Releasing the lockerbie bomber was completely wrong

[bighairyfaeleith]

Interesting statement indeed from Mr Cameron, good to see he is fighting scotlands corner in America and not just kissing obamas ass:grr:

Agree or disagree with releasing the guy, the decision was made for clear reasons and this cheap publicity stunt by cameron is pissing all over our government!!

[CropleyWasGod]

Interesting statement indeed from Mr Cameron, good to see he is fighting scotlands corner in America and not just kissing obamas ass:grr:

Agree or disagree with releasing the guy, the decision was made for clear reasons and this cheap publicity stunt by cameron is pissing all over our government!!

I share your anger. However, I reckon Salmond will have had a quiet wee smile to himself. Cameron has just played right into his hands and touched the nationalist nerve of many a floating voter.

[bigstu]

i'm getting more & more annoyed with this! i did not agree with the decision made at the time but that decision was the scottish governments decision to make & within their rights to release him. this has nothing to do with the Americans so they should butt out! They shouldn't be asking for enquiries & demanding to see every document from the time the decision was made, they have no rights! yes their people were killed but it was in our country & therefore we decide whats happens, they have no say!

I also think Cameron is making scotland look like incompetent idiots by coming out & making the statement he has, it was a decision that was before his time so he should just say that.

The american witch hunt against BP is another thing, do they not realise the importance the company has to their economy!

[heretoday]

None of this would be happening if only the guy had died like he was supposed to.

[CropleyWasGod]

None of this would be happening if only the guy had died like he was supposed to.

None of this would be happening if Obama was doing better in the polls.

All of a sudden, BP are the antichrist. Anything connected with them must be the spawn of the devil.

Funny how the US always seem to mix up politics and oil. :rolleyes:

[steakbake]

The special relationship is a total fiction, usually peddled by politicians this side of the pond to justify why we are doing America's bidding and usually peddled by politicians on the other side of the pond to make us do what we're told.

[AgentDaleCooper]

The special relationship is a total fiction, usually peddled by politicians this side of the pond to justify why we are doing America's bidding and usually peddled by politicians on the other side of the pond to make us do what we're told.

it's probably a special relationship if you're an oil baron...

i don't really feel strongly nationalist, i like being scottish but i'm not particularly proud of it...but i just want independence so that we can stop being run by a country that predominantly votes for the one party that describes itself as "toxic" in our part of the world. time to stand on our own two feet me thinks. salmond isn't the one to lead is if were to gain independence, but we really should look to the scandinavians, they have it sussed.

gaaaawd i hate the tories.


i wish they'd also start talking about the fact that magrahi's guilt isn't exactly considered certain.


:grr:

[Don Giovanni]

Agreed.

The most disappointing aspect about this whole senario is that the people who lost loved ones may never know the true story as the case is now effectively closed.

Im no legal expert but the case against Megrahi doesnt strike me as being safe/foolproof/convincing.

Whatever the truth and whatever Megrahis involvement, the perpetrator certainly did not work alone to achieve his/her goals.

At best Megrahi is a patsie, a fall-guy because America needs someone to blame. At worst he is one part of a much wider cause (whether that be terrorist, military, secret service) convicted on fragile evidence.

A re-trial would have opened old wounds, for sure, but in the interests of truth and justice for the victims and thier families this, in my opinion, would have been the best course of action.
Whats more using this case to beat the Scots/Brits with does noone any favours...

[greenlex]

BP is 40% US owned. I think they are as stupid as they seem at times. BP is in fact not called British Petroleum it is plain BP.

[Barney McGrew]

Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the conviction, the Americans were perfectly happy for Al Megrahi to be tried in a Scottish court, under Scots jurisdiction and Scots law. So it's not really for them to start moaning when that same Scots law allows a decision to be made to release him.

For a country that allows extraordinary rendition to take place, it's a bit rich for them to be bleating on about justice.

I agree with Don Giovanni above too - the conviction didn't look too safe in the first place, so a retrial (even following Megrahi's eventual death) may be the best thing. IIRC, Jim Swire from the Victims Families group is one of those who believes that the wrong man was jalied?

[Twa Cairpets]

Interesting statement indeed from Mr Cameron, good to see he is fighting scotlands corner in America and not just kissing obamas ass:grr:

Agree or disagree with releasing the guy, the decision was made for clear reasons and this cheap publicity stunt by cameron is pissing all over our government!!

He couldnt really say anything else though. The decision was the Scottish Governments, and while I recall he disagreed with at the time, he cannot stick his oar in from a UK government perspective because it has nowt to do with Westminster.

[IndieHibby]

Agreed.

The most disappointing aspect about this whole senario is that the people who lost loved ones may never know the true story as the case is now effectively closed.

Im no legal expert but the case against Megrahi doesnt strike me as being safe/foolproof/convincing.

Whatever the truth and whatever Megrahis involvement, the perpetrator certainly did not work alone to achieve his/her goals.


I recall reading a theory that the bombing was an Iranian plot (proxy or otherwise) in retaliation for the downing of an Iraninan civil passenger jet by an American warship. And just to rub their noses in it, they gave medals to the sailors on board.

Not that I am into conspiracy theories, you see, but an interesting notion nonetheless....

[GlesgaeHibby]

i'm getting more & more annoyed with this! i did not agree with the decision made at the time but that decision was the scottish governments decision to make & within their rights to release him. this has nothing to do with the Americans so they should butt out! They shouldn't be asking for enquiries & demanding to see every document from the time the decision was made, they have no rights! yes their people were killed but it was in our country & therefore we decide whats happens, they have no say!

I also think Cameron is making scotland look like incompetent idiots by coming out & making the statement he has, it was a decision that was before his time so he should just say that.

The american witch hunt against BP is another thing, do they not realise the importance the company has to their economy!

The Scottish government has published every document they can on this issue. The only 2 they haven't been allowed to publish are correspondence documents with the UK government, and the American government.

Whether you agree or disagree with the decision to free Megrahi, the Scottish Government made that tough decision in full accordance with Scot's Law.

The Americans can GTF. They were happy to let us try him under Scot's Law so they should respect our decision to release him on compassionate grounds.

[CropleyWasGod]

The Scottish government has published every document they can on this issue. The only 2 they haven't been allowed to publish are correspondence documents with the UK government, and the American government.

Whether you agree or disagree with the decision to free Megrahi, the Scottish Government made that tough decision in full accordance with Scot's Law.

The Americans can GTF. They were happy to let us try him under Scot's Law so they should respect our decision to release him on compassionate grounds.

Like him or loathe him, Salmond is playing this very well. He mentioned those documents last night on Newsnight, in such a way as to say "we're happy to publish them. It's up to the US and UK Governments".

It would be interesting to see what is in them.

[ginger_rice]

The special relationship is a total fiction, usually peddled by politicians this side of the pond to justify why we are doing America's bidding and usually peddled by politicians on the other side of the pond to make us do what we're told.

:top marks

[ginger_rice]

I recall reading a theory that the bombing was an Iranian plot (proxy or otherwise) in retaliation for the downing of an Iraninan civil passenger jet by an American warship. And just to rub their noses in it, they gave medals to the sailors on board.

Not that I am into conspiracy theories, you see, but an interesting notion nonetheless....

As I recall there's more than a hint of truth in that, rather than conspiracy theory.

Oh and yes the cowboys did get medals

[Shell7]

None of this would be happening if only the guy had died like he was supposed to.

Agreed, the whole thing about 'him' will be forgotten when he pops his clogs but it's good to see Cameron sticking up for part of the U.K. (Scotland) :grr: The twat is a disgrace with the comments he's made about Scotland :grr:

[New Corrie]

i'm getting more & more annoyed with this! i did not agree with the decision made at the time but that decision was the scottish governments decision to make & within their rights to release him. this has nothing to do with the Americans so they should butt out! They shouldn't be asking for enquiries & demanding to see every document from the time the decision was made, they have no rights! yes their people were killed but it was in our country & therefore we decide whats happens, they have no say!

I also think Cameron is making scotland look like incompetent idiots by coming out & making the statement he has, it was a decision that was before his time so he should just say that.

The american witch hunt against BP is another thing, do they not realise the importance the company has to their economy!

It's Scotland who is doing that and not Cameron, he said at the time he didn't agree with the release and he's quite rightly repeated this view. It's been a classic case of "Traffic Warden" mentality from the Nats, trying to flex muscles and utilise their limited clout to gain as much exposure as possible. Again no consideration whatsoever to the families of the victims, I'm sure they were really happy to see the Heroes welcome that the Nats said wouldn't happen.

[marinello59]

Agreed, the whole thing about 'him' will be forgotten when he pops his clogs but it's good to see Cameron sticking up for part of the U.K. (Scotland) :grr: The twat is a disgrace with the comments he's made about Scotland :grr:

I can't stand Cameron but he went there as PM of the UK. He actually played that role quite well. He has broken the link between BP and the deal in the desert and got Obama to drop his call for a full enquiry.
He pointed out the facts, that the Scottish Government alone made the decision based on compassionate grounds, not commercial grounds. Other than saying he disagreed with the decision what other comments has he made about Scotland?

[Big Frank]

I can't stand Cameron but he went there as PM of the UK. He actually played that role quite well. He has broken the link between BP and the deal in the desert and got Obama to drop his call for a full enquiry.
He pointed out the facts, that the Scottish Government alone made the decision based on compassionate grounds, not commercial grounds. Other than saying he disagreed with the decision what other comments has he made about Scotland?

I agree with you 100% Marinello.

There has been no disgraceful comments as Shell7 has alluded to.

[hibee62]

Interesting statement indeed from Mr Cameron, good to see he is fighting scotlands corner in America and not just kissing obamas ass:grr:

Agree or disagree with releasing the guy, the decision was made for clear reasons and this cheap publicity stunt by cameron is pissing all over our government!!

Maybe our government should stand up and be counted then:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-10698222

gawd, i hate the SNP...

[CropleyWasGod]

Maybe our government should stand up and be counted then:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-10698222

gawd, i hate the SNP...

They already have. They have published every document to do with the case, bar those referred to earlier.

The questions remain, however, about the involvement of the UK Government in any deal with BP and Libya. As Macaskill says, that is for them to answer.

[Betty Boop]

As I recall there's more than a hint of truth in that, rather than conspiracy theory.

Oh and yes the cowboys did get medals

John Pilger wrote about the cover-up last year.

The trial of the “Lockerbie bomber” was worse than a travesty of justice. Evidence that never came to court proves his innocence
The hysteria over the release of the so-called Lockerbie bomber reveals much about the political and media class on both sides of the Atlantic, especially Britain. From Gordon Brown's "repulsion" to Barack Obama's "outrage", the theatre of lies and hypocrisy is dutifully attended by those
who call themselves journalists. "But what if Megrahi lives longer than three months?" whined a BBC reporter to the Scottish First Minister, Alex Salmond. "What will you say to your constituents, then?"

Horror of horrors that a dying man should live longer than prescribed before he "pays" for his "heinous crime": the description of the Scottish justice minister, Kenny MacAskill, whose "compassion" allowed Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi to go home to Libya to "face justice from a higher power". Amen.

The American satirist Larry David once addressed a voluble crony as "a babbling brook of bull****". Such eloquence summarises the circus of Megrahi's release.

No one in authority has had the guts to state the truth about the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 above the Scottish village of Lockerbie on 21 December 1988, in which 270 people were killed. The governments in England and Scotland in effect blackmailed Megrahi into dropping his appeal as a condition of his immediate release. Of course there were oil and arms deals under way with Libya; but had Megrahi proceeded with his appeal, some 600 pages of new and deliberately suppressed evidence would have set the seal on his innocence and given us more than a glimpse of how and why he was stitched up for the benefit of "strategic interests".

“The endgame came down to damage limitation," said the former CIA officer Robert Baer, who took part in the original investigation, "because the evidence amassed by [Megrahi's] appeal is explosive and extremely damning to the system of justice." New witnesses would show that it was impossible for Megrahi to have bought clothes that were found in the wreckage of the Pan Am aircraft - he was convicted on the word of a Maltese shopowner who claimed to have sold him the clothes, then gave a false description of him in 19 separate statements and even failed to recognise him in the courtroom.

The new evidence would have shown that a fragment of a circuit board and bomb timer, "discovered" in the Scottish countryside and said to have been in Megrahi's suitcase, was probably a plant. A forensic scientist found no trace of an explosion on it. The new evidence would demonstrate the impossibility of the bomb beginning its journey in Malta before it was "transferred" through two airports undetected to Flight 103.

A "key secret witness" at the original trial, who claimed to have seen Megrahi and his co-accused, al-Alim Khalifa Fahimah (who was acquitted), loading the bomb on to the plane at Frankfurt, was bribed by the US authorities holding him as a "protected witness". The defence exposed him as a CIA informer who stood to collect, on the Libyans' conviction, up to $4m as a reward.

Megrahi was convicted by three Scottish judges sitting in a courtroom in "neutral" Holland. There was no jury. One of the few reporters to sit through the long and often farcical proceedings was the late Paul Foot, whose landmark investigation in Private Eye exposed it as a cacophony of blunders, deceptions and lies: a whitewash. The Scottish judges, while admitting a "mass of conflicting evidence" and rejecting the fantasies of the CIA informer, found Megrahi guilty on hearsay and unproven circumstance. Their 90-page "opinion", wrote Foot, "is a remarkable document that claims an honoured place in the history of British miscarriages of justice". (His report, Lockerbie - the Flight from Justice, can be downloaded from www.private-eye.co.uk for £5.)

Foot reported that most of the staff of the US embassy in Moscow who had reserved seats on Pan Am flights from Frankfurt cancelled their bookings when they were alerted by US intelligence that a terrorist attack was planned. He named Margaret Thatcher the "architect" of the cover-up after revealing that she killed the independent inquiry her transport secretary Cecil Parkinson had promised the Lockerbie families; and in a phone call to President George Bush Sr on 11 January 1990, she agreed to "low-key" the disaster after their intelligence services had reported "beyond doubt" that the Lockerbie bomb had been placed by a Palestinian group, contracted by Tehran, as a reprisal for the shooting down of an Iranian airliner by a US warship in Iranian territorial waters. Among the 290 dead were 66 children. In 1990, the ship's captain was awarded the Legion of Merit by Bush Sr "for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service as commanding officer".

Perversely, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1991, Bush needed Iran's support as he built a "coalition" to expel his wayward client from an American oil colony. The only country that defied Bush and backed Iraq was Libya. "Like lazy and overfed fish," wrote Foot, "the British media jumped to the bait. In almost unanimous chorus, they engaged in furious vilification and open warmongering against Libya." The framing of Libya for the Lockerbie crime was inevitable. Since then, a US defence intelligence agency report, obtained under Freedom of Information, has confirmed these truths and identified the likely bomber; it was to be the centrepiece of Megrahi's defence.

In 2007, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission referred Megrahi's case for appeal. "The commission is of the view," said its chairman, Graham Forbes, "based upon our lengthy investigations, the new evidence we have found and other evidence which was not before the trial court, that the applicant may have suffered a miscarriage of justice."

The words "miscarriage of justice" are entirely missing from the current furore, with Kenny MacAskill reassuring the baying mob that the scapegoat will soon face justice from that "higher power". What a disgrace.

[Future17]

Interesting statement indeed from Mr Cameron, good to see he is fighting scotlands corner in America and not just kissing obamas ass:grr:

Agree or disagree with releasing the guy, the decision was made for clear reasons and this cheap publicity stunt by cameron is pissing all over our government!!

I don't like Cameron but I haven't read any comments from him on the Lockerbie issue which I've found to be annoying or offensive.

Obama on the other hand - what a cringeworthy embarrassment that man is. :bitchy:

[Betty Boop]

I don't like Cameron but I haven't read any comments from him on the Lockerbie issue which I've found to be annoying or offensive.

Obama on the other hand - what a cringeworthy embarrassment that man is. :bitchy:

Obama looks like he has aged about 10 years, since becoming President. One term only for him, IMO.

[Beefster]

Interesting statement indeed from Mr Cameron, good to see he is fighting scotlands corner in America and not just kissing obamas ass:grr:

Agree or disagree with releasing the guy, the decision was made for clear reasons and this cheap publicity stunt by cameron is pissing all over our government!!

Which parts did you particularly object to?

What do you think about David Miliband completely revising his opinion on Megrahi's release?

[Future17]

Obama looks like he has aged about 10 years, since becoming President. One term only for him, IMO.

I'd be inclined to agree. He seems out of his depth and is considered to be out of touch with the people, which is fairly unusual for a Democrat.

Having read some more of Cameron's comments, I see he hasn't actually given any reasons why he thinks releasing the bomber was wrong (as far as I can see anyway). I wonder if he plans to review the current laws that govern early release in England and Wales, as by following the laws which exist currently, the bomber would also have been released.

[HibeeB]

John Pilger wrote about the cover-up last year.


There have been many excellent articles, such as the one you quoted, written suggesting that Megrahi's conviction was dodgy to say the least.

Unforunately none of them were read in USA. His guilt is unquestioned there. Hence the much angrier reaction there compared to here to his release.

[marinello59]

There have been many excellent articles, such as the one you quoted, written suggesting that Megrahi's conviction was dodgy to say the least.

Unforunately none of them were read in USA. His guilt is unquestioned there. Hence the much angrier reaction there compared to here to his release.

I would be surprised if that is actually the case. Plenty here were angry at his release. I don't think all the families of the American victims bought his guilt.

[HibeeB]

I would be surprised if that is actually the case. Plenty here were angry at his release. I don't think all the families of the American victims bought his guilt.

Is there an American version of Jim Swire?

I have never heard any questioning of Megrahi's guilt by the bereaved families in America. Quite the opposite.

Were there documentaries on national TV questioning the evidence that convicted him to help people come to a balanced opinion? Or at least consider the possibility that he may have been a patsy?

I don't know the answers to these questions but an American I know told me that Megrahi's guilt is simply accepted in America. Maybe he was poorly informed, but he told me in good faith that there was no question of his guilt there and I have seen no evidence of it.

[marinello59]

Is there an American version of Jim Swire?

I have never heard any questioning of Megrahi's guilt by the bereaved families in America. Quite the opposite.

Were there documentaries on national TV questioning the evidence that convicted him to help people come to a balanced opinion? Or at least consider the possibility that he may have been a patsy?

I don't know the answers to these questions but an American I know told me that Megrahi's guilt is simply accepted in America. Maybe he was poorly informed, but he told me in good faith that there was no question of his guilt there and I have seen no evidence of it.

You may well be right. I would just be surprised if there were no Americans questioning the actual guilt of Megrahi.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Which parts did you particularly object to?

What do you think about David Miliband completely revising his opinion on Megrahi's release?

The part where he shrugged his shoulders said it was scotlands decision and it was wrong. Might not be word for word, but thats what i heard and thats what a lot of americans will have heard as well.

I don't really care about david milliband as he is not our prime minister. However I suspect he is simply playing what he thinks is the popular card with middle england. I'm not a labour voter so I really don't care about them at the moment.

What do you think about about Cameron not mentioning that the process that was gone through for megrahis release by the scottish government?

What do you think is achieved by cameron repeatedly saying it was a mistake?

How do you think this affects scotlands repuation in america, especially in relation to tourism etc?

[Twa Cairpets]

There have been many excellent articles, such as the one you quoted, written suggesting that Megrahi's conviction was dodgy to say the least.

Unforunately none of them were read in USA. His guilt is unquestioned there. Hence the much angrier reaction there compared to here to his release.

One of the major issues here is (as with so many things in politics and the manipulation of public opinion) people lose sight of what they are being angry about almost to the extent that the rights and wrongs of the release become moot points.

Cameron is in the US, and for obvious reasons, there is a political will within the US to nail everything that is bad in the world on BP. I dont know if they did or didnt have naything to do with the release, but you can be damn sure that if they hadn't flooded the Gulf with oil, then the uproar about Megrahi would have been a fraction of what it is.

I suspect im in a relatively small minority also, but I find it somehow a bit tasteful that there is such anger over the fact that a guy has managed to continue to live with cancer. How dare he not die! And before we have the "he didnt care about his victims did he, why should we care", the fact that even if he was guilty you are still actively effectively chanting a little personal mantra of "die, die, die" every time you here he's alive, and that surely cant be healthy?

Finally, much of the American mainstream media and political debate is about as insightful as Talksport. If you form your opinion from soundbites, then you'll tend to have polarised opinions.

[New Corrie]

The part where he shrugged his shoulders said it was scotlands decision and it was wrong. Might not be word for word, but thats what i heard and thats what a lot of americans will have heard as well.

I don't really care about david milliband as he is not our prime minister. However I suspect he is simply playing what he thinks is the popular card with middle england. I'm not a labour voter so I really don't care about them at the moment.

What do you think about about Cameron not mentioning that the process that was gone through for megrahis release by the scottish government?

What do you think is achieved by cameron repeatedly saying it was a mistake?
How do you think this affects scotlands repuation in america, especially in relation to tourism etc?

Surely it's refreshing to hear Cameron being honest, would you rather he had just lied? as for Scotland's reputation, well the Nats should have thought about that before they made a complete pigs ear of it.

[HibeeB]

One of the major issues here is (as with so many things in politics and the manipulation of public opinion) people lose sight of what they are being angry about almost to the extent that the rights and wrongs of the release become moot points.

Cameron is in the US, and for obvious reasons, there is a political will within the US to nail everything that is bad in the world on BP. I dont know if they did or didnt have naything to do with the release, but you can be damn sure that if they hadn't flooded the Gulf with oil, then the uproar about Megrahi would have been a fraction of what it is.

I suspect im in a relatively small minority also, but I find it somehow a bit tasteful that there is such anger over the fact that a guy has managed to continue to live with cancer. How dare he not die! And before we have the "he didnt care about his victims did he, why should we care", the fact that even if he was guilty you are still actively effectively chanting a little personal mantra of "die, die, die" every time you here he's alive, and that surely cant be healthy?

Finally, much of the American mainstream media and political debate is about as insightful as Talksport. If you form your opinion from soundbites, then you'll tend to have polarised opinions.

I agree with all of that. (For what my opinion is worth).

I expect there are a sizeable number of people in America that don't believe Megrahi is the sole culprit; that don't believe BP lobbied for his release; that don't want a sick man to just 'hurry up and die'.

Unfortunately their opinion isn't heard. It would be like coming out as an atheist in a popularity contest in the bible belt to publicly air those opinions.

The bit in bold is a universal truth.

[lyonhibs]

One of the major issues here is (as with so many things in politics and the manipulation of public opinion) people lose sight of what they are being angry about almost to the extent that the rights and wrongs of the release become moot points.

Cameron is in the US, and for obvious reasons, there is a political will within the US to nail everything that is bad in the world on BP. I dont know if they did or didnt have naything to do with the release, but you can be damn sure that if they hadn't flooded the Gulf with oil, then the uproar about Megrahi would have been a fraction of what it is.

I suspect im in a relatively small minority also, but I find it somehow a bit tasteful that there is such anger over the fact that a guy has managed to continue to live with cancer. How dare he not die! And before we have the "he didnt care about his victims did he, why should we care", the fact that even if he was guilty you are still actively effectively chanting a little personal mantra of "die, die, die" every time you here he's alive, and that surely cant be healthy?

Finally, much of the American mainstream media and political debate is about as insightful as Talksport. If you form your opinion from soundbites, then you'll tend to have polarised opinions.

Absolutely agree with that - this lust for Megrahi to die, particularly with the evidence above that points to his conviction (without a jury) as being founded on shaky ground, is a bit of a worrying insight into the minds of some folk.

Those newspaper headlines are - as usual - completely simplified versions of what MacAskill ACTUALLY said, just so that hard of thinking can form their opinions over their morning coffee without actually having to think.

What McAskill ACTUALLY said was that questions relating to whether or not BP lobbied the - note this carefully - UK government directly regarding Megrahi's release in order to pursue/better their own interests in that part of the world., but what I've just written isn't quite as snappy as "McAskill says - Blame Westminster" or whatever.

And, god knows, I'm no SNP fan but let's not fudge fact and fiction here.

Obama can still sit and spin with his request for a full inquest - you were happy to leave the legal responsibility of the trial to Scotland and Scots law.

We're years down the line now, and you want a full inquiry into something your government of the day was happy to play no part in??

Piss off.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Surely it's refreshing to hear Cameron being honest, would you rather he had just lied? as for Scotland's reputation, well the Nats should have thought about that before they made a complete pigs ear of it.

It's one thing for him to have his views, it's another for him to use it to deflect unwanted attention from his country to scotland!!!

I don't actually agree they did make a pigs ear of it, and I certainly don't think america with it's laughable record on human rights can really look down it's nose at us when it comes to us making decisions based on our prisoners in our country under our laws. Guantanamo bay anyone?

TBH though americas outrage doesn't really bother me, there just thick inbreds, however for our own prime minister to be kissing there ***** is quite disgusting. This is not limited to cameron either, brown tried it, blair was brilliant at the licky licky. In fact every prime minister I can remember has done it. I just wish someone would grow a pair and tell america to take a run and jump. lots of countries survive quite well without americas seal of approval.

As an american said yesterday on the radio "Doesn't matter they will just do what we tell them anyway" when asked about britain.

So corrie, what do you reckon, grow a pair or just keep taking it up the arse?

[bighairyfaeleith]

Absolutely agree with that - this lust for Megrahi to die, particularly with the evidence above that points to his conviction (without a jury) as being founded on shaky ground, is a bit of a worrying insight into the minds of some folk.

Those newspaper headlines are - as usual - completely simplified versions of what MacAskill ACTUALLY said, just so that hard of thinking can form their opinions over their morning coffee without actually having to think.

What McAskill ACTUALLY said was that questions relating to whether or not BP lobbied the - note this carefully - UK government directly regarding Megrahi's release in order to pursue/better their own interests in that part of the world., but what I've just written isn't quite as snappy as "McAskill says - Blame Westminster" or whatever.

And, god knows, I'm no SNP fan but let's not fudge fact and fiction here.

Obama can still sit and spin with his request for a full inquest - you were happy to leave the legal responsibility of the trial to Scotland and Scots law.

We're years down the line now, and you want a full inquiry into something your government of the day was happy to play no part in??

Piss off.

:top marks

[Bookkeeper]

It never ceases to amaze me how one country can reach such incredible levels of hypocrisy. In recent years we have had Iraq, Afghanistan, "extraordinairy rendition", Abu ghraib, Guantanamo Bay...and yet the US has the barefaced impertinence to question a legitimate decision taken by an allies government in accordance with their own legal system!!!!

The political classses in the US, UK and probably most other countries seem incapable of ascertaining the truth of a situation and acting with honour, honesty and integrity. Political expediency is the order of the day and hard lines anyone caught in the crossfire.

In this case, there appears major doubts about the safety of Megrahi's conviction, but we'll never know because of the politically expediant way he was freed. The only outcome possible that would result in no new evidence coming to the fore. Was pressure put on the Scottish government for this? - who knows, but we can all have our suspicions. Personally, I was glad Megrahi was freed and if he is still outrunning his cancer, good luck to him.

Cameron & Obama - just playing the politics game. Obama plays it better but Cameron will get there.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I said at the time that I would review my opinion if Megrahi survived beyond three months. I have and I don't know how you can retrospectively reverse medical evidence. It was the right decision at the time.

[New Corrie]

It's one thing for him to have his views, it's another for him to use it to deflect unwanted attention from his country to scotland!!!

I don't actually agree they did make a pigs ear of it, and I certainly don't think america with it's laughable record on human rights can really look down it's nose at us when it comes to us making decisions based on our prisoners in our country under our laws. Guantanamo bay anyone?

TBH though americas outrage doesn't really bother me, there just thick inbreds, however for our own prime minister to be kissing there ***** is quite disgusting. This is not limited to cameron either, brown tried it, blair was brilliant at the licky licky. In fact every prime minister I can remember has done it. I just wish someone would grow a pair and tell america to take a run and jump. lots of countries survive quite well without americas seal of approval.

As an american said yesterday on the radio "Doesn't matter they will just do what we tell them anyway" when asked about britain.

So corrie, what do you reckon, grow a pair or just keep taking it up the arse?



Wow, keep taking it up the erse if you're worried about tourism and the lack of "inbreeds" coming over to keep the economy going. Bigger people than silly wee Nats have tried to "grow a pair" and failed miserably, it's just one of these things, sort of like a domineering partner, actually in fact I don't think it's quite as bad a relationship as some would have you believe. There are worse bedfellows out there.

[Twa Cairpets]

It's one thing for him to have his views, it's another for him to use it to deflect unwanted attention from his country to scotland!!!

I don't actually agree they did make a pigs ear of it, and I certainly don't think america with it's laughable record on human rights can really look down it's nose at us when it comes to us making decisions based on our prisoners in our country under our laws. Guantanamo bay anyone?

TBH though americas outrage doesn't really bother me, there just thick inbreds, however for our own prime minister to be kissing there ***** is quite disgusting. This is not limited to cameron either, brown tried it, blair was brilliant at the licky licky. In fact every prime minister I can remember has done it. I just wish someone would grow a pair and tell america to take a run and jump. lots of countries survive quite well without americas seal of approval.

As an american said yesterday on the radio "Doesn't matter they will just do what we tell them anyway" when asked about britain.

So corrie, what do you reckon, grow a pair or just keep taking it up the arse?

I'm deeply uncomfortable defending Cameron (and even more deeply uncomfortable if truth be told agreeing with anything Corrie has to day), but what you've said above pretty much isn't true, it would appear, with Cameron.

"Mr Cameron rightly pointed out this week that a preoccupation with the health of the Anglo-American "special relationship" is a peculiarly British obsession, annoyingly symptomatic of the continuing existential insecurities of a country that the prime minister recognised, with refreshing honesty, as the "junior partner" in the alliance. In particular, he said, it is frustrating – although pathetic would be a better word – that so much over-analysis is devoted to the atmospherics of the relationship: the body language between a president and a prime minister, whether a meeting is a "brush-by" or a full bilateral, how long it lasts, which part of the White House it takes place in, and so on. Last night, Mr Cameron's meeting with Barack Obama triggered yet another bout of that glumly predictable silliness." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/21/david-cameron-in-washington-special)

[Twa Cairpets]

Wow, keep taking it up the erse if you're worried about tourism and the lack of "inbreeds" coming over to keep the economy going. Bigger people than silly wee Nats have tried to "grow a pair" and failed miserably, it's just one of these things, sort of like a domineering partner, actually in fact I don't think it's quite as bad a relationship as some would have you believe. There are worse bedfellows out there.

i think this "threat to tourism" card is overplayed scaremongering. From the sources I can find, only somewhere between 20-34% of American adults own a passport. (http://www.gyford.com/phil/writing/2003/01/31/how_many_america.php)

That percentage of the population I am willing to bet broadly encompasses those that get their news from Fox, Talk Radio and the likes of Rush Limbaugh, and are the ones most likely to be outraged on voxpops. They can say well "I'm never going to Scotchland" as much as they like - they were never coming in the first place. Do you really think any significant number of genuine potential tourists are going to say "well they released Megrahi, I'll go to Italy instead". I don't.

[lyonhibs]

i think this "threat to tourism" card is overplayed scaremongering. From the sources I can find, only somewhere between 20-34% of American adults own a passport. (http://www.gyford.com/phil/writing/2003/01/31/how_many_america.php)

That percentage of the population I am willing to bet broadly encompasses those that get their news from Fox, Talk Radio and the likes of Rush Limbaugh, and are the ones most likely to be outraged on voxpops. They can say well "I'm never going to Scotchland" as much as they like - they were never coming in the first place. Do you really think any significant number of genuine potential tourists are going to say "well they released Megrahi, I'll go to Italy instead". I don't.

:agree: :agree:

I'm sure the governments of Mexico, the USA and France have done far more reprehensible things than release a man with terminal cancer, yet I still travelled - and will continue to do so - to them.

Folk who've never left their own STATE, never mind country, aren't much of a loss to the Scottish tourist industry.

[bighairyfaeleith]

I'm deeply uncomfortable defending Cameron (and even more deeply uncomfortable if truth be told agreeing with anything Corrie has to day), but what you've said above pretty much isn't true, it would appear, with Cameron.

"Mr Cameron rightly pointed out this week that a preoccupation with the health of the Anglo-American "special relationship" is a peculiarly British obsession, annoyingly symptomatic of the continuing existential insecurities of a country that the prime minister recognised, with refreshing honesty, as the "junior partner" in the alliance. In particular, he said, it is frustrating – although pathetic would be a better word – that so much over-analysis is devoted to the atmospherics of the relationship: the body language between a president and a prime minister, whether a meeting is a "brush-by" or a full bilateral, how long it lasts, which part of the White House it takes place in, and so on. Last night, Mr Cameron's meeting with Barack Obama triggered yet another bout of that glumly predictable silliness." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/21/david-cameron-in-washington-special)

I'm not sure I see your point from that quote? It has very little quotes from cameron and appears to just be someones opinion:confused:

[Twa Cairpets]

I'm not sure I see your point from that quote? It has very little quotes from cameron and appears to just be someones opinion:confused:

I didnt do a long search, but was listening to him on the radio (yesterday morning?) and this seemed to report pretty much the substance of what was said. - i.e. the "special relationship" isn' that specialt. Its an important reltionship, but the preoccupation with its mystical qualities and importance is bollox. It does if nothing else represent a move away from the public face at least of the previous types of relationship that existed. It's certainly not from what I can see the same level of somewhat cloying sycophancy that was the case with Thatcher, Major and Blair.

[bighairyfaeleith]

It's one thing for him to have his views, it's another for him to use it to deflect unwanted attention from his country to scotland!!!

I don't actually agree they did make a pigs ear of it, and I certainly don't think america with it's laughable record on human rights can really look down it's nose at us when it comes to us making decisions based on our prisoners in our country under our laws. Guantanamo bay anyone?

TBH though americas outrage doesn't really bother me, there just thick inbreds, however for our own prime minister to be kissing there ***** is quite disgusting. This is not limited to cameron either, brown tried it, blair was brilliant at the licky licky. In fact every prime minister I can remember has done it. I just wish someone would grow a pair and tell america to take a run and jump. lots of countries survive quite well without americas seal of approval.

As an american said yesterday on the radio "Doesn't matter they will just do what we tell them anyway" when asked about britain.

So corrie, what do you reckon, grow a pair or just keep taking it up the arse?



Wow, keep taking it up the erse if you're worried about tourism and the lack of "inbreeds" coming over to keep the economy going. Bigger people than silly wee Nats have tried to "grow a pair" and failed miserably, it's just one of these things, sort of like a domineering partner, actually in fact I don't think it's quite as bad a relationship as some would have you believe. There are worse bedfellows out there.

Just wanted to highlight some of your text in bold!

Seriously though, you are happy for us to keep following america around like some love struck puppy?

Would you be happy if we invaded iran or north korea with them, given what we now know about iraq and afghanistan?

I read somewhere that the iraq war has cost britain £20 Billion, thats an expensive bedfellow. All this was done by labour ofcourse, the question is though, would cameron have said no to the war?

I can think of worse bedfellows, but not that many!

In regards to the tourism, If it was to decline over the megrahi case on it's own then so be it, but I think the UK prime minister should have been a lot more tactful given the end result could be negative for the already fragile scottish economy.

[bighairyfaeleith]

I didnt do a long search, but was listening to him on the radio (yesterday morning?) and this seemed to report pretty much the substance of what was said. - i.e. the "special relationship" isn' that specialt. Its an important reltionship, but the preoccupation with its mystical qualities and importance is bollox. It does if nothing else represent a move away from the public face at least of the previous types of relationship that existed. It's certainly not from what I can see the same level of somewhat cloying sycophancy that was the case with Thatcher, Major and Blair.

fair play, I don't think cameron will be any different from before, and his blatant shifting of all blame to scotland is why I think that, he had a real chance to draw a line in the sand and remind america that we are not an extension of there country and that friendships should be equal but for me he didn't do that.

[Beefster]

The part where he shrugged his shoulders said it was scotlands decision and it was wrong. Might not be word for word, but thats what i heard and thats what a lot of americans will have heard as well.

I don't really care about david milliband as he is not our prime minister. However I suspect he is simply playing what he thinks is the popular card with middle england. I'm not a labour voter so I really don't care about them at the moment.

What do you think about about Cameron not mentioning that the process that was gone through for megrahis release by the scottish government?

What do you think is achieved by cameron repeatedly saying it was a mistake?

How do you think this affects scotlands repuation in america, especially in relation to tourism etc?

I don't think you actually know what Cameron said.

Cameron said that it was the decision of the Scottish Government and that BP hadn't lobbied them for his release. It's not his job to defend the Scottish Government and/or explain their decisions - especially when he said before the release that it was wrong.

Scotland's reputation was trashed in America the moment that al-Megrahi stepped out of Greenock prison. Did you not see the American reaction at the time? It was more vociferous than now.

I read in another of your posts that Americans are just 'thick inbreds'. I don't think anyone who lives in Scotland, with all our problems, should be quite so snobbish about another country.

[bighairyfaeleith]

I don't think you actually know what Cameron said.

Cameron said that it was the decision of the Scottish Government and that BP hadn't lobbied them for his release. It's not his job to defend the Scottish Government and/or explain their decisions - especially when he said before the release that it was wrong.

Scotland's reputation was trashed in America the moment that al-Megrahi stepped out of Greenock prison. Did you not see the American reaction at the time? It was more vociferous than now.

I read in another of your posts that Americans are just 'thick inbreds'. I don't think anyone who lives in Scotland, with all our problems, should be quite so snobbish about another country.

I seen him say the words on the news last night, so yes actually I did hear his words.

What he said was that the decision, which was made by the Scottish Goverment, was wrong. He didn't back this up with any reasoning, he didn't defend scotlands right to make this decision. He done nothing more than pass the buck.

Glad your enjoying the moral high ground, my opinions are rarely politically correct (probably even more rare if they are correct), but don't expect to shame me:greengrin

[andrew_dundee]

i dont think he should have been released

the reason for this is not so much ideological as it is specific to this case. i know that there are a lot of serious questions about if he was guilty or not and it looks like one of the preconditions of his being released was that he dropped his appeal so we will never know

officially Kenny Mcaskill has accepted he is guilty, in which case he also has to accept that Megrahi has been lying constantly and is still lying about his innocence, which if we do accept his guilt then that surely makes it worse?

i can understand the American anger, it was only by coincidence it happened over Lockerbie, to the American public it can be very easily seen as an attack against America that happened to fall on British soil.

of course this has damaged the reputation of Scotland and the Scottish government and the fact he's alive one year on has helped us reach that odd stage where people who supported his release would find it more convenient if he died tomorrow and people who were opposed must surely want him to live another decade to prove the inability of the Nationalists

if it was a simple case of him being guilty then i wouldnt hugely object but because this decion means we'll never know then it just reeks of vested interest. my question is what have the nats got in return? they have saved the British state a hell of a lot of embarassment and have almost certainly cast themselves in to opposition and there's no clear reason why

on a final point, the party politicaal nature of it was sickening, i doubt every single Labour MSP was really against the release as much as i doubt every single SNP one was in favour

[RyeSloan]

According to the Scottish Government:

"Scotland's single largest overseas market for exports, inward investment and tourism - the USA"

So it's quite clear that something that damages our relationship with the USA could and would have an impact on Scotland and not just in the tourist trade.

Still that said I'm all for letting Megrahi go. I believe he is indeed seriously ill and that his release was actually more about preventing an appeal (which would have surely overturned the verdict) than anything else.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Some interesting points in the last couple of posts,

I have to say I had no issue with megrahi being released on compassionate grounds, but this was mainly because I suspect he was never guilty in the first place. Wrong I know.

Whether he dies now, in a months time or next year really doesn't concern me, the authorities can only base there decision on what evidence was before them at the time. I do find the line he's no dead yet a fairly shocking one and I also still don't understand what people like camerons objections to his release where, and by objections I mean on a legal basis?

I think the americans shouting for justice should also remember that a great many scots died and where badly affected by this tragedy as well, and if they want the real answers they perhaps should look more closely at there own government first.

They should also remember that the legal costs for his trial where met by us, the costs to lock this guy up where met by us, so the decision to release him should also be ours!!

In terms of obama, I have to say he is probably the biggest dissapointment of a president of america I have seen in my life so far, I mean bush was bad, but at least you knew what he was!

[--------]

According to the Scottish Government:

"Scotland's single largest overseas market for exports, inward investment and tourism - the USA"

So it's quite clear that something that damages our relationship with the USA could and would have an impact on Scotland and not just in the tourist trade.

Still that said I'm all for letting Megrahi go. I believe he is indeed seriously ill and that his release was actually more about preventing an appeal (which would have surely overturned the verdict) than anything else.


That was my understanding at the time - there was an appeal coming up and a real possibility that someone's dirty washing might very well be hung out in public for all to see.

Now correct me if I'm wrong , but are there possibly some sort of elections (Congressional?) coming up in the US in the near and nearer future? Congressmen needing some free air-time?

And isn't Obama already pretty much a lame duck in the eyes of many US citizens? Needing to bulk up his credibility a tad these days? Hmmm? :cool2:

[Lucius Apuleius]

Personal view is that USA can go screw themselves, along with Cameron. I agree he did not actually slag Scotland off but if he had expressed any reasoning as to why he disgreed with our decison to release him he might have been worth listening to.

As stated above, we paid for the trial, we paid for his imprisonment, our choice, rightly or wrongly does not even matter IMO, to release him. Live with it Yanks. Can you imagine what would happen if 4 Scots MSPs stood up and started shouting for good ole USA to hold an enquiry on something? Be told to bolt and that is exactly what we should be telling them.

[Sergio sledge]

I seen him say the words on the news last night, so yes actually I did hear his words.

What he said was that the decision, which was made by the Scottish Goverment, was wrong. He didn't back this up with any reasoning, he didn't defend scotlands right to make this decision. He done nothing more than pass the buck.

Glad your enjoying the moral high ground, my opinions are rarely politically correct (probably even more rare if they are correct), but don't expect to shame me:greengrin

Nope he said, "In my view a wholly wrong and misguided decision, a bad decision, but their decision none the less." The "In my view" is key here. Why can't the PM give his honest opinion on something, and why would he have to stick up for the, perfectly legal but not necessarily right (in some peoples opinion), decision which was made by a separate government to his. The most important issue for me, was the allegations of BP's involvement in the release, which Cameron has clearly and definitively stated are unfounded and untrue.

Similarly, I don't think Obama is wrong to give his opinion, and question the decision, if that is his, or his administrations, opinion on the matter. They have every right to ask for information on the release, and every right to examine it. Unless there has been a major cock up, there is nothing they can do about it.

[JennaFletcher]

Personal opinions aside, can this story stop appearing on the News every single day? It's getting boring. :yawn:

[CropleyWasGod]

Personal opinions aside, can this story stop appearing on the News every single day? It's getting boring. :yawn:

No problem.

What do you fancy, donkeys parasailing?

Love,

Rupert

[bighairyfaeleith]

Nope he said, "In my view a wholly wrong and misguided decision, a bad decision, but their decision none the less." The "In my view" is key here. Why can't the PM give his honest opinion on something, and why would he have to stick up for the, perfectly legal but not necessarily right (in some peoples opinion), decision which was made by a separate government to his. The most important issue for me, was the allegations of BP's involvement in the release, which Cameron has clearly and definitively stated are unfounded and untrue.

Similarly, I don't think Obama is wrong to give his opinion, and question the decision, if that is his, or his administrations, opinion on the matter. They have every right to ask for information on the release, and every right to examine it. Unless there has been a major cock up, there is nothing they can do about it.

Why should the pm stand up for an entirely legal decision, mmmnnn let me think:hmmm:

[bighairyfaeleith]

Personal opinions aside, can this story stop appearing on the News every single day? It's getting boring. :yawn:

it only happend a couple of nigths ago:greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

BREAKING NEWS...

http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2010/07/22/lockerbie-bomber-to-run-london-marathon-dressed-as-mickey-mouse/

[Beefster]

Why should the pm stand up for an entirely legal decision, mmmnnn let me think:hmmm:

Surely, it would have still been an entirely legal decision if the Justice Secretary had decided not to release him?

[Sergio sledge]

Why should the pm stand up for an entirely legal decision, mmmnnn let me think:hmmm:

Which was made by a separate government to his own. The Scottish Government can stick up for themselves, its not Cameron's job to stick up for decisions that he doesn't agree with. I'd rather he just said his opinion.

Does Cameron also to stand up for every policy Labour had, or decision they made if a foreign government starts questioning it?

[bighairyfaeleith]

Which was made by a separate government to his own. The Scottish Government can stick up for themselves, its not Cameron's job to stick up for decisions that he doesn't agree with. I'd rather he just said his opinion.

Does Cameron also to stand up for every policy Labour had, or decision they made if a foreign government starts questioning it?

That would be fine if he was just an ordinary person on the street, but as our prime minister he also has an obligation to protect scottish interests, whether he wants to or not. His statement clearly undermined our government and our image in america. Not what I expect of our PM.

If a government questioned a labour policy/decision I would expect him to consider the damage before answering and choose his words more wisely.

His commenst on WWII, cleggs blunder in the house of commons, the schools debacle, it all adds up to a government that is no better if not worse then the one we just had.

My only problem is I have no ****ing idea who to vote for next.

[Twa Cairpets]

That would be fine if he was just an ordinary person on the street, but as our prime minister he also has an obligation to protect scottish interests, whether he wants to or not. His statement clearly undermined our government and our image in america. Not what I expect of our PM.

There was nothing else he could have said BHFL. Yes he has an obligation to protect Scottish interests, but he has an equal obligation not to get embroiled in matters that he has not legislative remit over. The fact that he made his position as I recall abundantly clear at the time (one of disapproval of the release) would make any other action completely false and leave him open, rightly, to condemnation for having a quicksand stance

[Sir David Gray]

As much as I'm not really concerned with what Americans say about Scotland, I can fully understand their anger at the decision to release Al Megrahi.

I disagreed with his release at the time because I just don't think a convicted mass murderer should ever be freed from prison, regardless of their circumstances. I can understand why some people thought it was the right thing to do, given that we were all told by medical professionals that he only had three months left to live, it seemed like a nice thing to do to let him go home and die surrounded by his friends and family...However that was TWELVE months ago! Someone, somewhere, has got it drastically wrong.

The SNP really messed up over this and I just hope that they are annihilated at the polls next year.

[CropleyWasGod]

As much as I'm not really concerned with what Americans say about Scotland, I can fully understand their anger at the decision to release Al Megrahi.

I disagreed with his release at the time because I just don't think a convicted mass murderer should ever be freed from prison, regardless of their circumstances. I can understand why some people thought it was the right thing to do, given that we were all told by medical professionals that he only had three months left to live, it seemed like a nice thing to do to let him go home and die surrounded by his friends and family...However that was TWELVE months ago! Someone, somewhere, has got it drastically wrong.

The SNP really messed up over this and I just hope that they are annihilated at the polls next year.

Yeah, Megrahi for not dying on time....

Seriously, though, it's easy to say these things in hindsight. The evidence is there, in the public domain. It was considered at the time by professionals in the field. Given the same set of circumstances tomorrow, I would expect that they would come to the same conclusion.

I do wonder what an American doctor, working with the same evidence and without political pressure, would have concluded.

[Pete]

As much as I'm not really concerned with what Americans say about Scotland, I can fully understand their anger at the decision to release Al Megrahi.

I disagreed with his release at the time because I just don't think a convicted mass murderer should ever be freed from prison, regardless of their circumstances. I can understand why some people thought it was the right thing to do, given that we were all told by medical professionals that he only had three months left to live, it seemed like a nice thing to do to let him go home and die surrounded by his friends and family...However that was TWELVE months ago! Someone, somewhere, has got it drastically wrong.

The SNP really messed up over this and I just hope that they are annihilated at the polls next year.

I'm with you when you say you don't think a mass-murderer should be released under any circumstances.
In some states people get the lethal injection for a lot less so their anger is understandable when a mass murderer get sent home to "die in luxury"...and some peoples generalistaions and critisicm of American people has bordered on ignorant and disgusting.

However, after reading about the dodginess of the conviction I'm not too up in arms about this case. If it was someone like Peter Tobin or the Yorkshire Ripper who was released on compassionate grounds and survived this long I'm sure a lot more people would be up in arms.
I don't think it's anti-US sentiments at work here...there are just too many question marks over the actual conviction and too many blanks.

Maybe with him living on justice is actually being done!

[Steve-O]

As much as I'm not really concerned with what Americans say about Scotland, I can fully understand their anger at the decision to release Al Megrahi.

I disagreed with his release at the time because I just don't think a convicted mass murderer should ever be freed from prison, regardless of their circumstances. I can understand why some people thought it was the right thing to do, given that we were all told by medical professionals that he only had three months left to live, it seemed like a nice thing to do to let him go home and die surrounded by his friends and family...However that was TWELVE months ago! Someone, somewhere, has got it drastically wrong.

The SNP really messed up over this and I just hope that they are annihilated at the polls next year.

Weren't the SNP just doing what the law said, based on the information they had at the time?

[CropleyWasGod]

Weren't the SNP just doing what the law said, based on the information they had at the time?

They were indeed.

What is missed in the debate is that fact that, had Megrahi been in prison in England, the same process would have been applied there.

[GlesgaeHibby]

As much as I'm not really concerned with what Americans say about Scotland, I can fully understand their anger at the decision to release Al Megrahi.

I disagreed with his release at the time because I just don't think a convicted mass murderer should ever be freed from prison, regardless of their circumstances. I can understand why some people thought it was the right thing to do, given that we were all told by medical professionals that he only had three months left to live, it seemed like a nice thing to do to let him go home and die surrounded by his friends and family...However that was TWELVE months ago! Someone, somewhere, has got it drastically wrong.

The SNP really messed up over this and I just hope that they are annihilated at the polls next year.

I really don't like this point. Are you honestly questioning the integrity of the doctor and 4 surgeons that based this decision on evidence of his health available to them at the time?

Since going back to Libya he has been on aggressive drugs to stop the spread of his cancer, increasing his life expectancy. The point remains, however, that this man has terminal cancer and will die from it in the near future.

To blame the SNP is ridiculous as well. They followed Scot's Law by the book and met all 3 conditions for compassionate release. They have been open and transparent about it all, and published everything they can regarding the decision.

Around about the same time last year, Ronnie Biggs was released in England on compassionate grounds. He is also still alive, yet we don't hear about it.

The Americans have an axe to grind with BP, that's why all this has been dredged up again.

[Phil D. Rolls]

The Americans have an axe to grind with BP, that's why all this has been dredged up again.

:agree: Would the Americans be quite as bothered about all this if they hadn't been wanting the Libyan oil reserves for themselves?

[--------]

:agree: Would the Americans be quite as bothered about all this if they hadn't been wanting the Libyan oil reserves for themselves?


Good question.

IIRC, the release of Al-Megrahi was approved in accordance with Scots Law.

This we know.

What we don't know is what was going on in London and Tripoli between the Westminster government of Gordon Brown and the Libyan government of Al Gaddafi. Nor would I believe anything either Brown or Gaddafi or any of their underlings said about that - I'd rather trust a nest of king cobras than any of THEM.

Obama is having a credibility problem - it's becoming more and more incredible that anyone was daft enough to vote for him. And Hillary still has ambitions to replace him, which accounts for HER involvement in the controversy.

The Four Wise Men are all politicians facing mid-term elections, and as far as I can see are seeking to boost their ratings at the expense of Ken MacAskill and the Scottish Government - the only animal more unscrupulous than a tabloid journalist is a politician needing to boost his/her ratings in the polls. Unless you count an American oilman in pursuit of Libyan oil reserves....

Contrary to widespread popular perceptions in the US, Britain (in spite of the efforts of Blair, Brown, Pinky and Perky and other assorted Quislings) has not yet become the 51st state of the Union, nor are Scottish government ministers answerable to either the American Prez, the American Veep, or either of the houses of the American legislature.

Of course since Pinky and Perky are some sort of gruesome Unionist symbiosis of the cynical and the unprincipled, they're delighted to milk the situation as much as possible in order to damage the SNP.

Fat Eck should tell the whole boiling of them to go play on the M25 or the Beltway or whatever high-speed multi-lane highway comes most conveniently to mind.

[CropleyWasGod]

Good question.

IIRC, the release of Al-Megrahi was approved in accordance with Scots Law.

This we know.

What we don't know is what was going on in London and Tripoli between the Westminster government of Gordon Brown and the Libyan government of Al Gaddafi. Nor would I believe anything either Brown or Gaddafi or any of their underlings said about that - I'd rather trust a nest of king cobras than any of THEM.

Obama is having a credibility problem - it's becoming more and more incredible that anyone was daft enough to vote for him. And Hillary still has ambitions to replace him, which accounts for HER involvement in the controversy.

The Four Wise Men are all politicians facing mid-term elections, and as far as I can see are seeking to boost their ratings at the expense of Ken MacAskill and the Scottish Government - the only animal more unscrupulous than a tabloid journalist is a politician needing to boost his/her ratings in the polls. Unless you count an American oilman in pursuit of Libyan oil reserves....

Contrary to widespread popular perceptions in the US, Britain (in spite of the efforts of Blair, Brown, Pinky and Perky and other assorted Quislings) has not yet become the 51st state of the Union, nor are Scottish government ministers answerable to either the American Prez, the American Veep, or either of the houses of the American legislature.

Of course since Pinky and Perky are some sort of gruesome Unionist symbiosis of the cynical and the unprincipled, they're delighted to milk the situation as much as possible in order to damage the SNP.

Fat Eck should tell the whole boiling of them to go play on the M25 or the Beltway or whatever high-speed multi-lane highway comes most conveniently to mind.

What is also noticeable is the way Jack Straw has run for cover at any mention of the "L" word, shouting "nowt to do wiv me, mate..."

Public inquiry? Yes please, but let's not limit it to BP, Macaskill and Straw. Let's look at the whole picture, starting (albeit these things never happen in a vacuum) with the Vincennes and moving forward. Let US subpoena EVERYONE involved, including the CIA and the FBI, Gadaffi, and of course Megrahi (I really hope he's kept a diary) .

Chances of that happening? :rolleyes:

[ArabHibee]

Which was made by a separate government to his own. The Scottish Government can stick up for themselves, its not Cameron's job to stick up for decisions that he doesn't agree with. I'd rather he just said his opinion.

Does Cameron also to stand up for every policy Labour had, or decision they made if a foreign government starts questioning it?

Don't you wonder what Cameron's stance would have been if it had been a Scottish Conservative government that had made the decision to release Al Megrahi?

[Pretty Boy]

Personally i think we should have followed the American stance when it comes to blowing civilian airliners from the sky and awarded Mr Megrahi a medal

Or is it a different story for Messrs Rogers, Lustig and the rest of the crew of the USS Vincennes because that was state sponsored terrorism?.

[ballengeich]

If the USA wants to find out more about deals with Libya to get access to that country's oil then the man they should be asking to appear is Anthony Blair. For some reason they don't seem to be interested in interrogating the man who actually met Gaddafi to set up the prisoner exchange scheme. I think that the Scottish government is right in saying that the release was on medical grounds and is not connected to oil deals.

What I would like to know is why Al Megrahi abandoned his appeal. Are there any lawyers who can tell me whether he had to do this in order to be allowed to spend the remainder of his life with his family and friends? Could he have been released on medical grounds while continuing with the appeal against his conviction?

[ballengeich]

A prisoner can't be released whilst they have an ongoing appeal open.

Once it became clear to his lawyers that he was likely to be released on compassionate grounds a process would be put in place to drop the appeal. A legal technicality really.

Thank you for your reply. Can you direct me to the legislation which applies to this case?

[AFKA5814_Hibs]

I really don't like this point. Are you honestly questioning the integrity of the doctor and 4 surgeons that based this decision on evidence of his health available to them at the time?

Since going back to Libya he has been on aggressive drugs to stop the spread of his cancer, increasing his life expectancy. The point remains, however, that this man has terminal cancer and will die from it in the near future.

To blame the SNP is ridiculous as well. They followed Scot's Law by the book and met all 3 conditions for compassionate release. They have been open and transparent about it all, and published everything they can regarding the decision.

Around about the same time last year, Ronnie Biggs was released in England on compassionate grounds. He is also still alive, yet we don't hear about it.

The Americans have an axe to grind with BP, that's why all this has been dredged up again.

Not really sure you can compare the two. No one died as a direct result of the Great Train Robbery. I always find it a bit strange that someone who has committed fraud or a robbery can get a longer jail sentence than a cold blooded murder.

I'm not sure how the whole process of compassionate release works, but it has to be based on individual cases. Someone who is in prison for petty crimes surely must be treated differently to monsters like Myra Hindley, Peter Tobin or Roy Whiting for example who deserve no remorse.

IMHO, no one who has been convicted of a crime which killed 270 people should be released on compassionate grounds. Of course maybe the person who made the decision believes that the prisoner is innocent. :hmmm:

No one here knows for sure whether Megrahi is guilty or not. Those who say he should have rot in jail for the rest of his life will look silly if it is proved he is innocent. Those who say he should be released will equally look silly if it is proven he was guilty.

McAskill didn't release Megrahi cause he thought he was innocent, not officially at least. He released someone who, in the eyes of the law, is guilty of killing 270 people. Does McAskill believe Megrahi is innocent? Is that why he went ahead with the compassionate grounds line. Or is he freeing someone who he believes killed 270 people within the Scottish border. Would love to hear his HONEST opinion. :wink:

[Pretty Boy]

Thank you for your reply. Can you direct me to the legislation which applies to this case?

In fact scrap my earlier reply. It would appear there is no reason why a prisoner cannot be released on compassionate grounds with an ongoing appeal in progress.

It would appear Megrahis' 2nd appeal was dropped in August 2009 as this would have prevented him being released to Libya under the prisoner transfer scheme set in place by one Tony Blair.

This certainly makes things more interesting as it appears, reading between the lines, that Megrahi was being prepared for transfer to Libya in early 2009.

Interesting article on the matter here:

http://i-p-o.org/IPO-nr-doubts-Lockerbie_appeal-31Aug2009.htm

It would appear a few independent observers are suspicous of the fact that an appeal was dropped as part of the process of release on compassionate grounds.

[Flynn]

I'm so proud our government released Megrahi despite the political pressure from down south and in America. Scapegoat, patsy...whatever you want to call it. Plain and simple.

Funny thing about the BP spill is that the deepwater rig was operated by an American subcontractor and the safety valve that failed was manufactured by Haliburton. If Cameron had the balls, he should have rammed this fact up the Americans hypocritical backsides. But no, he was doing his best impression of a clueless eunuch!

[Steve-O]

Not really sure you can compare the two. No one died as a direct result of the Great Train Robbery. I always find it a bit strange that someone who has committed fraud or a robbery can get a longer jail sentence than a cold blooded murder.

I'm not sure how the whole process of compassionate release works, but it has to be based on individual cases. Someone who is in prison for petty crimes surely must be treated differently to monsters like Myra Hindley, Peter Tobin or Roy Whiting for example who deserve no remorse.

IMHO, no one who has been convicted of a crime which killed 270 people should be released on compassionate grounds. Of course maybe the person who made the decision believes that the prisoner is innocent. :hmmm:

No one here knows for sure whether Megrahi is guilty or not. Those who say he should have rot in jail for the rest of his life will look silly if it is proved he is innocent. Those who say he should be released will equally look silly if it is proven he was guilty.

McAskill didn't release Megrahi cause he thought he was innocent, not officially at least. He released someone who, in the eyes of the law, is guilty of killing 270 people. Does McAskill believe Megrahi is innocent? Is that why he went ahead with the compassionate grounds line. Or is he freeing someone who he believes killed 270 people within the Scottish border. Would love to hear his HONEST opinion. :wink:

He was released because the LAW dictated he should be. Whether or not he killed 1 person or 270 people is irrelevant in this particular case, end of.

[Beefster]

He was released because the LAW dictated he should be. Whether or not he killed 1 person or 270 people is irrelevant in this particular case, end of.

So the Justice Secretary didn't have any decision to make?

Wasn't it the case that he met the criteria for compassionate release but it was still down to the judgement of the Justice Secretary as to whether he was released or not? I was always under the impression that compassionate release wasn't an automatic entitlement.

[Part/Time Supporter]

Oh dear, more American hypocrisy

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/888651/USA-wanted-Lockerbie-bomber-freed.html

[Part/Time Supporter]

So the Justice Secretary didn't have any decision to make?

Wasn't it the case that he met the criteria for compassionate release but it was still down to the judgement of the Justice Secretary as to whether he was released or not? I was always under the impression that compassionate release wasn't an automatic entitlement.

Everyone who has met the conditions for compassionate release and applied for it (39 cases in Scotland) has been released.

The frequent anologies with Peter Tobin or Peter Sutcliffe are false as they wouldn't meet the conditions, because it would still be reasonable to claim that they are a danger to the public.

[CropleyWasGod]

Oh dear, more American hypocrisy

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/888651/USA-wanted-Lockerbie-bomber-freed.html

Salmond has often said that there are letters that the US and UK Governments don't want published. This could be one of them.

[BroxburnHibee]

I'm sure his release had nothing to do with this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-10751128) either. :wink:

[Beefster]

Everyone who has met the conditions for compassionate release and applied for it (39 cases in Scotland) has been released.

The frequent anologies with Peter Tobin or Peter Sutcliffe are false as they wouldn't meet the conditions, because it would still be reasonable to claim that they are a danger to the public.

But a guy who was convicted of bombing almost 300 innocents out of the sky isn't a danger to the public?

[bighairyfaeleith]

But a guy who was convicted of bombing almost 300 innocents out of the sky isn't a danger to the public?

Not when he is dying of cancer, can barely stand unaided and finds breathing even harder by the looks of things. Do you think he could bomb another plane in his state?

[Beefster]

Not when he is dying of cancer, can barely stand unaided and finds breathing even harder by the looks of things. Do you think he could bomb another plane in his state?

But Peter Sutcliffe and Peter Tobin would be dangers to the public in the same state? How does a serial killer go about killing folk when he can't stand, has no energy/strength or breathe properly?

I was disputing the logic that a convicted terrorist isn't a risk to the public because he's terminally ill, yet serial killers are.

[Part/Time Supporter]

But a guy who was convicted of bombing almost 300 innocents out of the sky isn't a danger to the public?

He was a danger 20 odd years ago when he was a Libyan secret agent and Libya and the west were fighting an asymmetric war (air strikes on Tripoli, arms to the IRA, killing Yvonne Fletcher). None of which pertains now.

[bighairyfaeleith]

But Peter Sutcliffe and Peter Tobin would be dangers to the public in the same state? How does a serial killer go about killing folk when he can't stand, has no energy/strength or breathe properly?

I was disputing the logic that a convicted terrorist isn't a risk to the public because he's terminally ill, yet serial killers are.

TBH I don't know what the reasoning is for those guys, but I know that megrahi couldn't be considered as still being dangerous.

There probably is double standards though when it comes to someone who has committed the act of killing or rape for pleasure. If megrahi is guilty then it wasn't done I don't think out of some sick desire to kill, however the same couldn't be said for tobim or sutcliffe

[--------]

Oh dear, more American hypocrisy

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/888651/USA-wanted-Lockerbie-bomber-freed.html

You surprised?


Salmond has often said that there are letters that the US and UK Governments don't want published. This could be one of them.

If certain circumstances are as I suspect they are, I can think of a number of very good reasons why neither the US government nor the US intelligence community nor the UK government nor the UK intelligence services would have preferred Al-Megrahi to be released on compassionate grounds rather than proceeding with the appeal he and his legal agents were contemplating.

Guilty reasons.

[Beefster]

He was a danger 20 odd years ago when he was a Libyan secret agent and Libya and the west were fighting an asymmetric war (air strikes on Tripoli, arms to the IRA, killing Yvonne Fletcher). None of which pertains now.

Peter Sutcliffe is now 64 and practically blind. He's no more of a danger to the public than Megrahi.

I think that there are major doubts over Megrahi's conviction but this should have been tested in court a long time ago.

[Part/Time Supporter]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-10754690

Oh dear, the boot is well and truly on the other foot now...

[--------]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-10754690

Oh dear, the boot is well and truly on the other foot now...



Let the games begin..... :devil:

[Sir David Gray]

I really don't like this point. Are you honestly questioning the integrity of the doctor and 4 surgeons that based this decision on evidence of his health available to them at the time?

Since going back to Libya he has been on aggressive drugs to stop the spread of his cancer, increasing his life expectancy. The point remains, however, that this man has terminal cancer and will die from it in the near future.

To blame the SNP is ridiculous as well. They followed Scot's Law by the book and met all 3 conditions for compassionate release. They have been open and transparent about it all, and published everything they can regarding the decision.

Around about the same time last year, Ronnie Biggs was released in England on compassionate grounds. He is also still alive, yet we don't hear about it.

The Americans have an axe to grind with BP, that's why all this has been dredged up again.

Whilst I personally believe that Ronnie Biggs should still be in prison, as he was effectively sticking two fingers up at Britain for years when he went on the run to Brazil and Australia and only came back here when his health deteriorated and he needed help on the NHS, I don't think you can compare him with Al Megrahi. What Biggs did was wrong but he has never murdered anyone, whereas the Lockerbie bombing was the single biggest act of mass murder in British history and Al Megrahi was convicted of being responsible for it. Therefore, I happen to be of the opinion that he should have died in custody.

I don't think the point about him dying in the near future is valid any longer. We were told a year ago that he only had three months to live and that was the main reason behind his release. As we approach the first anniversary of his release, who's to say those "aggressive drugs", that you mention he is on, won't continue to work and allow him to live for another year or two?

I know the Americans want to blame it all on BP, if they could pin all of the world's ills on BP then they would, but I have been consistent throughout this whole process. I thought it was wrong a year ago and I still think it was wrong today. I'm not particularly bothered about what the Americans are saying.


Weren't the SNP just doing what the law said, based on the information they had at the time?

Under Scots law, Al Megrahi was eligible for release under compassionate grounds but he was not automatically entitled to it. Kenny MacAskill made a choice to release Al Megrahi, a choice that I believe was completely and utterly wrong.

[Phil D. Rolls]

What is the story with these American senators that have been stirring it up? They seem to have opened a can of worms that is going to embarass their Government.

Also, how much coverage is this getting in the States? My guess it will be on page 39 of the papers, next to the cattle prices and exam results.

[CropleyWasGod]

What is the story with these American senators that have been stirring it up? They seem to have opened a can of worms that is going to embarass their Government.

.

Mid term elections coming up....:wink:

[CropleyWasGod]

I don't think the point about him dying in the near future is valid any longer. We were told a year ago that he only had three months to live and that was the main reason behind his release. As we approach the first anniversary of his release, who's to say those "aggressive drugs", that you mention he is on, won't continue to work and allow him to live for another year or two?

Not actually so. The doctors concluded that his cancer was terminal, and that it would not be unreasonable to expect him to die within three months.

[Betty Boop]

What is the story with these American senators that have been stirring it up? They seem to have opened a can of worms that is going to embarass their Government.

Also, how much coverage is this getting in the States? My guess it will be on page 39 of the papers, next to the cattle prices and exam results.


It all seems to centre on Sir Mark Allen, former Mi6 spy now a senor advisor to BP.

http://countusout.wordpress.com/2010/07/16/u-s-officials-convinced-sir-mark-allen-ex-mi6-spy-now-a-senior-adviser-to-bp-helped-free-the-pan-am-103%C2%A0bomber/

[Part/Time Supporter]

It all seems to centre on Sir Mark Allen, former Mi6 spy now a senor advisor to BP.

http://countusout.wordpress.com/2010/07/16/u-s-officials-convinced-sir-mark-allen-ex-mi6-spy-now-a-senior-adviser-to-bp-helped-free-the-pan-am-103%C2%A0bomber/

The American conspiracy theories are quite amusing when you consider that the conspiracy must involve at least some collusion between Blair, Brown and various Labour minions and Salmond, MacAskill and other SNP figures.

:agree:

[Steve-O]

Personally I don't think there would have been any 'glory' in just keeping him in Scotland and allowing him to die, although I suppose some people would rejoice in that.

McAskill did what he thought was right at the time, and trust me, he would've had masses and masses of information to consider a decision that would not have been taken lightly at all.

It's just a pity that the information was perhaps much less accurate than it first appeared.

[ArabHibee]

And so it trundles on:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-10783710

America can GTF as far as I am concerned.

[Hibs Class]

And so it trundles on:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-10783710

America can GTF as far as I am concerned.


I read that report too - it's full of posturing but one quote in particular jumped out:

"In the case of BP, it is hard to imagine that a company on such thin ice with the American people, after devastating our Gulf Coast, would not fully co-operate in getting to the bottom of the release of a terrorist who murdered 189 Americans"

This argument for why BP should get involved is pretty illogical, but especially outrageous is the clear inference that of the 270 Lockerbie victims, the 189 Americans killed were somehow of more value than the others.

[bighairyfaeleith]

What really annoys me here is that the americans have no evidence of anyone doing anything wrong, they have no jurisdiction over scotland and it's laws, yet they choose to play political motivated games with us and our pm chooses to pander to them!!!

Who is the biggest threat David, pakistan or america?