, they rightly claim to be the proper jurisdiction for this matter and no other authority has claimed otherwise. The only political motivation that exists in this case is the posturing of the Labour Party in particular since its leader has been posted missing on the entire matter while the 'foot soldiers' such as Gray and McConnell have been mandated to 'get Salmond and the SNP' as the Labour Party in Westminster's one and only Scottish policy since the SNP came to power. Brown, as he has demonstrated this afternoon, will not get his hands dirty on this 'local' matter but will leave it to these foot soldiers to do his dirty work in Edinburgh.

The suspected bomber was tried in a Scottish court on neutral soil at the insistence of Lybia. The Scottish judiciary were not "dragged" into anything. There was no jury, as an impartial jury of Scots would have been hard to find in the light of the horrific nature of the crime. Al-Megrahi was found guilty. He was found guilty again on appeal. Strange that those of you with such confidence in Scottish politicians to make the correct decision have none whatsoever in nine separate Scottish judges.

Your argument comes from the Iain Gray school of debating - 'I read it in the papers so it must be true'! The confidence in judges at the time may well have been correct (though the UN rep at the time disagrees) but we now have the benefit of information gleaned over time and there is substantial and growing doubt of the reliability of the verdict made at the time. History is replete with cases of miscarriages of justice and, while much has to be revealed to make this so in this case, there is sufficient doubt to make this case a prime candidate for doubt. No one individual has been closer to this matter than Jim Swire and he is convinced that Al-Megrahi is innocent!

And as others have posted, McAskill cast no doubt at all on the safety of the conviction, and in one of the more coherent parts of his statement, emphatically underlined Al-Megrahi's guilt. Therefore, he did not make his decision on the basis of guilt or innocence, and these issues are irrelevant to the decision to release him.

Your desparation knows no boundaries if this is your best case!! MacAskill is an 'officer of the Scottish Government' (my description) and there are just no circumstances in which he could be seen to be undermining the position of the Scottish judiciary!! Safety of the conviction was completely irrelevant to MacAskill's position and his responsibilities in this case. He did nothing to underline Al-Megrahi's guilt as you say since the role he was given completely ruled out that option.

His statement, which he then repeated verbatim to the Scottish Parliament, was reeking of the sanctimonious pseudo-sprituality more associated with happy-clappy vicars. It majored on the compassion issue, and in my view, and I suspect the view of the majority of Scots, the decision was the wrong one.

Whatever words MacAskill used that could be described as 'sanctimonious pseudo-spirituality more associated with happy-clappy vicars' consumed no more than 15 seconds of a 20 minute address yet you choose to use your most vituperative language in rebuttal!! Whatever our differing tastes for language, MacAskill was quite robust in his view that compassion is a kernal of Scots historic and continuing treatment of others and he fully demonstrated that in this case, and was quite right to do so.

To emphatically state that someone is a despicable mass murderer, then announce that you are letting him jet off to a hero's welcome is asking for rather more trouble than McAskill has so far got. If I have a criticism of his political opponents it is that they backed off from a confidence vote and removing the hapless Justice Secretary from doing any further damage to our nation.

Let's be clear about this - no one in Scotland, the UK or even America, let Al-Megrahi 'jet off to a hero's welcome' Give me a good seamstress, a sewing machine, and blue and white material and even I could run up 20 'saltires' for you in 20 minutes!!

Whatever MacAskill might be, he is certainly not hapless. His unflinching performance in Parliament yesterday was a welcome antidote to the spineless record of previous Scottish 'executives' and will bode well for the future of this country.

So some Americans want to throw their toys out of their pram?? They have always done and will always do so!!

Oh and your wish for the opposition parties to push for a confidence vote in the Scottish Parliament will not happen!! Not one of them can risk going to the polls and being obliterated!

[--------]

khib70: Your statement that your stance is based on more than "sticking it up to the US and Westminster" would be more convincing had you not gone on spend a substantial part of your post detailing the tired old litany of alleged American crimes. And several of your previous ones making the ludicrous comparison between Lockerbie and the Vincennes incident. And your finishing off with another dig at the Labour party and the UK Government.

Guantanamo and what goes on there, the practice of Extraordinary Rendition, and the illegality of both are all well-attested as factual. Just because they've been mentioned before this, and ignored by those who wish to ignore them, doesn't make them any the less factual.

I also find it interesting that you seem to think of Lockerbie as 'mass-murder', while the shooting down of Iran Air 556 is an 'incident'. Interesting use of language. Lockerbie was mass-murder. Iran Air 556 wasn't deliberate murder; there's every indication, however, that those 290 deaths were the result of incompetence on a criminal scale.

khib70: Putting that aside, the assumption that this is purely a Scottish matter is naive and a little arrogant. To suggest that the intelligence services of the country which owned the aircraft, and of which the majority of victims were citizens, should have no input into the investigation, or that the evidence they produce should be disregarded, is an indefensible "ad hominem" argument.

I didn't suggest that the US intelligence services should have had no input into the investigation. I said that I distrust the veracity of their input to the evidence presented at the trial. Of course they should have had input. All I ask is to be convinced that that input is truthful. I'm still not so convinced.

This isn't an 'ad hominem' argument, by the way. I drew attention to an instance in which the same intelligence agencies produced elaborate reports and a great deal of 'evidence', all of which were later proved to be untrue. There were NO weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. if there had been, they would have been found.

khib70: The target of this attack was the US. Scottish jurisdiction in this matter is the result of a cruel accident. The bomb was intended to destroy this American plane over the Atlantic, along with its mainly American passengers and crew. The plane was delayed and a horrible event took place on Scottish soil, with the tragic loss of Scottish lives. There was no Scottish Government in 1988, only legal jurisdiction over the crime scene. For the present minority Scottish government to claim total and exclusive rights to any kind of authority in the case is arrogant, and undoubtedly politically motivated.

I'm not aware that Ken MacAskill is claiming exclusive jurisdiction in this matter. In fact, he's repeatedly said that a Public Enquiry is a matter for the UK government, and that he himself and the Scottish Justice Department would co-operate fully with any such inquiry.

As for his motivation - are you telling me that Scott, Gray, and Goldie AREN'T politically motivated? That all they want is for the truth to come out regardless?

khib70: The suspected bomber was tried in a Scottish court on neutral soil at the insistence of Lybia. The Scottish judiciary were not "dragged" into anything. There was no jury, as an impartial jury of Scots would have been hard to find in the light of the horrific nature of the crime. Al-Megrahi was found guilty. He was found guilty again on appeal. Strange that those of you with such confidence in Scottish politicians to make the correct decision have none whatsoever in nine separate Scottish judges.

And as others have posted, McAskill cast no doubt at all on the safety of the conviction, and in one of the more coherent parts of his statement, emphatically underlined Al-Megrahi's guilt. Therefore, he did not make his decision on the basis of guilt or innocence, and these issues are irrelevant to the decision to release him.

You accused me of having no higher motivation in this than "America-bashing". On the record, I have a great deal of confidence in Scottish judges and their ability to arrive at a just verdict. That verdict depends, however, on those judges having all the evidence placed in front of them, and in the veracity of the evidence they do see in the course of a trial. THAT's where my doubt lies - about how complete, and how true, the information was that the CIA and other US agencies placed beofre the vourt.

IIRC, the Libyan government had no confidence in the impartiality of a US court. The US were unwilling to place the case before the European Court. A Scottish tribunal was acceptable to both sides.

khib70: His statement, which he then repeated verbatim to the Scottish Parliament, was reeking of the sanctimonious pseudo-sprituality more associated with happy-clappy vicars. It majored on the compassion issue, and in my view, and I suspect the view of the majority of Scots, the decision was the wrong one.

He repeated his statement to the Scottish Parliament. That was what he was required to do. IMO he did so in measured terms, referring to the principles of justice and compassion that underly the practice and spirit of Scots Law.

"Reeking of the sanctimonious pseudo-spirituality more associated with happy-clappy vicars"? THAT phrase speaks entirely for itself.

khib70: To emphatically state that someone is a despicable mass murderer, then announce that you are letting him jet off to a hero's welcome is asking for rather more trouble than McAskill has so far got. If I have a criticism of his political opponents it is that they backed off from a confidence vote and removing the hapless Justice Secretary from doing any further damage to our nation.

To re-state what Betty Boop has already stated in regard to the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993: "The Act requires that Ministers are satisfied that there are compassionate grounds justifying the release of a person serving a sentence of imprisonment. Although the Act does not specify what the grounds for compassionate release are, guidance from the Scottish Prison Service, who assess applications, suggests that it may be considered where a prisoner is suffering from a terminal illness and death is likely to occur soon. There are no fixed time limits but life expectancy of less than three months may be considered an appropriate period. The guidance makes it clear that all prisoners, irrespective of sentence length, are eligible to be considered for compassionate release. That guidance dates from 2005."

The Act was passed well BEFORE Ken MacAskill was appointed Justice Minister, well before the present Scottish government was elected.

We don't use the death penalty in Scotland. Al-Megrahi was eligible under Scots law for compassionate release, as he had been diagnosed as suffering from a terminal illness that was likely to kill him within three months. He may die sooner; he may live longer. What Ken MacAskill had to consider was the prognosis he was given by the medical people - he did so.

Compassionate release was granted. KM acted entirely within the parameters of his remit as Justice Minister, as far as I can see, having consulted as widely as was reasonable for him to do.

And YES - as of now Al-Megrahi is a guilty man in the eyes of the Scottish courts. I still think KM was right to grant him compassionate release. We need to be better than the thugs of this world.

[hibsbollah]

Sorry,I have missed the point! When you mentioned the organisation I just presumed you were talking about the UN not an observer.

The UN obeserver should be impartial and after looking at this case it seems that he was and reported the truth. Unless he was a Libyan:wink:

The UN Observer was Hans Kochler. He's Austrian, like Hitler and that Josef Fritzl bloke:wink:

[--------]

The UN Observer was Hans Kochler. He's Austrian, like Hitler and that Josef Fritzl bloke:wink:


Or Mozart, or Schubert, or Beethoven, or Wittgenstein, or Rilke, or Canetti, or Buber... :cool2:

This is the guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_K%C3%B6chler

[CropleyWasGod]

And this is his latest pronouncement, on Sunday...

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/lockerbie/Hans-Kochler-39I-strongly-suspect.5579628.jp

[JimBHibees]

It doesn't say much that he didn't bow to pressure IMO. I think it's an example of the nationalists trying to make a name for themselves. They've made us look like a bunch of ***** and jeopordised our economy and reputation for years to come.

I've always like the SNP, even though I believe we should stay as part of the union, but this decision is beyond a joke. Especially if there is no doubt in the mind of the Justice Secretary that he is guilty. I think it's quite possible that the JS could have just killed his party.

---------- Post added at 05:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:22 PM ----------


So you would have thought more of him if he cowtowed to American pressure when he had made a decision he was legally entitled to make. I really dont get that at all. I think he has shown an amazing amount of backbone completely unlike what would have happened if it had been a Labour government either UK or Scottish who have been totally spineless in any dealings with the States.

[hibsdaft]

http://www.boycottscotland.co.uk/

[--------]

http://www.boycottscotland.co.uk/


:devil:

[Betty Boop]

http://www.boycottscotland.co.uk/

:faf:

[The Harp Awakes]

:top marks Completely agree, particularly with the bits in bold.

I, too, am deeply disgusted and appalled with this decision and it has certainly not been done in my name.

I can understand the people who think that Al Megrahi is innocent, being happy at his release. No-one wants to see an innocent person being sent to prison.

But to congratulate MacAskill on his decision, on the grounds that you don't believe Al Megrahi is guilty, just does not make any sense. MacAskill, at least publicly, has never doubted that Al Megrahi is guilty of the Lockerbie bombing. His sole reason for releasing him is because he has terminal cancer.

By all means congratulate him if you agree that it is right that Al Megrahi be released on compassionate grounds, though.

It also seems to be the case that another major reason for why a lot of people have supported what MacAskill has done, is because it has annoyed America. :confused: I really don't understand that logic, to be honest.

This decision has undoubtedly set a precedent whereby every single violent criminal in Scotland, who contracts a terminal illness, can now apply for release under "compassionate grounds".

I heard him yesterday in the Scottish Parliament and practically everything that he said was just regurgitated from the speech that he made last week as he announced his decision.

Just like yourself, I will not be voting SNP from now on.

I think you are reacting to the media hype aound this perpetuated from across the Atlantic. The 'media and tabloid view' does not represent a balanced view of World and indeed Scottish opinion on this matter I feel. When Megrahi dies and the dust settles on this saga strong 'anti' views such as your own will become more moderate.

Looking at the bigger picture, one thing this matter has shown the World is that Scotland is country in it's own right and makes it's own decisions whether other nations agree with them not. Prior to this matter, many Americans and those in other countries wouldn't have even known where Scotland is located. Some 'informed' Americans may have thought Scotland was a region of England.

Kenny McAskill's decision was a difficult one, but certainly the correct one IMHO. I watched all of his speech and thought he was very impressive, decisive and clever in his delivery.

I have only voted SNP in recent years but this episode has made me more likely to vote SNP at the next election.

[GhostofBolivar]

Because the USA are so tough on terrorists. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles#Panama:_Arrest.2C_conviction_ and_release)

No, really. (http://www.soaw.org/)

I'm not joking. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Menu)

[Phil D. Rolls]

Are any of those saying we need to keep in the USA's good books aware of how useless the UK's "special arrangement" was in Suez and the Falklands. Uncle Sam wasn't slow in jumping onto the fence in those conflicts.

The USA also preferred not to get involved in taking sides in the Northern Ireland conflict. Surely, as our bestest mates, they might have condemned terrorism a bit more loudly? (I say this without expressing any views on which side was right or wrong in Ulster).

Does anyone think that the likes of France, who have always done what is right for France, are disadvantaged by not toadying to the US? It seems to me that they do alright. And how come Libya, which stood against them for so long is OK with them again?

I am deeply saddened by the way what is purported to be the silent majority of Scots are reacting to this. How can it be that a country that has given so much to the world, including playing a significant part in forming the USA and its values, is so frightened to make its own decisions.

We seem to be basing our feelings on this matter as much on what other, bigger, nations opinions will think. I am wagering that outside of pressure groups for the victims families, the average Joe Schmoe in the states is more likely to be talking about the world series than this.

[Dashing Bob S]

Can't remember the last time I've ever felt so proud to be Scottish as when K McA made the decision to free this chap.

I'm just intoxicated by the fact that our small fledgling nation can stand up and say **** you, this is how its going to be, we've made the decision and it's the right one.

[khib70]

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Medical-advice--on-Libyan.5587119.jp

Bit more to this story to come, methinks. Although as we all know, the "Scotsman" is in the pay of the CIA.:blah:

[hibsbollah]

I am deeply saddened by the way what is purported to be the silent majority of Scots are reacting to this.

But again, what is the majority view in Scotland? I dont think anyone really knows until a proper bit of polling is done. Its all very easy for the Daily Record to say it speaks for the 'silent majority' but how do they know? Its a bit like Brian Kerr's 'unseen work'. Most people I know think Mackaskill spoke wonderfully and made a statesmanlike decision, but then again I probably move in more lefty, liberal, yoghurt-eating, sandal-wearing, guardian-reading circles than most...

[--------]

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Medical-advice--on-Libyan.5587119.jp

Bit more to this story to come, methinks. Although as we all know, the "Scotsman" is in the pay of the CIA.:blah:


It's always difficult to set time-lines in cases of cancer, particularly so in cases of prostate cancer. If it was one specialist's opinion that Al Megrahi's cancer was an agressive one, and he was prepared to say so in writing, then that would be enough for the Justice Minister to have to consider compassionate release. If he hadn't, Al Megrahi's legal team would be wanting to know why he hadn't.

But if you're going to accuse other people of 'indefensible ad hominem' arguments you really shouldn't post stuff like that.

No one has accused "The Scotsman" of being in anyone's pay. newspapers have editorial positions. We agree with them, or disagree. That's all.

[--------]

But again, what is the majority view in Scotland? I dont think anyone really knows until a proper bit of polling is done. Its all very easy for the Daily Record to say it speaks for the 'silent majority' but how do they know? Its a bit like Brian Kerr's 'unseen work'. Most people I know think Mackaskill spoke wonderfully and made a statesmanlike decision, but then again I probably move in more lefty, liberal, yoghurt-eating, sandal-wearing, guardian-reading circles than most...

You forgot the happy-clappy vicars....

I'm offended. :devil:

[khib70]

It's always difficult to set time-lines in cases of cancer, particularly so in cases of prostate cancer. If it was one specialist's opinion that Al Megrahi's cancer was an agressive one, and he was prepared to say so in writing, then that would be enough for the Justice Minister to have to consider compassionate release. If he hadn't, Al Megrahi's legal team would be wanting to know why he hadn't.

But if you're going to accuse other people of 'indefensible ad hominem' arguments you really shouldn't post stuff like that.

No one has accused "The Scotsman" of being in anyone's pay. newspapers have editorial positions. We agree with them, or disagree. That's all.
You're missing the point entirely, and probably not accidentally. We were told up till now that there was absolute medical evidence that Al-Megrahi was in the final terminal stages of his illness. It would now appear that only one of the doctors consulted believed this, and he was not a prostate cancer or palliative care specialist. It is hardly unreasonable to suggest that this slightly undermines the case for compassionate release.

In any event, the law does not make compassionate release mandatory. It is at the discretion of the Justice Secretary or other competent authority. I think this discretion was wrongly applied, and this new evidence seems to support that.

And your own (and others') almost indecent readiness to stereotype anyone who disagrees with you make you fair game for the same treatment.

[--------]

You're missing the point entirely, and probably not accidentally. We were told up till now that there was absolute medical evidence that Al-Megrahi was in the final terminal stages of his illness. It would now appear that only one of the doctors consulted believed this, and he was not a prostate cancer or palliative care specialist. It is hardly unreasonable to suggest that this slightly undermines the case for compassionate release.

In any event, the law does not make compassionate release mandatory. It is at the discretion of the Justice Secretary or other competent authority. I think this discretion was wrongly applied, and this new evidence seems to support that.

And your own (and others') almost indecent readiness to stereotype anyone who disagrees with you make you fair game for the same treatment.


It's not new evidence. Ken MacAskill referred to it on Monday in his replies. :rolleyes:

[Betty Boop]

You're missing the point entirely, and probably not accidentally. We were told up till now that there was absolute medical evidence that Al-Megrahi was in the final terminal stages of his illness. It would now appear that only one of the doctors consulted believed this, and he was not a prostate cancer or palliative care specialist. It is hardly unreasonable to suggest that this slightly undermines the case for compassionate release.

In any event, the law does not make compassionate release mandatory. It is at the discretion of the Justice Secretary or other competent authority. I think this discretion was wrongly applied, and this new evidence seems to support that.

And your own (and others') almost indecent readiness to stereotype anyone who disagrees with you make you fair game for the same treatment.

The Scotsman article also states

A Scottish Government justice spokeswoman again insisted Mr MacAskill had relied on a range of evidence rather than the opinion of one doctor.

"The medical advice before the justice secretary consisted of a report from the Scottish Prison Service director of health and care, who had access to all Mr al-Megrahi's medical records.

"That report is clear. Taking all the medical advice into account, the director's view is that 'the clinical assessment is that a three-month prognosis is now a reasonable estimate for this patient'," she said.

"It was on that clear medical advice and a recommendation from the governor and the parole board, that Mr al-Megrahi be released on compassionate grounds, that the justice secretary based his decision."

[khib70]

The Scotsman article also states

A Scottish Government justice spokeswoman again insisted Mr MacAskill had relied on a range of evidence rather than the opinion of one doctor.

"The medical advice before the justice secretary consisted of a report from the Scottish Prison Service director of health and care, who had access to all Mr al-Megrahi's medical records.

"That report is clear. Taking all the medical advice into account, the director's view is that 'the clinical assessment is that a three-month prognosis is now a reasonable estimate for this patient'," she said.

"It was on that clear medical advice and a recommendation from the governor and the parole board, that Mr al-Megrahi be released on compassionate grounds, that the justice secretary based his decision."
That, as clearly mentioned in your quote, is the justification put out by McAskill's spin doctors. Others may interpret the report differently, as they are entitled to do. Either way McAskill's certainty about Al Megrahi's imminent demise, and his judgement by a "higher power" has been thrown into doubt.

[--------]

That, as clearly mentioned in your quote, is the justification put out by McAskill's spin doctors. Others may interpret the report differently, as they are entitled to do. Either way McAskill's certainty about Al Megrahi's imminent demise, and his judgement by a "higher power" has been thrown into doubt.


"Others" may well have the liberty and entitlement to interpret the SPS report. That's not in dispute,

Ken MacAskill had to interpret it, then act upon it.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Is it not the case that MacAskill didn't have to interpret the medical evidence at all? He was given a recommendation by others who had interpreted it.

If it turns out that the recommendation is flawed, then the blame would surely fall on those who presented it to MacAskill, rather than on him. You have to accept what experts in other fields say, in good faith.

I think it is highly significant that those casting doubt on the diagnosis, such as that ex GP who represents Labour at Holyrood, have failed to talk in anything other than generalistic terms. You'd think if they knew for certain, they'd be saying things like "this cancer is treatable, and there are no secondary tumours in other parts of his body, which would decrease the liklihood of survival".

The best they seem to be coming up with is "who knows". I would expect heads to roll if it turns out that the medical opinions were bogus.

It was interesting to hear Peter Fraser on Newsnight last night criticise the decsion in terms of how the USA perceive Scotland. At the same time he said he himself would probably have made the same decision.

I think there is quite a lot of sh*t stirring going on for political ends, and it is significant how little they really care about whether Al Megrahi lives or dies. Salmond's party would be pretty hopeless if they got themselves into a position where they could be shot down in flames for being duped.

[ancienthibby]

You're missing the point entirely, and probably not accidentally. We were told up till now that there was absolute medical evidence that Al-Megrahi was in the final terminal stages of his illness. It would now appear that only one of the doctors consulted believed this, and he was not a prostate cancer or palliative care specialist. It is hardly unreasonable to suggest that this slightly undermines the case for compassionate release.

In any event, the law does not make compassionate release mandatory. It is at the discretion of the Justice Secretary or other competent authority. I think this discretion was wrongly applied, and this new evidence seems to support that.

And your own (and others') almost indecent readiness to stereotype anyone who disagrees with you make you fair game for the same treatment.

You're quite wrong in your interpretation here and seem intent on further mischief making.

Al-Megrahi has received specialist prostate cancer and palliative care since his condition was first diagnosed almost a year ago. The very fact that he is on hormone therapy tell us this. A prostate cancer sufferer receives this treatment if the diagnosis was, as with Al-Megrahi, aggressive, inoperable, incurable. So the man has been on palliative care since day one. His condition would be diagnosed as 'terminal' from day one! All doctors involved agree on the diagnosis.

There is no undermining of the case for compassionate relief at all. A qualified doctor has made the case. That's all that was needed. If others involved do not want to be so specific, that's fine, because each individual patient's overall health condition may or may not add/detract a few weeks or months.

The key point is that the diagnosis is absolutely valid and from that position there is no cure.

We should not be playing around with our application of compassion as, in this case, political point-scoring as the Opposition seems intent on doing. That alone undermines their claims to be compassionate!

[--------]

Is it not the case that MacAskill didn't have to interpret the medical evidence at all? He was given a recommendation by others who had interpreted it.

If it turns out that the recommendation is flawed, then the blame would surely fall on those who presented it to MacAskill, rather than on him. You have to accept what experts in other fields say, in good faith.

I think it is highly significant that those casting doubt on the diagnosis, such as that ex GP who represents Labour at Holyrood, have failed to talk in anything other than generalistic terms. You'd think if they knew for certain, they'd be saying things like "this cancer is treatable, and there are no secondary tumours in other parts of his body, which would decrease the liklihood of survival".

The best they seem to be coming up with is "who knows". I would expect heads to roll if it turns out that the medical opinions were bogus.

It was interesting to hear Peter Fraser on Newsnight last night criticise the decsion in terms of how the USA perceive Scotland. At the same time he said he himself would probably have made the same decision.

I think there is quite a lot of sh*t stirring going on for political ends, and it is significant how little they really care about whether Al Megrahi lives or dies. Salmond's party would be pretty hopeless if they got themselves into a position where they could be shot down in flames for being duped.

Sorry - I shouldn't have said 'interpret'. You're absolutely right.



You're quite wrong in your interpretation here and seem intent on further mischief making.

Al-Megrahi has received specialist prostate cancer and palliative care since his condition was first diagnosed almost a year ago. The very fact that he is on hormone therapy tell us this. A prostate cancer sufferer receives this treatment if the diagnosis was, as with Al-Megrahi, aggressive, inoperable, incurable. So the man has been on palliative care since day one. His condition would be diagnosed as 'terminal' from day one! All doctors involved agree on the diagnosis.

There is no undermining of the case for compassionate relief at all. A qualified doctor has made the case. That's all that was needed. If others involved do not want to be so specific, that's fine, because each individual patient's overall health condition may or may not add/detract a few weeks or months.

The key point is that the diagnosis is absolutely valid and from that position there is no cure.

We should not be playing around with our application of compassion as, in this case, political point-scoring as the Opposition seems intent on doing. That alone undermines their claims to be compassionate!


Correct. Once prostate cancer has been diagnosed, the only questions are how long the patient will survive and what palliative care can be given.

Thank you for recalling me to the core issue here - a man is going to die. The timescale he's been given, if I or anyone else on this board were given it, is one we should consider very short indeed.

[(((Fergus)))]

Are any of those saying we need to keep in the USA's good books aware of how useless the UK's "special arrangement" was in Suez and the Falklands. Uncle Sam wasn't slow in jumping onto the fence in those conflicts.

The USA also preferred not to get involved in taking sides in the Northern Ireland conflict. Surely, as our bestest mates, they might have condemned terrorism a bit more loudly? (I say this without expressing any views on which side was right or wrong in Ulster).

Does anyone think that the likes of France, who have always done what is right for France, are disadvantaged by not toadying to the US? It seems to me that they do alright. And how come Libya, which stood against them for so long is OK with them again?

I am deeply saddened by the way what is purported to be the silent majority of Scots are reacting to this. How can it be that a country that has given so much to the world, including playing a significant part in forming the USA and its values, is so frightened to make its own decisions.

We seem to be basing our feelings on this matter as much on what other, bigger, nations opinions will think. I am wagering that outside of pressure groups for the victims families, the average Joe Schmoe in the states is more likely to be talking about the world series than this.

:top marks Basically no point in arse-licking because it doesn't work anyway

[JimBHibees]

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Medical-advice--on-Libyan.5587119.jp

Bit more to this story to come, methinks. Although as we all know, the "Scotsman" is in the pay of the CIA.:blah:

No-one is saying it is however it usually takes a very Unionist leaning editorial stance.

[Dashing Bob S]

No-one is saying it is however it usually takes a very Unionist leaning editorial stance.

The Scotsman is a washed out Edinburgh Tory newsletter that won't exist in a few years time due to its declining circulation and the fact that its second-rate garbage, kept afloat by the EEN.

This seems like another desperate gambit to boost sales figures, but I doubt it'll work.

[Twa Cairpets]

Are any of those saying we need to keep in the USA's good books aware of how useless the UK's "special arrangement" was in Suez and the Falklands. Uncle Sam wasn't slow in jumping onto the fence in those conflicts.

The USA also preferred not to get involved in taking sides in the Northern Ireland conflict. Surely, as our bestest mates, they might have condemned terrorism a bit more loudly? (I say this without expressing any views on which side was right or wrong in Ulster).

Does anyone think that the likes of France, who have always done what is right for France, are disadvantaged by not toadying to the US? It seems to me that they do alright. And how come Libya, which stood against them for so long is OK with them again?

I am deeply saddened by the way what is purported to be the silent majority of Scots are reacting to this. How can it be that a country that has given so much to the world, including playing a significant part in forming the USA and its values, is so frightened to make its own decisions.

We seem to be basing our feelings on this matter as much on what other, bigger, nations opinions will think. I am wagering that outside of pressure groups for the victims families, the average Joe Schmoe in the states is more likely to be talking about the world series than this.

Reading around lots of stuff on this subject, and I think you're miles off the mark FR. The "anti-release" side of the argument is not on the basis of kowtowing to the might of the US. It is that people believe that dying or not, the man should not have been released because it was, in their (and my) opinion morally wrong.

I worked in Lockerbie for a number of years alongside some individuals who were very directly affected by the crash, and confess that my opionion is influenced strongly by this. Ive spoken to a couple of them over the past couple of days, and they don't agree with him being released for a whole number of reasons which I wont detail here, but mostly concerning opening of old wounds and a overwhelming sense of pointless unfairness about it all.

Sure, compassion has a vital part to play in any justice system, and sure a country with at least pretensions to statehood should walk their own path with confidence. But compassion should not solely be restricted to a convicted perpetrator but to the victims of his crime also. The more repellant and evil the crime, the greater the cognisance of the victims feelings should be. One mans "right" to die with his family in his country should not necessarily outweigh the relations of the dead's right to live happily and in as much peace as they can.

[ancient hibee]

The Scotsman is a washed out Edinburgh Tory newsletter that won't exist in a few years time due to its declining circulation and the fact that its second-rate garbage, kept afloat by the EEN.

This seems like another desperate gambit to boost sales figures, but I doubt it'll work.
Total tosh -the Scotsman has never been Tory supporting-have you ever read it?It also supports McAskill's decision so what's the beef?

[Woody1985]

Reading around lots of stuff on this subject, and I think you're miles off the mark FR. The "anti-release" side of the argument is not on the basis of kowtowing to the might of the US. It is that people believe that dying or not, the man should not have been released because it was, in their (and my) opinion morally wrong.

I worked in Lockerbie for a number of years alongside some individuals who were very directly affected by the crash, and confess that my opionion is influenced strongly by this. Ive spoken to a couple of them over the past couple of days, and they don't agree with him being released for a whole number of reasons which I wont detail here, but mostly concerning opening of old wounds and a overwhelming sense of pointless unfairness about it all.

Sure, compassion has a vital part to play in any justice system, and sure a country with at least pretensions to statehood should walk their own path with confidence. But compassion should not solely be restricted to a convicted perpetrator but to the victims of his crime also. The more repellant and evil the crime, the greater the cognisance of the victims feelings should be. One mans "right" to die with his family in his country should not necessarily outweigh the relations of the dead's right to live happily and in as much peace as they can.

:top marks

[steakbake]

Reading around lots of stuff on this subject, and I think you're miles off the mark FR. The "anti-release" side of the argument is not on the basis of kowtowing to the might of the US. It is that people believe that dying or not, the man should not have been released because it was, in their (and my) opinion morally wrong.

I worked in Lockerbie for a number of years alongside some individuals who were very directly affected by the crash, and confess that my opionion is influenced strongly by this. Ive spoken to a couple of them over the past couple of days, and they don't agree with him being released for a whole number of reasons which I wont detail here, but mostly concerning opening of old wounds and a overwhelming sense of pointless unfairness about it all.

Sure, compassion has a vital part to play in any justice system, and sure a country with at least pretensions to statehood should walk their own path with confidence. But compassion should not solely be restricted to a convicted perpetrator but to the victims of his crime also. The more repellant and evil the crime, the greater the cognisance of the victims feelings should be. One mans "right" to die with his family in his country should not necessarily outweigh the relations of the dead's right to live happily and in as much peace as they can.

I trust Jim Swire's verdict on the situation. He is a spokesperson for the UK victims of Lockerbie, having lost his daughter in the crash. He identifies that a release was justified, certainly in line with Scots' Law and a reasonable step in the circumstances.

I think this will divide people, but not as Labour, the Lib Dems and Tories and their supporters in the media would have us believe, along party lines or to rally against the SNP. Hell, unless deals are done to over-ride some of his own MSPs consciences, Tavish won't be able to muster the numbers for a no confidence vote. Similarly, Iain Gray. Annabel Goldie is a solicitor and she knows the situation as well as anyone, as, I am sure, the silent majority of MSP's in the chamber know it. Hence, her questioning was on the line of what other options were considered and not necessarily on the idea of release per se. The decision is, I'm afraid, the decision. It is not an "SNP" policy as such, but a decision of their minister and an application of the law.

I think going to see him in prison is perhaps overstepping the mark and was ill advised, but if it was done properly, notes were taken of the discussion and these notes are publicised, then we may be in a better position to comment. That is an entirely separate issue from the decision, though.

As a solicitor friend of mine once told me, anyone who approaches the legal system in the pursuit of a sense of justice or morality will not get it. It can and should only ever be an application of the law. MacAskill has applied the law in this case.

IMHO Meghrahi was a fall guy to release Libya from sanctions which were dropped immediately after he and his co-accused were put forward. He was not tried in front of a "jury" as the Head of the FBI claimed in his petulant letter and was convicted solely and exclusively on circumstantial evidence, on the basis of one unreliable witness, who was paid to testify and at the exclusion for national security interests, of key defence evidence. If you were tried in similar circumstances, would you be satisfied with life imprisonment and being branded "Britain's worst mass murderer" following a trial like that?

I would love a public enquiry into the whole situation but I do not think the UK and USA security services and government would provide the information required to make it a free and fair examination of the facts. For those reasons, it won't happen.

"If the truth can be told so as to be believed..."

[Betty Boop]

$2m Witness Payment, Bogus Forensic Evidence and Pentagon Memo Blaming Iran:

How Lockerbie bomber appeal threatened Scottish justice

By ANTONIA HOYLE and FIDELMA COOK

August 25, 2009 "The Daily Mail" -- As the political furore over the release of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Al Megrahi engulfs three countries in bitter recriminations, The Mail on Sunday can now reveal the new and compelling evidence which he says would have proved his innocence.
In a submission to the Court of Appeal running to thousands of words, Megrahi’s lawyers list 20 grounds of appeal which include:

Details of a catalogue of deliberately undisclosed evidence at the original trial.
Allegations of ‘tampering’ with evidence.
A summary of how American intelligence agencies were convinced that Iran, not Libya, was involved but that their reports were not open to the 2001 trial.\
The closely guarded submission was obtained by Ian Ferguson, an investigative journalist and co-author of the book Cover-up of Convenience - The Hidden Scandal of Lockerbie.

But the evidence will never be tested in open court after the dying Libyan abandoned it last week to spend his final days with his family.

Mr Ferguson, who has had 100 hours of unprecedented access to the 57-year-old former Libyan intelligence agent during his eight years in jail, claimed last night: ‘From the start there was a determination to try to prevent this appeal being heard.

'It opened but never got off the ground, with stall after stall as each month Megrahi weakened with the cancer that was killing him.

‘There was rejoicing in the Crown Office in Edinburgh when he was released and the appeal abandoned.

'There may well be political manoeuvres behind his release but at the heart was a decision to save the face of the Scottish judiciary - in particular the Crown Prosecution, who would have been shown to have been involved in an abuse of process by non-disclosure of witness statements.’

It took the use of the U.S. Freedom of Information Act to unlock the full intelligence documents which are now highlighted in the appeal submission.

They show memos from the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) which suggested the downing of Pan Am Flight 103, which killed 270 people in 1988, was in response to the shooting down of an Iranian Airbus by the American warship USS Vincennes five months earlier.

In a memo dated September 24, 1989, and reproduced in the appeal submission, the DIA states: ‘The bombing of the Pan Am flight was conceived, authorised and financed by Ali-Akbar Mohtashemi-Pur, Iran’s former interior minister.

‘The execution of the operation was contracted to Ahmad [Jibril], Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command [PFLP-GC] leader, for a sum of $1million [£600,000.

‘$100,000 of this money was given to Jibril up front in Damascus by the Iranian ambassador to Sy [Syria], Muhammed Hussan [Akhari] for initial expenses.


'The remainder of the money was to be paid after successful completion of the mission.’

Another DIA briefing - Pan Am 103, Deadly Co-operation - in December 1989 named Iran as the country most likely to be behind the outrage.


Discounting Libya’s involvement on the basis that there was ‘no current credible intelligence’, it added: ‘Following a brief increase in anti-U.S. terrorist attacks after the U.S. airstrike on Libya, Gaddafi has made an effort to distance Libya from terrorist attacks.’

The memos and reports, denied in full to the original trial, were available to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission which, two years ago, cast doubt on the safety of Megrahi’s conviction based on six separate counts of the legal argument.


Their view opened the way for a second appeal. That report has never been made public.

Mr Ferguson said: ‘Megrahi was made the scapegoat for whatever reason and from that point everything went in reverse to try to make the crime fit.’

Central to Megrahi’s conviction was the evidence of Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci, who claimed that Megrahi had bought clothes allegedly found in the suitcase bomb.

Lawyers were due to claim that Gauci was paid a $2million reward for his evidence, which followed more than 20 police interviews, and that many of the often wildly conflicting statements taken on each occasion were withheld from the defence.

Mr Ferguson says that, although too late for the submission, lawyers were planning to spring a witness called David Wright, an English builder who was on holiday in Malta and who is said to have information about the clothes shop.

He would have produced evidence as to the date and buyer of the clothes, seriously undermining Gauci’s reliability and credibility.

It is now believed that Gauci has moved to Australia.

[Betty Boop]

Other new evidence listed in the grounds for appeal would have called in new witnesses to prove that the fragment of circuit board from a timing device found near the crash and pointing to Libyan involvement simply could not have survived such an explosion.

Subsequent analysis carried out by an independent forensic scientist found no trace of explosive on the tiny piece.


A Swiss businessman would have given evidence that his company - which supplied the alleged timer - did not just do business with the Libyan intelligence service, as was claimed, but also with the Stasi, the East German secret police.

Also due to be called was a witness who would allegedly discredit the accepted account that the suitcase in which the bomb was placed had somehow travelled unchecked and unaccompanied from Malta to Frankfurt and on to the Pan Am flight.

Questions would have been asked as to how a fragment of cloth - believed to be from the clothing wrapped around the bomb - subsequently came to be packed with material linking it direct to the bomb.

Mr Ferguson added: ‘Had this appeal gone ahead and witnesses recalled and cross-examined, I believe it would be shown that some had most definitely perjured themselves or deliberately misled the court.

‘It is no wonder that some people were hoping Megrahi would die before certain witnesses were called.

'The release on compassionate grounds is a blessed release for them, as much as it was for him.’

Mr Ferguson, who now lives in France but continues to pursue ‘leads’ in the case, first met Megrahi in 2002 and says he was a constant visitor over the years as they went over every aspect of the evidence against him.

‘From the start I was struck by his total, unchanging, quiet protestation of his innocence.

'He readily admitted that his job was sanction-busting for the Libyan government but never anything more sinister.

‘He frequently said he knew his government were involved in many things but always looked me straight in the eye and said: "I am not a killer".

Despite seeing the by then frail and faltering Megrahi only four weeks ago as he waited to hear if he could be sent home, Mr Ferguson insists he did not press him on any political dealings which may have been going on behind the scenes.

He added: ‘Politics may have got him into prison but I believed it was only evidence that could get him out.


'I never believed, though, that he would give up the appeal after so many years of fighting for it. That was all we focused on in our meetings - his refusal to give up.


'At the end, though, I agreed with his decision because, otherwise, he would not have been able to get what he most wanted - to live out his last days with his family.’

Megrahi was diagnosed with terminal cancer in September last year.


Mr Ferguson, who saw him two months later, said: ‘He already looked very different. His complexion was drawn and he’d lost a lot of weight.


'He cried as he told me how he had been called into the prison governor’s office and learnt his cancer was inoperable and ultimately untreatable.

‘He called his wife and they were both crying for 15 minutes. He wasn’t embarrassed to cry in front of me.

'I’d had cancer myself in 2002, so I knew what he was going through.

'I contacted a psychologist specialising in this disease who I hoped would help him deal with it.’

Since Megrahi’s diagnosis, Mr Ferguson has seen him four times.

He added: ‘Our visits were shortened because he couldn’t sit down for too long before being in pain.

'Because he is so religious he wasn’t scared of death but he was desperate to have his name cleared before he died.

‘I felt he was being blackmailed but he never admitted it.


'The Crown wouldn’t agree to transfer him unless he gave up his appeal and the longer they stalled the more fragile he became physically. In the end he just couldn’t continue.’

He first met Megrahi and his lawyer in Glasgow’s Barlinnie prison - and quickly became convinced that he was innocent.


He said: ‘The first thing I asked him was if he had had anything to do with the bombing.

'He insisted he hadn’t and was convinced from the start his conviction would be overturned. He seemed smart and intelligent without being arrogant and very angry.


'The evidence was purely circumstantial and came at a time when the West wanted to implicate Libya at a time when it was politically inconvenient to accuse the real culprits.’

Over the months the pair reached a tacit understanding: ‘It was never spoken outright but Megrahi knew I would never jeopardise his trust by writing about our meetings.’

Surprisingly, despite the hours spent together, neither considered the other a friend.

Mr Ferguson said: ‘No, I could never say that.’

Meanwhile, despite what Mr Ferguson claims to be compelling evidence, the director of the FBI Robert Mueller last night launched a scathing attack on Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill for allowing Megrahi to return to Libya.

Mr Mueller is said to have written him a letter, which is published on the FBI website, stating: ‘Your action gives comfort to terrorists around the world who now believe that, regardless of the quality of the investigation, the conviction by jury after the defendant is given all due process, and sentence appropriate to the crime, the terrorist will be freed by one man’s exercise of “compassion”.

‘Your action makes a mockery of the emotions, passions and pathos of all those affected by the Lockerbie tragedy.

'But most importantly, your action makes a mockery of the grief of the families.’

[Woody1985]

$2m Witness Payment, Bogus Forensic Evidence and Pentagon Memo Blaming Iran:

How Lockerbie bomber appeal threatened Scottish justice

By ANTONIA HOYLE and FIDELMA COOK

August 25, 2009 "The Daily Mail" -- As the political furore over the release of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Al Megrahi......

Am I the only one who's confused that you are using an article from the Daily Mail?

I thought that you, and many others on here, detest the DM and everything it allegedly stands for. It is often said on here how it is full of ***** and full of unsubstantuated bull****. :greengrin

[Betty Boop]

Am I the only one who's confused that you are using an article from the Daily Mail?

I thought that you, and many others on here, detest the DM and everything it allegedly stands for. It is often said on here how it is full of ***** and full of unsubstantuated bull****. :greengrin

Yes I was surprised that the Daily Mail published that article, however I got it from Information Clearing House. :greengrin

[Killiehibbie]

Yes I was surprised that the Daily Mail published that article, however I got it from Information Clearing House. :greengrin

Remember to bite that cyanide capsule if you ever feel the urge to quote littlejohn.

[khib70]

Am I the only one who's confused that you are using an article from the Daily Mail?

I thought that you, and many others on here, detest the DM and everything it allegedly stands for. It is often said on here how it is full of ***** and full of unsubstantuated bull****. :greengrin
:top marks Caught them at it there mate. The Holy Ground mob not only not quoting the Guardian, but quoting the DM :faf::faf: Are they really losing the argument that badly already. Presumably the DM article goes on to lay the blame for Lockerbie on asylum seekers and illegal immigrants?

And BTW, Fidelma Cooke, journalism, same sentence:faf:

What next? Orla Guerin - the unbiased voice of Middle East coverage?:bitchy:

[steakbake]

:top marks Caught them at it there mate. The Holy Ground mob not only not quoting the Guardian, but quoting the DM :faf::faf: Are they really losing the argument that badly already. Presumably the DM article goes on to lay the blame for Lockerbie on asylum seekers and illegal immigrants?

And BTW, Fidelma Cooke, journalism, same sentence:faf:

What next? Orla Guerin - the unbiased voice of Middle East coverage?:bitchy:

Iain Gray as the voice of the silent majority?

[hibsbollah]

:top marks Caught them at it there mate. The Holy Ground mob not only not quoting the Guardian, but quoting the DM :faf::faf: Are they really losing the argument that badly already. Presumably the DM article goes on to lay the blame for Lockerbie on asylum seekers and illegal immigrants?

And BTW, Fidelma Cooke, journalism, same sentence:faf:

What next? Orla Guerin - the unbiased voice of Middle East coverage?:bitchy:

I think its pretty obvious who is losing the argument.

[Betty Boop]

:top marks Caught them at it there mate. The Holy Ground mob not only not quoting the Guardian, but quoting the DM :faf::faf: Are they really losing the argument that badly already. Presumably the DM article goes on to lay the blame for Lockerbie on asylum seekers and illegal immigrants?

And BTW, Fidelma Cooke, journalism, same sentence:faf:

What next? Orla Guerin - the unbiased voice of Middle East coverage?:bitchy:

:faf:

[--------]

:top marks Caught them at it there mate. The Holy Ground mob not only not quoting the Guardian, but quoting the DM :faf::faf: Are they really losing the argument that badly already. Presumably the DM article goes on to lay the blame for Lockerbie on asylum seekers and illegal immigrants?

And BTW, Fidelma Cooke, journalism, same sentence:faf:

What next? Orla Guerin - the unbiased voice of Middle East coverage?:bitchy:



Do you really expect to be taken seriously after a post like this one?

[Twa Cairpets]

:agree: So true. So very, very true.

Your post brought tears to my eyes, FR.

How could I have been so blind?

I too remain proud to be a Scot, but like that 'silent majority' of whom that Great and Good Man Iain Gray spoke so movingly yesterday, I am sickened and embarrassed that Kenny MacAskill should ever have dared to do anything without clearing it with Gordo the Great and Jack 'Clutching At Straws' Straw in Westmonster.

How we could have forgotten that the ONLY function appropriate to our elected representatives in Scotland is to be on hand to pick up the soap whenever the Great and Good of Westmonster drop it in the shower?

Hopefully the US will send us lots of nice men with guns to patrol our streets and set up adventure playgrounds (like they did in Iraq and Cuba) where we can be dressed in nice orange jump-suits and re-educated to take up our place in the civilised world once again as obedient and compliant serfs to our Betters and Masters. I believe that the CIA will lay on a free aeroplane ride to get you there.

"Jump, Massa Gordo? Why, sho', Massa Gordo! How high should I jump, Massa Gordo?"


Note to Admin: Could you please hurry along the "snivelling Jocko cringe-ball" smiley? It will be needed.

And you expect to be taken seriously after this post? Hypocrite

[--------]

And you expect to be taken seriously after this post? Hypocrite


Consistent with the argument and relevant.

It's IRONY, or maybe even SATIRE.

NOT perhaps in the best of all possible taste, but serious nevertheless.

But when the Daily Mail publishes an article supporting the contention that Al Megrahi's conviction is unsafe - knowing what position the Mail usually takes in these matters - it's perfectly in order for that article to be posted at length on this thread.

No one was saying that the Daily Mail has suddenly become an organ of left-wing enlightenment - the POINT was that if a right-wing paper like the Mail is capable of seeing and acknowledging that there are serious doubts about the evidence presented to the courts in the Al Megrahi case, maybe those doubts are a lot more serious than even I ever thought.

The Mail article supports the contention that there was dirty work going on around that trial.

We know who's losing the argument.

[Twa Cairpets]

Consistent with the argument and relevant.

It's IRONY, or maybe even SATIRE.

NOT perhaps in the best of all possible taste, but serious nevertheless.

But when the Daily Mail publishes an article supporting the contention that Al Megrahi's conviction is unsafe - knowing what position the Mail usually takes in these matters - it's perfectly in order for that article to be posted at length on this thread.

No one was saying that the Daily Mail has suddenly become an organ of left-wing enlightenment - the POINT was that if a right-wing paper like the Mail is capable of seeing and acknowledging that there are serious doubts about the evidence presented to the courts in the Al Megrahi case, maybe those doubts are a lot more serious than even I ever thought.

The Mail article supports the contention that there was dirty work going on around that trial.

We know who's losing the argument.

We know who's losing the argument.

Fair play - emboldening a sentence always adds that little bit of extra authority and righteousness to a point.

The argument you're "winning" is the argument you are choosing to make.

The discussion posted by khib and others is based around the stated reason for release - i.e. compassionate grounds. You either agree with the stance taken or you don't. I personally don't, and I don't see what the nation stands to gain by taking the decision it did. However, now its made I'm quite happy to defend the process by which it was made even if I disagree with the outcome.

What you are still harping on about is the cover up/conspiracy/covert operation surrounding the trial. While the end result may co-incidentally in your mind be justified in relation to your view of the innocence of Magrahi, it is not related to the reason given for the release.

Therefore every bit of evidence put up from any source - yes, even the Daily Mail - relating to the original trial has, frankly, hee-haw to do with the release.

Doddie, if you're happy to win the argument no-one is arguing about, then great. I hope it gives you satisfaction.

[Woody1985]

http://www.boycottscotland.co.uk/

:faf:

Only disappointment is if you google it it's not beside the .com one :grr:

[--------]

The matter of his 'guilt' before a Scottish court as a reason why "he should have been left to rot in prison" was raised on the very first page of this long thread.

And not by me.

Scots Law allows for any prisoner to be released on compassionate grounds and Ken MacAskill exercised the authority of his office in so releasing Al-Megrahi.

The pressure he had placed upon him by Barack Obama's Hilary Clinton's public pronouncements, and the open letter published by those seven Congressmen before he announced his decision were entirely out of order.

Public statements made subsequently by public figures in the UK and in America, figures including members of the Westminster Parliament (which has no jurisdiction here) and the head of the FBI were of a sort which should not have been directed at an officer of the Scottish Judiciary. Ken MacAskill was acting as an officer of the Scottish Judiciary, under Scots Law, when he signed the release.

Right now this thread stands at more than 230 posts. The question of the fitness of representatives of the US government to make derogatory comments about the practice and procedure of Scots Law IS relevant to the discussion.

The conduct of the US Armed Forces in relation to Iraq and Iran IS relevant when representatives of the US government are throwing terms around like 'mass-murderer' and 'terrorist', and suggesting that Ken MacAskill's action in releasing Al-Megrahi has somehow made the world a less safe place. This may be so. Or again, it may not.

It may also be the case that what the US and we are engaged in doing in Iraq and Afghanistan makes the world a very much more dangerous place for many people. It may be that the past actions of US and UK forces in Iraq and Afghanistan resonate in the Muslim world in a very different way to the way in which WE see them. One man's 'hero', after all, is so often the other man's 'war-criminal'?

The 'world' includes Arabs and Muslims - many US and British leaders seem to have come to the position where it's justifiable to kill any number of Iraqi and Afghani men, women and children to keep our people safe. Whether killing these people actually makes us any safer at all is very doubtful. More likely we're simply stoking up even more hatred against ourselves.

All this is relevant to the discussion in this thread. All I'm doing is responding to what I read on the thread.

I'm sorry that my use of boldface and italics offends you - the functions are there, and I use them as best I can. I wasn't aware that boldface lends an air of authority and righteousness to my pronouncemnts - I'll have to remember that.

It could be useful on Sundays. :devil:

[steakbake]

The decision takes the basis in Scots Law. Guilt or no guilt aside. 2/3rds of Solicitors agree with the decision as applied. The population seems more split - 42% for, 51% against. 9% don't knows. Source? Certainly not brown - it was from the Daily Mail.

[ancient hibee]

The decision takes the basis in Scots Law. Guilt or no guilt aside. 2/3rds of Solicitors agree with the decision as applied. The population seems more split - 42% for, 51% against. 9% don't knows. Source? Certainly not brown - it was from the Daily Mail.

That's because more solicitors are engaged in defence work rather than prosecuting:greengrin

[--------]

The decision takes the basis in Scots Law. Guilt or no guilt aside. 2/3rds of Solicitors agree with the decision as applied. The population seems more split - 42% for, 51% against. 9% don't knows. Source? Certainly not brown - it was from the Daily Mail.




Not Brown?

You absolutely sure?

'Cos the arithmetic certainly sounds like his - (42+51+9)% makes 102% in my book. :devil:

[steakbake]

Not Brown?

You absolutely sure?

'Cos the arithmetic certainly sounds like his - (42+51+9)% makes 102% in my book. :devil:

It should be 7%. Maths is not my strong point.

[--------]

It should be 7%. Maths is not my strong point.


Are you Darling in disguise? :devil:

[Part/Time Supporter]

Ian Gray et al ludicrously overplayed their hand in the papers by suggesting that the Government would be brought down over this.

[Mibbes Aye]

Latecomer to this thread :greengrin

I'm far from being a natural SNP supporter and I've been very critical of their administration on occasion but I admire McAskill's decision for what, on the surface, appears to be playing a straight bat in the face of weighty opposition.

Of course it's unlikely that it was any such thing. It's also unlikely that any of us have a clue about all the machinations going on in the background around this. My guess would be oodles of realpolitik and lots of adjustments and shifts to accommodate the differing agendas and perhaps more importantly, the perception of differing agendas. Ultimately leading to a resolution that may or may not be ideal but almost certainly is a bit of a fudge.

I think the point about compassionate grounds is worth the debate though - it's the ostensible reason for Megrahi's release. Would the defenders of it feel the same way about an Ian Brady or Myra Hindley (to pick two non-contentious examples :greengrin)?

I think I think that compassion should be unconditional - if we claim it we extend it to all, whether "dodgily-convicted victims of geopolitics" (cf. Megrahi), or proven-beyond-a-doubt child murderers, multiple rapists etc.

Do we? If not, where does the line get drawn?

[steakbake]

Latecomer to this thread :greengrin

I'm far from being a natural SNP supporter and I've been very critical of their administration on occasion but I admire McAskill's decision for what, on the surface, appears to be playing a straight bat in the face of weighty opposition.

Of course it's unlikely that it was any such thing. It's also unlikely that any of us have a clue about all the machinations going on in the background around this. My guess would be oodles of realpolitik and lots of adjustments and shifts to accommodate the differing agendas and perhaps more importantly, the perception of differing agendas. Ultimately leading to a resolution that may or may not be ideal but almost certainly is a bit of a fudge.

I think the point about compassionate grounds is worth the debate though - it's the ostensible reason for Megrahi's release. Would the defenders of it feel the same way about an Ian Brady or Myra Hindley (to pick two non-contentious examples :greengrin)?

I think I think that compassion should be unconditional - if we claim it we extend it to all, whether "dodgily-convicted victims of geopolitics" (cf. Megrahi), or proven-beyond-a-doubt child murderers, multiple rapists etc.

Do we? If not, where does the line get drawn?

Ian Brady and Myra Hindley. Well. I suppose it comes down to the possibility to reoffend. I very much doubt Megrahi offended in the first place, but is even less likely to offend in the future, as short as it is for him. But part of the decision is down to the parole board. They felt that megrahi was not a high risk prisoner and that release would not put the community in any danger. Can the same be said of Hindley and Brady or indeed, those like them?

Megrahi is a different type of situation. The crime he was convicted of was contextual. If it was him or at least, he was involved, it was as part of a wider issue and was more akin to an act of war rather than your average serial killer type stalking the streets at night and selecting victims to kill for predatory enjoyment or sexual fulfilment, despite media comparisons. I think you can take part in an act of war but actually not be an "evil" person who is likely to do it again or do it for enjoyment.

I don't know but these are just thoughts of mine and not based in any legal knowledge and I'm just contributing to a debate. I suppose what I'm trying to get at is that crime and some kind of scale of how bad it is is entirely contextual. You cannot go through life being a moral absolutist like some people would like to think you can. The reality is that life and morality are never simply black and white but is all shades of other colours, too .

[Mibbes Aye]

Ian Brady and Myra Hindley. Well. I suppose it comes down to the possibility to reoffend. I very much doubt Megrahi offended in the first place, but is even less likely to offend in the future, as short as it is for him. But part of the decision is down to the parole board. They felt that megrahi was not a high risk prisoner and that release would not put the community in any danger. Can the same be said of Hindley and Brady or indeed, those like them?

Megrahi is a different type of situation. The crime he was convicted of was contextual. If it was him or at least, he was involved, it was as part of a wider issue and was more akin to a war crime rather than your average serial killer type.

All thoughts of mine and not based in any legal knowledge. I suppose what I'm trying to get at is that crime and some kind of scale of how bad it is is entirely contextual.

Cheers BS.

My point isn't based on legal certainty either, so I don't know. My take on it was that compassionate grounds are compassionate grounds i.e. someone is taken out of a prison environment due to them being at the end of their life and it facilitating closeness to family etc. If they're going to die, it won't be in a prison cell because that's not the way a 'civilised' society would wish people to die (though it's no exact science).

If, despite it being an end-of-life/palliative care situation there were still questions about the potential of re-offending, I'm assuming they would be built-in to the release arrangements - I've not read them so stand to be corrected, but there were press reports about secure accommodtion within Scotland for Megrahi were he to be released but not returned to Libya? I know that's as much to do with his protection as anyone else's though.

It's not a question of re-offending for me. It's a question of where people draw the line. If we claim to be compassionate (and I would hope we do), to whom does that compassion extend?

[Sir David Gray]

I think you are reacting to the media hype aound this perpetuated from across the Atlantic. The 'media and tabloid view' does not represent a balanced view of World and indeed Scottish opinion on this matter I feel. When Megrahi dies and the dust settles on this saga strong 'anti' views such as your own will become more moderate.

Looking at the bigger picture, one thing this matter has shown the World is that Scotland is country in it's own right and makes it's own decisions whether other nations agree with them not. Prior to this matter, many Americans and those in other countries wouldn't have even known where Scotland is located. Some 'informed' Americans may have thought Scotland was a region of England.

Kenny McAskill's decision was a difficult one, but certainly the correct one IMHO. I watched all of his speech and thought he was very impressive, decisive and clever in his delivery.

I have only voted SNP in recent years but this episode has made me more likely to vote SNP at the next election.

I am not reacting to any media hype. I am capable of reaching my own conclusions/opinions on subjects without getting them from the press.

You're right, as time moves on, people's views will die down. But that happens in nearly every controversial story, except with those who are personally attached to the incident.

As far as America is concerned, I'm not interested in what they think. I don't disagree with the release just because that's what America says. I disagree with it because I don't believe a convicted mass murderer should ever be released from prison.

I totally agree that we should be making our own decisions, I just happen to disagree with the decision that we have taken.

Again, I think some people are happy that we have released Megrahi just because it has angered America and subsequently given us a bit of notoriety around the world. Judging by your post, you seem to think it's a good idea partly because Americans will now know that we are a country in our own right and not just a little region of England.

I really can't fathom that logic out. Apart from anything else, it won't change anything in that regard. Many Americans are so insular that they haven't the first idea about things that happen outwith the USA. Many of them will also continue to refer to the UK as "England".

As for the SNP, if this is an indication of their policies in general, I hope this decision signals the end for them.


Are any of those saying we need to keep in the USA's good books aware of how useless the UK's "special arrangement" was in Suez and the Falklands. Uncle Sam wasn't slow in jumping onto the fence in those conflicts.

The USA also preferred not to get involved in taking sides in the Northern Ireland conflict. Surely, as our bestest mates, they might have condemned terrorism a bit more loudly? (I say this without expressing any views on which side was right or wrong in Ulster).

Does anyone think that the likes of France, who have always done what is right for France, are disadvantaged by not toadying to the US? It seems to me that they do alright. And how come Libya, which stood against them for so long is OK with them again?

I am deeply saddened by the way what is purported to be the silent majority of Scots are reacting to this. How can it be that a country that has given so much to the world, including playing a significant part in forming the USA and its values, is so frightened to make its own decisions.

We seem to be basing our feelings on this matter as much on what other, bigger, nations opinions will think. I am wagering that outside of pressure groups for the victims families, the average Joe Schmoe in the states is more likely to be talking about the world series than this.

No-one on here, who has voiced their opposition to Megrahi's release, has done so because they want to appease the USA. I certainly didn't take the US stance into consideration when giving my opinion on the matter.

I agree entirely that we should make our own decisions. I just happen to believe that this decision of ours is completely wrong.


Reading around lots of stuff on this subject, and I think you're miles off the mark FR. The "anti-release" side of the argument is not on the basis of kowtowing to the might of the US. It is that people believe that dying or not, the man should not have been released because it was, in their (and my) opinion morally wrong.

I worked in Lockerbie for a number of years alongside some individuals who were very directly affected by the crash, and confess that my opionion is influenced strongly by this. Ive spoken to a couple of them over the past couple of days, and they don't agree with him being released for a whole number of reasons which I wont detail here, but mostly concerning opening of old wounds and a overwhelming sense of pointless unfairness about it all.

Sure, compassion has a vital part to play in any justice system, and sure a country with at least pretensions to statehood should walk their own path with confidence. But compassion should not solely be restricted to a convicted perpetrator but to the victims of his crime also. The more repellant and evil the crime, the greater the cognisance of the victims feelings should be. One mans "right" to die with his family in his country should not necessarily outweigh the relations of the dead's right to live happily and in as much peace as they can.

:agree: Absolutely.

:top marks

[NYHibby]

Someone a couple days ago asked what my views are. Seeing where my paychecks are going to be coming from next month, I need be careful what I say.

On the one hand, the guy was convicted by a Scottish court so any discussion if he is really guilty is mute in terms of his release. If Scottish law says that you have the "right" to be release when you are terminally ill, then it was fair that he was released. It also not like he was pardoned. He is going to die as a convicted murderer.

On the other hand, people are completely justified in being outraged, be then Scottish or American. A couple students from my alma mater died in the bombing returning home after studying in the UK. Although it was way before my time, I would be outraged if some of my friends died in a similar incident. Heck, I flew to NYC from Heathrow on the anniversary of the bombing. I don't see how you can argue that just because he was tried in an Scottish court that American victims shouldn't have their justice or that their relative shouldn't seek justice.

A couple posts on this page have been completely asinine. Except for a couple of people on this site, no one here has any actual basis for making any claim about how ignorant Americans are or are not. You're talking just as much out of your asses as the Americans who are promoting a boycott of Scotland. Spewing your anti-American stereotypes adds nothing and just discredits any valid point you could have raised.

You have to remember that I'm actually choosing to live in Scotland & didn't just happen to be born here by chance, but you have to be realistic. By population, Scotland would be the 22nd largest US state. How many Scottish people know where similarly populated places like Wisconsin, Minnesota, or Colorado are? By the logic being used by some poster here, it would be ok if Minnesota pissed off Scotland just so they would know that they aren't part of Wisconsin. The point I'm trying to make is that justifying the decision to release Megrahi by claiming that the notoriety gain is good leads you down a dangerous path. This is the path that takes you to terrorism yourself.