Releasing Al Megrahi.

[Gary Kumquat]

Dear people of the USA,

Hello. How's it going there? Hope the weather's good. Been a bit of a wet summer here, but that happens a lot in Scotland, and is something we pretty much expect.

What has been a bit more surprising though is the sudden revelation that apparently we have to explain/justify the decisions of our criminal system to you. Seriously, we had absolutely no idea that the decision to release a criminal in Scottish jail for a crime tried in a Scottish court had to be run by you first for approval. No idea at all. We've looked at statute, at common law, and even in the scattered notes left lying around the various courts here, and there's nothing about that at all. Not so much as a post-it note on the fridge in the Supreme Court's kitchen.

And that really does seem to be the claim being made by your politicians there, who first requested the local Justice minister come over and explain his decision, and then said it was "outrageous" when he declined.

Now, as I hold the US in fair esteem, let me assure you that I have picked my words carefully here. Any American who thinks they can just demand Scotland justify a local decision to you can ram it. Take your frankly patheticly impotent tantrum, pick whichever of your orifices you like, and ram it right up. In local parlance: Get it right up ye.

I mean, I could try to explain why lots of people here think it's a just thing to do. I could point you towards the rather compelling arguments campaigners have made about him being a scapegoat. We could talk about the pointlessness of imprisoning a man with terminal cancer, who will die soon anyway. We could have lots of arguments about whether our (frankly loathsome) first minister did it to curry favour with Libya. There's all manner of valid room for discussion about this.

But with regards to the idea that somehow US Senators can demand that elected ministers from other countries should turn up whenever they wish, and explain the decisions they made...just piss off.

[ivan astikov]

< stands alongside GK >

Yeah! Go and slide your genitals along a serrated edge, you cheeky fuckers!

[sinical brit]

Agreed Gary. Well said !

These senators should be thanking Scotland - for avoiding an appeal and possible retrial - during which i am sure all sorts of grubby facts regarding the USAs involvement in why he was found 'guilty' in the first place, would have come out.

[Wallenstein]

Especially as it looks like the "compassionate release" angle was supported by the USA... who suddenly seem reluctant to release the relevant files. :dubious:

[AK84]

Of course this is a matter of international importance, and a Sub National entity like Scotland is going to be allowed to spoil that. If the Senator in the US think that the Scottish government did not have London standing by with a well oiled twase when the made the decision is even more deluded that I thought politicians were.

[Simplicio]

Eh, I don't really have a problem with the release of Al Megrahi, but the guy was convicted of killing 179 Americans. Pretending to be all puzzled about why American officials and politicians have strong feelings about his release and feel they should be involved is a pretty weak charade.

[ivan astikov]

Pretending that the Scottish justice system can't deal with its own cases is pretty piss-poor, too.

[Ferret Herder]

I think we need to send a fact-finding mission to Tripoli to investigate their awesome state-of-the-art health care down there. (OK, I'll admit I swiped that idea off Radio 4.)

[Wallenstein]

Eh, I don't really have a problem with the release of Al Megrahi, but the guy was convicted of killing 179 Americans. Pretending to be all puzzled about why American officials and politicians have strong feelings about his release and feel they should be involved is a pretty weak charade.

The UK lost 67 nationals in the WTC attacks. How would the US have reacted if we'd insisted that George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld submit themselves to questioning in front of a panel of MPs in Westminster to expain the decisions that were made?

I think part of the resistence this side of the pond is the awareness that there's no way on earth American politicians would agree to the same terms if the situation were reversed.

[Gary Kumquat]

Eh, I don't really have a problem with the release of Al Megrahi, but the guy was convicted of killing 179 Americans. Pretending to be all puzzled about why American officials and politicians have strong feelings about his release and feel they should be involved is a pretty weak charade.

Do try to read, there's a fellow.

They can have whatever strong feelings they like on whatever issues they like. I, for instance, have very strong feelings about the death penalty.

But if I was to insist that the Senator for Texas come over here and justify his lack of clemency for the last executed prisoner there, he may well decline. If he is nice, he could even politely decline. And if I was to say I was outraged by his stonewalling on this issue, he might just point out that I had no authority to make such demands or statements.

Comprende? American politicians can jump up and down as much as they like over the decision. Of course they will, there's many an easy vote to be had from stirring up recreational outage from the locals. Expressing outrage though that the people who made the decision don't particularly fancy popping across the atlantic to justify their actions to a group of people that they don't answer to though is frankly either stupid or arrogant. Possibly both.

[jjimm]

Now, as I hold the US in fair esteem, let me assure you that I have picked my words carefully here. Any American who thinks they can just demand Scotland justify a local decision to you can ram it. Take your frankly patheticly impotent tantrum, pick whichever of your orifices you like, and ram it right up. In local parlance: Get it right up ye.Beautifully put.

It was an unsound conviction, and an unsound release. I would far rather he had been released on appeal due to lack of evidence. That, however, does not give any US senators the right to "demand" Scottish or UK ministers to appear before them.Eh, I don't really have a problem with the release of Al Megrahi, but the guy was convicted of killing 179 Americans. Pretending to be all puzzled about why American officials and politicians have strong feelings about his release and feel they should be involved is a pretty weak charade.I think you miss the point. Nobody's disputing the strong feelings nor their right to be held.

What's being derided is the demand that politicians from an allied sovereign entity become answerable to the senate of a foreign nation, then senators, and in particular Senator Menendez, acting all butthurt that they have rightly refused.

Could you imagine the derision that Yank politicians would express were the situation in reverse?

[Ferret Herder]

Especially as it looks like the "compassionate release" angle was supported by the USA... who suddenly seem reluctant to release the relevant files. :dubious:
Was it? I tried to look into this, and all I could find was that a year ago, US embassy officials stated the official position was that they weren't thrilled about the idea (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100726/ap_on_re_eu/eu_britain_lockerbie).

Anyway, it looks like the inquiry is closed down, from what I've read. I think the major concern isn't Scotland but BP, though BP insists they were interested in prisoners other than this particular one. For some reason. Not that this, understandably, soothes feelings when politicians in another country are demanding testimony, I do understand that.

[Ferret Herder]

The UK lost 67 nationals in the WTC attacks. How would the US have reacted if we'd insisted that George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld submit themselves to questioning in front of a panel of MPs in Westminster to expain the decisions that were made?
You'd get wild support from about half the American populace and outrage from the other half. :D

[Wallenstein]

Especially as it looks like the "compassionate release" angle was supported by the USA... who suddenly seem reluctant to release the relevant files. :dubious:
Was it? I tried to look into this, and all I could find was that a year ago, US embassy officials stated the official position was that they weren't thrilled about the idea (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100726/ap_on_re_eu/eu_britain_lockerbie).

There was a story in The Times last week suggesting that US officials had given qualified support to a release on compassionate grounds.

However, reading further it seems that the US 100% opposed any form of release, but said that were Scotland to press ahead regardless the US would offer an opinion on a preferred mechanism (lesser of two evils, sort of thing).

[Muffin]

Gary, until you can prove to the senators that the crime did not take place in Scotland, Texas, you've got nothing.

[jjimm]

Oh, and Rune? You can go and fuck yourself (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12735622&postcount=5) and all.

[Jackmannii]

That Congress got huffy when Scottish official(s) did not appear before it to justify Al-Megrahi's release sounded off-key to me too. And a lot of the politicians' outrage is, well, political. But it was still a poor decision, and if the shoe was on the other foot people in Scotland would be wondering if oil company influence was involved.

"American officials were dead-set against the release of the Lockerbie bomber and warned Scottish authorities that scenes of jubilation in Tripoli over his return would upset victims' families, a newly released document showed Monday.

The Aug. 12, 2009 letter from Richard LeBaron, the charge d'affaires at the U.S. Embassy in London, to Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond sets out the views of the American government as Scotland grappled with whether to release Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the only person convicted in the bombing attack on Pan Am Flight 103.

"The United States maintains its view that in light of the scope of Megrahi's crime, its heinous nature, and its continuing and devastating impact on the victims and their families, it would be most appropriate for Megrahi to remain imprisoned for the entirety of his sentence," the letter says, declaring the U.S was not willing to support his release on either compassionate grounds or under a prisoner transfer agreement...The (U.S.) senators will also probe whether an exploration deal between Libya and London-based oil company BP had an impact on the decision to release al-Megrahi...And if Scotland did decide to free al-Megrahi on grounds of ill health, the U.S. asked that he be forbidden from traveling outside the country to ensure that he didn't receive a hero's welcome in Libya.

Thousands turned out to cheer al-Megrahi as his flight landed in Tripoli, scenes the British government described as "deeply distressing." Link (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=105&sid=2011783).

Annoyance that the U.S. seemed to be trying to interfere with the justice system in another country should be tempered by the knowledge that foreign nationals have put their two cents in on a number of U.S. criminal cases, including that of Mumia Abu-Jamal (convicted of murdering a Philadelphia policeman), who's been named an honorary citizen of 25 cities around the world and had a street in Paris named after him.

[Bricker]

Since the US Senate is involved in both internal lawmaking and treaty approval, senators certainly have a role in exploring the events that led to the release of a criminal such as Al Megrahi. For example, they could conclude that the laws of other countries are insufficient in the goal of providing justice under such circumstances, and strengthen US law in the area of a US prosecution for these kinds of acts, even if they don't take place on American soil (or in American air.)

So to the extent that the OP is suggesting that the U.S. has no interest at all in the decision to release Al M, I disagree.

But UK government officials are actors for a sovereign government. And the OP is right that the U.S. has no right or justification to "demand," that they do anything, or to suggest it's "outrageous" if they do not. The U.S. can certainly say something like, "We are going to hold hearings on the issue, hearings designed to inform us on the underlying facts and as a predicate to modifying U.S. law with respect to extradition treaties, concurrent jurisdiction, and the like. You are cordially invited to attend, and we hope you do, because it would be unfortunate to make these kinds of decisions without your valuable input."

I can see no cause for UK offense at that statement. I agree that the idea that US lawmakers can summon, can order UK officials to appear is itself outrageous.

[Martiju]

Oh, and Rune? You can go and fuck yourself (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12735622&postcount=5) and all.

Q. Identify the personification of uneducated, brash, arrogant and irrelevant?

A. Runeand some US Senators.

[Martiju]

I can see no cause for UK offense at that statement. I agree that the idea that US lawmakers can summon, can order UK officials to appear is itself outrageous.

I'm surprised at you Bricker. You're certainly savvy enough to know that there's a hell of a lot more to this case than you've suggested. You don't think that perhaps there's a modicum of disengenuity about the current posturing, given that the last thing the US (and the English/Scottish Govts) wanted was an appeal that was going to expose all kinds of shady dealings in the case, and potentially highlight the fact that the 'criminal' in this case might not have been convicted on the most secure of grounds?

[ivan astikov]

Sssshhh... you're not supposed to mention that. Talk about BP instead.

[Gary Kumquat]

So to the extent that the OP is suggesting that the U.S. has no interest at all in the decision to release Al M, I disagree.

The extent of which would be 0.

[Rune]

That’s rather bold, coming from the international libel kangaroo court of the world, which has no problems with dragging in people from all over the world to face trumped up charges at British courts of law. (U.S. Senate passes 'libel tourism' bill (http://cpj.org/blog/2010/07/us-senate-passes-libel-tourism-bill.php)) Britain can discuss jurisdiction after it has amended its absurd libel laws. Until such a time, you can shut your trap. It also doesn’t appear that the senators “demand” that the persons come and testify, but that they are outraged that they don’t go there freely.

In any case, the US has every right to be very upset and demand some answers, when a large number of victims were Americans and the releasing of the terrorist more and more seem to be a farce. Britain has not fulfilled its obligations to America and the families of the killed Americans to ensure that justice has been fulfilled. Your actions have been despicable, short sighted and self-serving, and putting financial interests over that of justice. You are not to be trusted in the future.

Oh, and Rune? You can go and fuck yourself (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12735622&postcount=5) and all.At least I’ll be sure to get a good lay. I’d considering taking up your PM offer to fuck you, but while you may be a pussy alright, I think you are probably overestimating the attractiveness of your man titties.

[ivan astikov]

Are you just gonna bark all day, little doggy?

[Alessan]

Summoning him to appear before the U.S. Congress is, I agree, a silly request. However, if the Scottish Justice Minister ever sets foot in America voluntarily, he should be arrested immediately.

[ivan astikov]

Yes, because they really want to get this in a media-accessed courtroom.

If they don't behave, we'll just send George Galloway over there to make a mockery of them again.

[Rune]

Are you just gonna bark all day, little doggy?Only so long as you beg me to (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12735638&postcount=6)

[jjimm]

At least I’ll be sure to get a good lay. I’d considering taking up your PM offer to fuck you, but while you may be a pussy alright, I think you are probably overestimating the attractiveness of your man titties.Ignoring your attempt at insult, you're one of those freaky single-issue dopers like Valteron. Going on past form, I'm sure you are not in the least bit worried about the UK's libel laws. But OMG there's a MUSLIM involved in this story. The adrenaline of fear grips you, your knee jerks your fingers to the keyboard, and you post in the usual, predictable manner.

[ivan astikov]

Are you just gonna bark all day, little doggy?Only so long as you beg me to (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12735638&postcount=6)

You need a bit more "oomph" in your vitriol and a lot more wit in your quips then, unless you want your invite revoked.

[Bricker]

I'm surprised at you Bricker. You're certainly savvy enough to know that there's a hell of a lot more to this case than you've suggested. You don't think that perhaps there's a modicum of disengenuity about the current posturing, given that the last thing the US (and the English/Scottish Govts) wanted was an appeal that was going to expose all kinds of shady dealings in the case, and potentially highlight the fact that the 'criminal' in this case might not have been convicted on the most secure of grounds?

No, there isn't. The verdict was correct and sustainable as a matter of law. The allegations that Al Megrahi was framed or otherwise railroaded are simply unsupportable speculation.

[Smeghead]

Didn't we win Scotland in the Revolutionary War? They have to do what we tell them.

Also, Scotland is welcome to any and all of our lawmakers whenever they wish. We'll even gift-wrap.

[Gary Kumquat]

That’s rather bold, coming from the international libel kangaroo court of the world, which has no problems with dragging in people from all over the world to face trumped up charges at British courts of law. (U.S. Senate passes 'libel tourism' bill (http://cpj.org/blog/2010/07/us-senate-passes-libel-tourism-bill.php)) Britain can discuss jurisdiction after it has amended its absurd libel laws. Until such a time, you can shut your trap. It also doesn’t appear that the senators “demand” that the persons come and testify, but that they are outraged that they don’t go there freely.

Fuck me, you really are a bit thick. To recap then, because Britain's libel laws favour the plaintiff, you feel it's ok for American senators to demand explanation for the release of a prisoner in Scotland, by the Scottish Justice Minister?

No. Sorry, we've just had a small discussion here in Scotland* regarding this idea, and we've decided that you can ram that as well. In this case though, we must ask that you ram it up your arse, feeling that you've demonstrated insufficient judgement to be allowed to choose an orifice for yourself.

You are fully entitled to like/dislike/not give a rat's arse over whatever fucking piece of UK statute you like, and it will be given all due consideration **. I am equally entitled to like/dislike/not even give a second's consideration to issues of US jurisdiction too. You dislike UK libel laws, I'm not keen on Texas' allowance of covert recordings as testimony in civil suits. Why, we could bounce silly laws back and forth all day, so we could.

But quite how you feel that it entitles you to then question the jurisdiction of British ministers/judiciary in matters of british law...well, that's just a non sequitur you see. I might as well argue that I dislike the collegiate system, so you should let Britain pick your presidents. It's non-sensical. Then again, I rather suspect you are too, judging by this little tantrum here:

In any case, the US has every right to be very upset and demand some answers, when a large number of victims were Americans and the releasing of the terrorist more and more seem to be a farce. Britain has not fulfilled its obligations to America and the families of the killed Americans to ensure that justice has been fulfilled. Your actions have been despicable, short sighted and self-serving, and putting financial interests over that of justice. You are not to be trusted in the future.


Oh dear lord, I've been away for quite a while so can I just ask if this sort of wibbling tantrum is par for your course, or have you recently changed meds or something. The actions involved have been releasing a person with terminal cancer from jail. The obligations we had to you in this case was to carry out justice as Scottish law views it for a mass murder. Well, what do you know, we did that. The people involved have already stated their reasoning, so quite what you feel entitled to demand is pretty fucking interesting? Come on, just how do you feel the ministers involved have somehow not met their obligations? In your own time, and please be careful to avoid the mental equivalent of heavy lifting as I am absolutely convinced you're not in good shape for such activity.


* in the same way that everyone in England has met the queen, everyone in Scotland knows each other, and we meet in the pub pretty much every day at around this time. Handy, eh?

** not one fucking jot or tittle, in your case.

[Rune]

At least I’ll be sure to get a good lay. I’d considering taking up your PM offer to fuck you, but while you may be a pussy alright, I think you are probably overestimating the attractiveness of your man titties.Ignoring your attempt at insult, you're one of those freaky single-issue dopers like Valteron. Going on past form, I'm sure you are not in the least bit worried about the UK's libel laws. But OMG there's a MUSLIM involved in this story. The adrenaline of fear grips you, your knee jerks your fingers to the keyboard, and you post in the usual, predictable manner.WTF?! Didn’t I tell you to shut your trap? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=554844)

[Wallenstein]

Didn't we win Scotland in the Revolutionary War? They have to do what we tell them.

Also, Scotland is welcome to any and all of our lawmakers whenever they wish. We'll even gift-wrap.

Not a chance - you send 'em over with the return postage already paid.

[Gary Kumquat]

Didn't we win Scotland in the Revolutionary War? They have to do what we tell them.

I think you'll find that William Wallace won the Revolutionary War for America, and as payment for this we get to tell you what to do.

[Gary Kumquat]

Summoning him to appear before the U.S. Congress is, I agree, a silly request. However, if the Scottish Justice Minister ever sets foot in America voluntarily, he should be arrested immediately.

What. The. Fuck. For?

[ivan astikov]

Being Scottish, I think.

[Alessan]

Violation of international law.

[Rune]

Fuck me, you really are a bit thick. To recap then, because Britain's libel laws favour the plaintiff, you feel it's ok for American senators to demand explanation for the release of a prisoner in Scotland, by the Scottish Justice Minister?Fuck you, you really are stupid as a stupid Paris Hilton imitation. You get to shut your trap and your whining about jurisdiction, because your own libel court thinks it has universal jurisdiction on matters of libel law. So shut your fucking trap.

Oh dear lord, I've been away for quite a while so can I just ask if this sort of wibbling tantrum is par for your course, or have you recently changed meds or something.You post in the pit, and then whine about four lettered words. Are all Brits as pathetic as you, or are you an exceptional pathetic specimen?

The actions involved have been releasing a person with terminal cancer from jail. The obligations we had to you in this case was to carry out justice as Scottish law views it for a mass murder. Well, what do you know, we did that. The people involved have already stated their reasoning, so quite what you feel entitled to demand is pretty fucking interesting?And by “a person with terminal cancer”, I take it you mean "a terrorist mass murder, with cancer which was not so terminal after all, but we shopped around a good bit and found some guy who’d be willing to write that he was dying provided we send him a nice bonus”. The obligation you had for the 270 killed persons and their families was to ensure justice had been served. In this you have failed miserable.

[Gary Kumquat]

Violation of international law.

You honestly had me going for a minute there. Good whoosh.

[The Stafford Cripps]

You get to shut your trap and your whining about jurisdiction, because your own libel court thinks it has universal jurisdiction on matters of libel law. So shut your fucking trap.


The English and Scottish court systems are more separate and different from each other than eg the systems of Ohio and Florida. Libel tourism happens in the English civil system. It is completely irrelevant when discussing a matter of Scottish criminal law and the Scottish court / justice system.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Summoning him to appear before the U.S. Congress is, I agree, a silly request. However, if the Scottish Justice Minister ever sets foot in America voluntarily, he should be arrested immediately.
What. The. Fuck. For?
Wearing paisley with tweeds.

[ivan astikov]

Aye, so up ye arse wi a 20lb haggis Rune, ye jumped-up fucking maggot!

[Gary Kumquat]

Reading Rune's posts make me glad that browsers do not have a spittle tag. Even via the written word, you can smell the phlegm.

You post in the pit, and then whine about four lettered words. Are all Brits as pathetic as you, or are you an exceptional pathetic specimen?

Eh? What the wittering arse are you talking about? What whining about four lettered words? I've been throwing them around left, right and centre, what the fucking fuck are you talking about you silly cock?

And by “a person with terminal cancer”, I take it you mean "a terrorist mass murder, with cancer which was not so terminal after all, but we shopped around a good bit and found some guy who’d be willing to write that he was dying provided we send him a nice bonus”. The obligation you had for the 270 killed persons and their families was to ensure justice had been served. In this you have failed miserable.

That's right. I do indeed mean a man found guilty of mass-murder of 270 people, who was found to have terminal cancer, and released from jail. Sorry if you think that somehow is a terrible injustice, but tough shit. The judiciary here doesn't agree with you. They've explained their reasoning. So just what obligation do you feel is still outstanding?

The level of arrogance really is quite impressive. All other countries should have the same legal system as the US, and punish people as the US would. Failure to comply with this shall result in demands that their officials explain themselves, personally, to the US senate. Any country that fails to do so has failed in some nebulous obligation they have to justice, as defined by the US.

May I refer you to my previous request about shoving it up your arse?

I do of course await your next reply with baited breath, particularly the rather predictable reference to UK libel law.

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

No, there isn't. The verdict was correct and sustainable as a matter of law. The allegations that Al Megrahi was framed or otherwise railroaded are simply unsupportable speculation.

Then why did SCCRC review his case in an 800 page report recommending an appeal (the same appeal he dropped after an unprecedented visit to him in prison by the Scottish justice secretary)? Why were CIA documents available to the prosecution, but not to the defence?


As international observer, appointed by the United Nations, at the Scottish Court in the Netherlands I am also concerned about the Public Interest Immunity (PII) certificate which has been issued by you in connection with the new Appeal of the convicted Libyan national. Withholding of evidence from the Defence was one of the reasons why the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has referred Mr. Al-Megrahi’s case back to the High Court of Justiciary. The Appeal cannot go ahead if the Government of the United Kingdom, through the PII certificate issued by you, denies the Defence the right (also guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights) to have access to a document which is in the possession of the Prosecution. How can there be equality of arms in such a situation? How can the independence of the judiciary be upheld if the executive power interferes into the appeal process in such a way?


Why was testimony from a man who failed to identify the accused 19 times before the trial allowed (not just allowed, but formed a centerpiece of the prosecution's case) to be heard in court? Why was the accused's legal council imposed upon him, and why was he not free to choose his own defence lawyer?

The whole thing stinks.

[ivan astikov]

Not if you are used to wallowing in bullshit and actually think it's quite relaxing.

[Gary Kumquat]

The English and Scottish court systems are more separate and different from each other than eg the systems of Ohio and Florida. Libel tourism happens in the English civil system. It is completely irrelevant when discussing a matter of Scottish criminal law and the Scottish court / justice system.

Do you really think it's a good idea to post something logical where Rune might read it? You could be looking at the cerebral version of the big bang, as logic comes into contact with Rune's anti-logic His/her entire psyche could be eradicated as a new one explodes into being.

Actually, that's not such a bad plan. Carry on.

[Steophan]

I imagine I'm wasting my time in posting something rational, but I'll do so anyway.
The Scottish authorities did in fact let the victims down, but not by releasing Al-Megrahi. They did so by convicting him in the first place, knowing he was innocent, and ceasing to look for the actual terrorists. Of course, the main reason they did this was pressure from America in the first place.
Oh, and even if he is guilty, releasing him was the correct thing to do. If you disagree, cite the Scottish law that supports your point.

[Ravenman]

Let me just remind people that Senator Menendez, the guy who is raising the stink about officials from a foreign government not submitting themselves to congressional testimony, is the same guy who, three years ago, proposed to divert funds from US-Mexican border security efforts to build a fence between the US and Canada.

In short, he will do anything to get in the news, and he's not taken terribly seriously.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Menendez is currently the head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, so he's not exactly small potatoes.

[Martiju]

Menendez is currently the head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, so he's not exactly small potatoes.

He is to us.



No, there isn't. The verdict was correct and sustainable as a matter of law. The allegations that Al Megrahi was framed or otherwise railroaded are simply unsupportable speculation.


Oh right. I take it back. You aren't savvy enough - my mistake.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Menendez is currently the head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, so he's not exactly small potatoes.
He is to us.
I mean in American terms. Ravenman's post makes it sound like he's the equivalent of a backbench MP or something, which he isn't.

[newcomer]

This silly verbal back-n-forth ejaculation is a proof positive how best way to manage "free thinkers" is to pit them against each other.

My God, what's in it for you?

[Ferret Herder]

I mean in American terms. Ravenman's post makes it sound like he's the equivalent of a backbench MP or something, which he isn't.
Yeah, but that doesn't preclude him from being an attention-seeker all the same.

[Baron Greenback]

Menendez is currently the head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, so he's not exactly small potatoes.
He is to us.
I mean in American terms. Ravenman's post makes it sound like he's the equivalent of a backbench MP or something, which he isn't.

He is pretty much the equivalent of a back-bench MP. He's not a Cabinet member ( not analogous between countries, but I mean in the sense of not being Secretary of State or something). The fact that he chairs some committee is not really relevant. Our parliamentary oversight committees are chaired by backbench MPs. His one just seems like a party-specific political one.

[yojimbo]

Isn't Rune Danish? Shouldn't he be sucking down a pickled herring?

I only ask as Gary seems to think he's a Yank.

[Really Not All That Bright]

He is pretty much the equivalent of a back-bench MP. He's not a Cabinet member ( not analogous between countries, but I mean in the sense of not being Secretary of State or something). The fact that he chairs some committee is not really relevant. Our parliamentary oversight committees are chaired by backbench MPs. His one just seems like a party-specific political one.
No, he's not. Remember (or understand), legislators here can't serve in the Cabinet, unless they resign their elected offices.

He speaks with the weight of, if not one of the important ministers, then certainly a party whip.

[yojimbo]

Oh and good to read you again Gary. It's been a while.

[Ravenman]

I mean in American terms. Ravenman's post makes it sound like he's the equivalent of a backbench MP or something, which he isn't.He raises money for the Democratic Party and he has a chairmanship of a subcommittee of a committee that very rarely produces legislation. I'm not saying he's a nobody, but he certainly isn't particularly influential in terms of policy. I think most in Washington would regard him as being more of a showhorse than a workhorse. That's why he has the job of raising money -- it plays to his strength in politics, not policy.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Fair enough.

[Baron Greenback]

He is pretty much the equivalent of a back-bench MP. He's not a Cabinet member ( not analogous between countries, but I mean in the sense of not being Secretary of State or something). The fact that he chairs some committee is not really relevant. Our parliamentary oversight committees are chaired by backbench MPs. His one just seems like a party-specific political one.
No, he's not. Remember (or understand), legislators here can't serve in the Cabinet, unless they resign their elected offices.

He speaks with the weight of, if not one of the important ministers, then certainly a party whip.

I know about the different Cabinet eligibilities. Did you miss the "not analogous" bit I posted?

So, the Senator is a humble legislator, who also performs specific party-political functions. So he is a bit like a party whip. Party whips are still backbench MPs.

[Baron Greenback]

Anyway, he's just playing to his constituency, so it's really no big deal IMO.

[Bricker]

Oh right. I take it back. You aren't savvy enough - my mistake. :rolleyes:

As always, the burden of proof for any claim lies with the one making the claim. A verdict of guilty removes the presumption of innocence that cloaks an accused, and shifts the burden to the accused -- or his defenders -- to establish proof of his innocence.

And as my high school debate teacher was fond of reminding us, "A gratuitous assertion may be equally gratuitously denied."

So far, you haven't offered up anything beyond a bare, gratuitous assertion.

[MOIDALIZE]

This Scottish official (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0Gskurt8ec) made a statement regarding al-Megrahi's release, and it's really insulting to me that he's not taking this more seriously.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Party whips are still backbench MPs.
They are? :confused: I thought they got to sit on the Treasury Bench.

[Baron Greenback]

Party whips are still backbench MPs.
They are? :confused: I thought they got to sit on the Treasury Bench.

According to wiki, not any more, apart from the Chief Whip, who gets a seat in Cabinet as Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury. The lesser whips just get notional positions in the Treasury and HM Household for salary purposes, and no longer have any ministerial responsibilities or privileges.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Oh. A little ignorance fought in the Pit today, then. :)

[Blank Slate]

Seems to me the real culprit is this "compassionate release" statute. Who the fuck has compassion for mass murderers? I can understand such a release for a forger or a thief.

I have no idea if this guy really is guilty and no, the U.S. senate shouldn't be making any "demands" to the Brits.

But should Americans choose to show disgust and outrage? Get over it. Your law sucks.

[yojimbo]

Seems to me the real culprit is this "compassionate release" statute. Who the fuck has compassion for mass murderers?


Politicians and security chiefs who don't want an appeal to look too deep into the details of the original conviction.

A lot of the political reaction to this is like Claude Rains in Casablanca (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1DEG6BWgp0) being shocked.

This had gone away until somebody thought it was another stick to beat BP with. Then the press got wind of another BIG story to lead with so did.

It's all a lot of bollocks IMO.

[Laudenum]

Fuck me, you really are a bit thick. To recap then, because Britain's libel laws favour the plaintiff, you feel it's ok for American senators to demand explanation for the release of a prisoner in Scotland, by the Scottish Justice Minister?Fuck you, you really are stupid as a stupid Paris Hilton imitation. You get to shut your trap and your whining about jurisdiction, because your own libel court thinks it has universal jurisdiction on matters of libel law. So shut your fucking trap.

No it doesn't AFAIK.

If a libelous statement is published in Britain, then it is actionable in Britain, if not, then it isn't.
Unfortunately, modern media means that a statement made in other countries will often be published in Britain, and therefore be actionable.

People have a right to vindicate their good name in any country where they have been defamed.

[Steophan]

Seems to me the real culprit is this "compassionate release" statute. Who the fuck has compassion for mass murderers? I can understand such a release for a forger or a thief. I have no idea if this guy really is guilty and no, the U.S. senate shouldn't be making any "demands" to the Brits. But should Americans choose to show disgust and outrage? Get over it. Your law sucks.
It's a specifically Scottish law, and to my knowledge no such law exists in the rest of the UK, so it's not really my law. As for having compassion for a mass murderer, the point of compassion is that it is not deserved, it's freely granted. Whether a justice system should have that is certainly debatable, but this one does, and Al-Megrahi met the criteria to be released.
Probably the worst part of this is that his appeal will now not happen, meaning the truth about this is unlikely to ever come out.

[Wallenstein]

Seems to me the real culprit is this "compassionate release" statute. Who the fuck has compassion for mass murderers? I can understand such a release for a forger or a thief. I have no idea if this guy really is guilty and no, the U.S. senate shouldn't be making any "demands" to the Brits. But should Americans choose to show disgust and outrage? Get over it. Your law sucks.
It's a specifically Scottish law, and to my knowledge no such law exists in the rest of the UK, so it's not really my law. As for having compassion for a mass murderer, the point of compassion is that it is not deserved, it's freely granted. Whether a justice system should have that is certainly debatable, but this one does, and Al-Megrahi met the criteria to be released.
Probably the worst part of this is that his appeal will now not happen, meaning the truth about this is unlikely to ever come out.

"Compassionate release" exists in English law too... Ronnie Biggs (of the "Great Train Robbery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronnie_Biggs)") was released under similar conditions.

There's also provision in US law for prisoners to be grated compassionate release "in particularly extraordinary or compelling circumstances that could not reasonably have been foreseen by the court at the time of sentencing".

So this is not some weird quirk of Scottish justice... it's a well-recognised mechanism. You can of course challenge whether it was appropriate in this particular case, but the underlying principle is firmly established both sides of the pond.

[amanset]

Seems to me the real culprit is this "compassionate release" statute. Who the fuck has compassion for mass murderers? I can understand such a release for a forger or a thief.


Just because someone treats other humans as less than animals doesn't mean we should lower ourselves to his level and treat him the same.

[alphaboi867]

Violation of international law.

Could you be more specific? :dubious:

[Alessan]

I was being sarcastic. Obviously, governments don't have the right to arrest foreign state officials just because their official actions happen to offend some random citizens.

[Gary Kumquat]

Violation of international law.

Could you be more specific? :dubious:

Public playing of bagpipes, in contravention of the War Crimes Act of 1996.

[Wallenstein]

I was being sarcastic. Obviously, governments don't have the right to arrest foreign state officials just because their official actions happen to offend some random citizens.

Interestingly there's a bill proposed in the UK parliament to close a facility that allows arrest warrents for private war crimes prosections to be issued by local Magistrates.

This came about after some of my fellow citizens decided they'd try to arrest Tzipi Livni, the former Israeli foreign minister, for war crimes in Gaza.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/jul/22/dpp-veto-arrest-warrants-war-crime

[Alessan]

That's pretty much exactly the case I was referring to. I hope the legislation you mentioned passes - not just because I'm not happy with foreign governments seizing my fellow citizens at will, but also because Britain's approach to "universal jurisdiction" opens the door to some very nasty possibilities, the kind that can have very serious implications on the delicate balance of international relations.

Anyway, I brought it up to show that the British can't really accuse other nations of high-handedness regrading its elected officials, considering its own actions. I'm glad to see that calmer heads may have prevailed.

[ivan astikov]

If only karma heads could prevail.

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

A verdict of guilty removes the presumption of innocence that cloaks an accused, and shifts the burden to the accused -- or his defenders -- to establish proof of his innocence.


You keep talking about this trial like it was similar to any other trial held in the Scottish courts. It wasn't. Saying the "burden of proof" has been shifted onto those claiming his innocence may work for any normal trial, but the Lockerbie trial clearly wasn't a trial like any other in the Scottish system. Defence lawyers didn't have access to documents that the prosecution did, and, with all due respect, the prosecution's star witness, Gauci, is a shilling short of a pound (and incidentally received a multi-million dollar payout from the US State Department for his testimony). Until Megrahi is tried in a court under the usual standards for criminal prosecution in Scotland, the burden of proof still rests with those who claim he is guilty.

[Blank Slate]

Seems to me the real culprit is this "compassionate release" statute. Who the fuck has compassion for mass murderers? I can understand such a release for a forger or a thief.


Just because someone treats other humans as less than animals doesn't mean we should lower ourselves to his level and treat him the same.

And that extends to letting mass murderers out of prison?

[Bricker]

A verdict of guilty removes the presumption of innocence that cloaks an accused, and shifts the burden to the accused -- or his defenders -- to establish proof of his innocence.


You keep talking about this trial like it was similar to any other trial held in the Scottish courts. It wasn't. Saying the "burden of proof" has been shifted onto those claiming his innocence may work for any normal trial, but the Lockerbie trial clearly wasn't a trial like any other in the Scottish system. Defence lawyers didn't have access to documents that the prosecution did, and, with all due respect, the prosecution's star witness, Gauci, is a shilling short of a pound (and incidentally received a multi-million dollar payout from the US State Department for his testimony). Until Megrahi is tried in a court under the usual standards for criminal prosecution in Scotland, the burden of proof still rests with those who claim he is guilty.

Oh, why didn't you say it was clearly unlike any other trial? That would have wound up the argument immediately:

CRSP: It wasn't a fair trial!

BRICKER: Yes, it was.

CRSP: It clearly wasn't a fair trial!

BRICKER: Oh, NOW I see. Right you are, my good man!

:rolleyes:

Defense lawyers often don't have access to all the documents the prosecution does. So what? What prejudice did the defendant suffer from not having access to those documents?

The jury, not you, got to see each witness, including Gauci, and evaluate his credibility. The mere fact that you don't find him credible is utterly meaningless. The jury did, just like what happens in every single criminal trial everywhere.

[Steophan]

Just because someone treats other humans as less than animals doesn't mean we should lower ourselves to his level and treat him the same. And that extends to letting mass murderers out of prison?
As has been mentioned, there are serious doubts about the conviction, and at the time it was not believed he would live to see the appeal happen. This seems to me different than releasing, say, Charles Manson on the same grounds. As i said in the other thread in GD, it's not a great compromise, but whatever was done would upset some people, and what was actually done seems fairest. But then, I've been wrong before (about 10 posts ago), so feel free to ignore me.

[Really Not All That Bright]

The jury, not you, got to see each witness, including Gauci, and evaluate his credibility. The mere fact that you don't find him credible is utterly meaningless. The jury did, just like what happens in every single criminal trial everywhere.
Suppose we catch Osama bin Laden tomorrow, and decide to give him a civilian criminal trial. You know, to show the world we believe in this justice thing we always talk about and that we're not the Great Satan, etc.

Do you think it's possible to find 12 American jurors who don't assume bin Laden is guilty as a foregone conclusion?

[BigT]

Is their any chance the guy will be able to do anything else to hurt people? If not, why does it matter where he is?

If so, why would they let him out, not matter how compassionate they were being?

And, of course, I agree that the U.S. can't demand anything. But I am surprised that he can't be prosecuted over here, too, for killing American citizens Then again, I know next to nothing about the criminal justice system, especially with regards to international law.

[Death of Rats]

I can find you 12 people who will swearup and down that it was all a plot by George Bush. Will they work? If you can convince them it was OBL, then you know you have a case.

[Really Not All That Bright]

And, of course, I agree that the U.S. can't demand anything. But I am surprised that he can't be prosecuted over here, too, for killing American citizens Then again, I know next to nothing about the criminal justice system, especially with regards to international law.
He can be prosecuted over here, but the Libyans aren't likely to hand him over again. Anyway, it would look awfully strange if we tried him in a civilian court, considering that we won't extend that privilege to other terrorism suspects.
I can find you 12 people who will swearup and down that it was all a plot by George Bush. Will they work? If you can convince them it was OBL, then you know you have a case.
Well, that depends on whether they think OBL was in cahoots with Bush or whether it was entirely an inside job.

[Kal]

The jury, not you, got to see each witness, including Gauci, and evaluate his credibility. The mere fact that you don't find him credible is utterly meaningless. The jury did, just like what happens in every single criminal trial everywhere.There was no jury.

[Steophan]

He can be prosecuted over here, but the Libyans aren't likely to hand him over again. Anyway, it would look awfully strange if we tried him in a civilian court, considering that we won't extend that privilege to other terrorism suspects.
Really? I'm surprised he could be considered to have committed any crime in American jurisdiction, and that's ignoring the fact he's already been convicted and punished. What could the US theoretically charge him with, assuming they got their hands on him?

[Baron Greenback]

The jury, not you, got to see each witness, including Gauci, and evaluate his credibility. The mere fact that you don't find him credible is utterly meaningless. The jury did, just like what happens in every single criminal trial everywhere.

What jury?

[Gary Kumquat]

The jury, not you, got to see each witness, including Gauci, and evaluate his credibility. The mere fact that you don't find him credible is utterly meaningless. The jury did, just like what happens in every single criminal trial everywhere.

Oh really? You're sure about the jury, are you?

[Really Not All That Bright]

He can be prosecuted over here, but the Libyans aren't likely to hand him over again. Anyway, it would look awfully strange if we tried him in a civilian court, considering that we won't extend that privilege to other terrorism suspects.
Really? I'm surprised he could be considered to have committed any crime in American jurisdiction, and that's ignoring the fact he's already been convicted and punished. What could the US theoretically charge him with, assuming they got their hands on him?
He (allegedly) killed American citizens, on an aircraft registered in the US to a US company. That's generally considered more than enough to be going on with.

Pretty much every country occasionally asserts extraterritorial jurisdiction. There are four ways: (1) one of your nationals commits the crime; (2) one of your nationals is the victim; (3) the crime occurs on a ship or aircraft which flies your flag or whose principal operator is based in your country (3) it's held to be a crime by pretty much all states and it's impractical for the country with primary jurisdiction to prosecute it (typically, war crimes and genocide).

[Bambro]

I don't know anything about the case and am enjoying learning about it, but I'm beginning to suspect there wasn't a jury involved in the court proceeding. :)

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

A verdict of guilty removes the presumption of innocence that cloaks an accused, and shifts the burden to the accused -- or his defenders -- to establish proof of his innocence.


You keep talking about this trial like it was similar to any other trial held in the Scottish courts. It wasn't. Saying the "burden of proof" has been shifted onto those claiming his innocence may work for any normal trial, but the Lockerbie trial clearly wasn't a trial like any other in the Scottish system. Defence lawyers didn't have access to documents that the prosecution did, and, with all due respect, the prosecution's star witness, Gauci, is a shilling short of a pound (and incidentally received a multi-million dollar payout from the US State Department for his testimony). Until Megrahi is tried in a court under the usual standards for criminal prosecution in Scotland, the burden of proof still rests with those who claim he is guilty.

Oh, why didn't you say it was clearly unlike any other trial? That would have wound up the argument immediately:

CRSP: It wasn't a fair trial!

BRICKER: Yes, it was.

CRSP: It clearly wasn't a fair trial!

BRICKER: Oh, NOW I see. Right you are, my good man!

:rolleyes:

Defense lawyers often don't have access to all the documents the prosecution does. So what? What prejudice did the defendant suffer from not having access to those documents?

The jury, not you, got to see each witness, including Gauci, and evaluate his credibility. The mere fact that you don't find him credible is utterly meaningless. The jury did, just like what happens in every single criminal trial everywhere.

:rolleyes:? Now who looks like a twat? You keep talking about a jury. There was no jury.

[Wallenstein]

The decision to hold the trial without a jury was made at the request of the Libyan government; it was a pre-requisite for handing the two accused over to the court.

[Jackmannii]

From another source (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2010-07-29-editorial29_ST_N.htm) on the decision to release Al-Megrahi on "humanitarian" grounds:

"Doctors said Megrahi, 57, was suffering from terminal prostate cancer and had less than three months to live. Well, guess what? Megrahi is very much alive and living free in Libya. It's enough to give humanitarianism a bad name.

Perhaps Libya has a better hospice system than anyone realized, or perhaps Megrahi's failing body was revitalized by the hero's welcome he received when he returned home. But there is a less fanciful explanation for his resilience. Emerging evidence suggests the release was, at best, based on misguided notions of sympathy and bad medical advice; at worst, it involved a sleazy deal by British businesses — including, yes, BP — to improve commercial ties with Libya.

BP, which recently received approval to drill off the Libyan coast, has acknowledged that it urged the British government to sign a "prisoner transfer agreement" with Libya in 2007 but did not specify the Megrahi case. That might be a distinction without a difference, because Libyan officials have said Megrahi was the prisoner they had in mind."

Again, what would have been the reaction in Britain if the U.S. had released a convicted terrorist found responsible for murders of many British citizens, and there was evidence of a giant U.S. oil company benefiting?

[Baron Greenback]

The decision to hold the trial without a jury was made at the request of the Libyan government; it was a pre-requisite for handing the two accused over to the court.

Yeah, same reason as why they had to make a bit of the Netherlands temporarily under Scottish jurisdiction. (Some of my dad's old colleagues made a metric fuckton of money guarding the world's smallest prison, with just two inmates) Just struck me as odd that someone was pontificating about a case, and yet didn't even know that it wasn't a jury trial.

[Baron Greenback]

Again, what would have been the reaction in Britain if the U.S. had released a convicted terrorist found responsible for murders of many British citizens

What was the reaction to US courts releasing convicted terrorists found responsible for the murders of British citizens? Anger, according to this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/195220.stm

Admittedly there's no obvious corporate scapegoat, but still.

[Blank Slate]

I don't now how accurate the wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103_bombing_trial) entry is, but it doesn't sound like a very convincing case. Really, the defendant should have been the Libyan government. I doubt these guys were operating in a vacuum.

It was claimed the Maltese shopkeeper was given $2 million to testify. Has anyone heard that and is there any substance? His testimony seems awfully shaky and malleable, yet it's supposed to be the most damning piece against Megrahi.

It also states that only the prison doctor made the diagnosis that Megrahi had weeks to live and four outside doctors refused to back him up.
I think another problem with this compassionate release law is that it makes bribery almost inevitable. (I'm not saying it happened in this case, just that it would be an obvious problem.)

[Steophan]

I think another problem with this compassionate release law is that it makes bribery almost inevitable. (I'm not saying it happened in this case, just that it would be an obvious problem.)
I'm not sure I follow you, who are you suggesting would be bribed and why is it more likely under there circumstances?

[ivan astikov]

I don't now how accurate the wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103_bombing_trial) entry is, but it doesn't sound like a very convincing case. Really, the defendant should have been the Libyan government. I doubt these guys were operating in a vacuum.

It was claimed the Maltese shopkeeper was given $2 million to testify. Has anyone heard that and is there any substance? His testimony seems awfully shaky and malleable, yet it's supposed to be the most damning piece against Megrahi.

It also states that only the prison doctor made the diagnosis that Megrahi had weeks to live and four outside doctors refused to back him up.
I think another problem with this compassionate release law is that it makes bribery almost inevitable. (I'm not saying it happened in this case, just that it would be an obvious problem.)


Bearing in mind that most prison doctors seem to be the ones with the worst bedside manner and least qualifications, it's highly surprising that one was to get his way over 4 proper doctors.

[Blank Slate]

I'm not sure I follow you, who are you suggesting would be bribed and why is it more likely under there circumstances?

In this instance, the prison doctor. Or, didn't someone say a politician was involved in the release? Who takes more graft than politicians?

The stunning part is that a convicted terrorist was released. Even a dying terrorist could get up to all kinds of bad deeds on the outside. If a 75 year old bank robber with pancreatic cancer was released, well, that doesn't sound like a dangerous deal.
It's hard to believe Megrahi has been out for just about a year now.

[Blank Slate]

Bearing in mind that most prison doctors seem to be the ones with the worst bedside manner and least qualifications, it's highly surprising that one was to get his way over 4 proper doctors.

Well, considering he's lived a bit longer than eight weeks, someone screwed up. Maybe his prostate cancer was treatable.

Bear in mind that I remember Lockerbie in 1989 and this is the first time since then I've read anything about it. A lot of catching up and sorting out.

[Baron Greenback]

It was claimed the Maltese shopkeeper was given $2 million to testify. Has anyone heard that and is there any substance? His testimony seems awfully shaky and malleable, yet it's supposed to be the most damning piece against Megrahi.


That came up in material prepared by Megrahi's defence team for his second appeal, based on information gathered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (the body who granted leave for his second appeal). The SCCRC prepared an 800 report, drawing on evidence that wasn't disclosed during the original trial, or the subsequent first appeal. Most of the UK newspapers picked up on this last year (even the serious and sober ones). Unfortunately the SCCRC report hasn't been put in the public domain, although it seems several journos as well as the defence team have seen it.

Here's the first few articles I found on a quick google. There's loads more.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208432/A-2m-witness-payment-bogus-forensic-evidence-Pentagon-memo-blaming-Iran-How-Lockerbie-bomber-threatened-Scottish-justice.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/lockerbie-bomber-issues-more-evidence-of-innocence-1796715.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/27/lockerbie-bombing-appeal-trial-libyan

Now, there's nothing concrete here, after all it's only newspapers, but there's certainly enough to be sure that the second appeal would have been very awkward indeed for the Scottish judiciary and the UK and US governments. It also, I hope, demonstrates that doubts about Megrahi's guilt aren't confined to a lunatic fringe.

Here's (http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/library/lockerbie/index.asp) a link to a download of the original trial verdict. I read this on the day it was released and thought that the evidence identifying Megrahi as the purchaser of a particular shirt from Mr Gauci was remarkably thin. It's worth a read, it's also very readable.

PM me an email address and I'll send you a PDF of the collected articles by Paul Foot in Private Eye (British satirical/investigative magazine) about the whole affair. The parts about Mr Gauci are very interesting.

To my non-legal mind it certainly looks like the judges played fast and loose with that whole "reasonable doubt" thing. I don't suppose we'll ever really know now though.

[Asympotically fat]

Oh please, all these conspiracy theories show a total lack of actual knowledge of the situation.

The truth is al-Megrahi would not have been released if it wasn't for a widening public perception (In the UK) at the time that his conviction had been flawed.

Withtou this public perception there could've been no release.

[Gary Kumquat]

Again, what would have been the reaction in Britain if the U.S. had released a convicted terrorist found responsible for murders of many British citizens, and there was evidence of a giant U.S. oil company benefiting?

Multinational oil company lobbies government to do something morally dodgy for their profit? If you think this is unusual, you really haven't been paying attention for the last 40 years.

I dare say there'd be outrage in the UK, so I would. And I dare say a number of people in the US would be outraged too. But I also dare say that should British politicians then start demanding US senators come to the UK to explain themselves, you'd tell us to go ram it.

You know, just to go back to the subject of the thread. If that's OK with you?

[Tom Scud]

Were any American politicians ever summoned to the UK for inquiries into their activities giving aid & comfort to the IRA?

[Blank Slate]

While I'd agree that the Senate hearings are completely pointless, were there really actual "demands" made that Scottish officials participate? Or was it just a request?

[Jackmannii]

Again, what would have been the reaction in Britain if the U.S. had released a convicted terrorist found responsible for murders of many British citizens, and there was evidence of a giant U.S. oil company benefiting?

Multinational oil company lobbies government to do something morally dodgy for their profit? If you think this is unusual, you really haven't been paying attention for the last 40 years.Unusual, no. Degree of loathsomeness and getting caught at it, noteworthy.I dare say there'd be outrage in the UK, so I would. And I dare say a number of people in the US would be outraged too. But I also dare say that should British politicians then start demanding US senators come to the UK to explain themselves, you'd tell us to go ram it.

You know, just to go back to the subject of the thread. If that's OK with you?I already addressed this and basically agree with you.

What should not be lost sight of is (as the linked editorial notes) at the very least a screwed-up mess for which the British justice system is heavily responsible, and at worst an example of greedy double-dealing and governmental chicanery, the shame of which should easily eclipse any outrage over high-handed political preening by a few U.S senators.

[Asympotically fat]

Oh stop your whingeing. The guy got released first and foremost because of the general feeling that he had been a vicitim of a miscarriage of justice.

Almost a whole year later after his release it gets raked up again by a few foaming at the mouth Republicans as a stick to beat BP with, even thoguh there's actually no evidence of any connection.

I'm actually sick of psoting about it when it's such a transparent attempt to blindly lash out after the USA has been the victim of pollution from a company formerly named after a foreign country.

[Baron Greenback]

What should not be lost sight of is (as the linked editorial notes) at the very least a screwed-up mess for which the British justice system is heavily responsible, and at worst an example of greedy double-dealing and governmental chicanery, the shame of which should easily eclipse any outrage over high-handed political preening by a few U.S senators.

"British" justice system. When come back bring at least a basic understanding.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I don't now how accurate the wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103_bombing_trial) entry is, but it doesn't sound like a very convincing case. Really, the defendant should have been the Libyan government. I doubt these guys were operating in a vacuum.
If you mean the defendant in a criminal trial, it would have been rather difficult to imprison the entire Libyan government.

If you're talking about a civil action, the Libyan government paid $2.7 billion in compensation to the families of the victims (eventually).
What should not be lost sight of is (as the linked editorial notes) at the very least a screwed-up mess for which the British justice system is heavily responsible, and at worst an example of greedy double-dealing and governmental chicanery, the shame of which should easily eclipse any outrage over high-handed political preening by a few U.S senators.
I assume you're equally outraged that dozens of British citizens rotted in Guantanamo for years while John Walker Lindh got a speedy civilian trial?

[Blank Slate]

In other words, since the Libyan government made the payout, their culpability is all but assured. So al-Megrahi's guilt really isn't all that important, if he's guilty at all. Any more than any agent acting under a government umbrella, like a CIA agent.

But what's with the anger towards the American government? Gee, sorry a bunch of our citizens were killed in a terrorist attack, along with 11 Scots. Excuse the hell out of us for being a little upset about that.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Well, not really. The payout was essentially a bribe to get economic sanctions lifted, and the Libyans government refused to accept guilt, although they did admit to "some" wrongdoing on the part of Libyan operatives.

The anger toward the American government is because Menendez and others are grandstanding. They're feigning outrage over the refusal of the officials of a sovereign nation to testify before the US Senate, despite the fact that they have every right to refuse to appear - and indeed, every right to ignore the requests completely. What do you think Americans would be saying about the British government if members of the Conservative Party expressed outrage because Condoleeza Rice refused to testify before the British Parliament?

[Baron Greenback]

In other words, since the Libyan government made the payout, their culpability is all but assured.

That compensation payout in no way greased the palms that allowed the UN to lift sanctions against Libya, to change the US veto vote. In 2003. Realpolitik is a bitch.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/apr/29/lockerbie.world


But what's with the anger towards the American government? Gee, sorry a bunch of our citizens were killed in a terrorist attack, along with 11 Scots. Excuse the hell out of us for being a little upset about that.

There were 43 UK citizens killed in total, 11 on the ground. I really do like your phrasing though "Gee, sorry a bunch of our citizens were killed in a terrorist attack, along with 11 Scots." Nice.

Hey, does anybody remember what happened at Bhopal? That was a model of corporate responsibility over a subsidiary and it's sub-contractors. Not to mention the timely payouts and the prosecution of Union Carbide executives in the jurisdiction where all the damage was done. Oh. Perhaps the victims were just not American enough.

And hello to the officers and crew of the USS Vincennes, who managed to use their state-of-the-art combat system to shoot down a civilian airliner with 290 people aboard. The officers in charge were of course court-martialed, and discharged in disgrace. Oh. They were awarded medals. Perhaps the victims were just not American enough.

[Blank Slate]

blah blah fucking blah

You've got some ax to grind, and I don't even know what the fuck you are on about or whether I agree or disagree.

I'm so very sorry about my "phrasing" and that I can't count the dead to your satisfaction.

Instead of ranting mindlessly, you might want to choose a language in earth speak so the rest of can grab a clue what you are so bent out shape about.

[Baron Greenback]

blah blah fucking blah

You've got some ax to grind, and I don't even know what the fuck you are on about or whether I agree or disagree.

I'm so very sorry about my "phrasing" and that I can't count the dead to your satisfaction.

Instead of ranting mindlessly, you might want to choose a language in earth speak so the rest of can grab a clue what you are so bent out shape about.

As you've already admitted in this thread, you have only started to learn something about the topic:

Bear in mind that I remember Lockerbie in 1989 and this is the first time since then I've read anything about it. A lot of catching up and sorting out.

Forgive me if I choose to respond to your self-admitted ignorance with the equivalent of your "derp derp hurf hurf USA USA" style response. I'm only human. No offence, like.

[Gary Kumquat]

What should not be lost sight of is (as the linked editorial notes) at the very least a screwed-up mess for which the British justice system is heavily responsible, and at worst an example of greedy double-dealing and governmental chicanery, the shame of which should easily eclipse any outrage over high-handed political preening by a few U.S senators.

Oh, I think we can all agree there's been huge amounts of political chicanery here. Dreadful behaviour indeed, I dare say.

The problem is that you feel this was in releasing the guy. The only issue I have with his release was that it meant he had to drop his appeal. I was really looking forward to that appeal. I was really, really looking forward to seeing both the US and UK governments squirm like bastards when a proper legal investigation was made into the affair. It would have been brilliant entertainment.

I would suggest you do a decent read through of some of the very good analysis of this case (the Paul Foot report mentioned is very, very good) to try to understand why I feel your accusation of "double-dealing and governmental chicanery" is misplaced by 20 years. Basically, Al Megrahi was decided to be guilty when it suited western interests to avoid blaming Iran, and then released when a government change in Scotland meant he might get a fair appeal that would bring the whole sorry mess into global public view.

[Gary Kumquat]

In other words, since the Libyan government made the payout, their culpability is all but assured. So al-Megrahi's guilt really isn't all that important, if he's guilty at all. Any more than any agent acting under a government umbrella, like a CIA agent.

Would it really be too much to ask you to at least read a modicum of background material on this case before giving into a kneejerk response?

Try this one: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n18/gareth-peirce/the-framing-of-al-megrahi

[Kobal2]

Britain has not fulfilled its obligations to America

Which ones are those, pray tell ?

[Boyo Jim]

Scotland has a government?

[The Stafford Cripps]

Scotland has a government?

:confused: Surely you've had enough time to check Wikipedia etc in the 2 weeks or so since the media started talking about the 'Scottish Justice Minister' and the "Scottish First Minister'?

[Steophan]

Scotland has a government?
Not according to most posters in this thread...
Scotland has it's own parliament and criminal justice system. The parliament has limited powers, with the UK government having the rest, but as far as I know the criminal justice system is separate.

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

And hello to the officers and crew of the USS Vincennes, who managed to use their state-of-the-art combat system to shoot down a civilian airliner with 290 people aboard. The officers in charge were of course court-martialed, and discharged in disgrace. Oh. They were awarded medals. Perhaps the victims were just not American enough.


This is pretty relevant in this thread, seeing as all logical explanations paint the Iranians as the real originators of the bomb that brought down the Lockerbie flight. They had a motive: the US had shot down one of their civilian planes then spat in their eye awarding medals to the men responsible, with the bomb design being consistent with bombs that the Iranians were using at that time.

[The Stafford Cripps]

Scotland has a government?
Scotland has it's own parliament and criminal justice system. The parliament has limited powers, with the UK government having the rest, but as far as I know the criminal justice system is separate.
Yes, the criminal justice system has been completely separate, ever since the union in 1707. Until devolution in 2000 the minister responsible for it would however have been part of the Westminster government (and new statutory crimes were passed in London, but generally applying only to Scotland). Since then justice has been an entirely Scottish concern (as long as it operates within the European Convention on Human Rights and related things). This is one of the reasons why Jack Straw would not attend hearings in the USA - he had no power to alter the decision, in law or in reality.

[Rune]

Britain has not fulfilled its obligations to America

Which ones are those, pray tell ?To ensure that criminals guilty of crimes against US citizens are punished in a manner fitting the crimes committed, the same way that the USA has obligation to Scotland if a true Scotsman is murdered in New York, to ensure the murder gets an appropriate sentence. Eight years, a hero’s welcome in Tripoli and a fat oil contract to BP, does not fulfill those obligations. You failed.

And whatever happened to “six months” and “very limited”? Is that a particular Scottish slang for “10 years or more”?

[jjimm]

Almost a whole year later after his release it gets raked up again by a few foaming at the mouth Republicans as a stick to beat BP with, even thoguh there's actually no evidence of any connection.Senator Menendez is a Democrat.

[jjimm]

the same way that the USA has obligation to Scotland if a true Scotsman is murdered in New YorkNo true Scotsman gets murdered in New York.

[Gary Kumquat]

Britain has not fulfilled its obligations to America

Which ones are those, pray tell ?To ensure that criminals guilty of crimes against US citizens are punished in a manner fitting the crimes committed, the same way that the USA has obligation to Scotland if a true Scotsman is murdered in New York, to ensure the murder gets an appropriate sentence. Eight years, a hero’s welcome in Tripoli and a fat oil contract to BP, does not fulfill those obligations. You failed.

And whatever happened to “six months” and “very limited”? Is that a particular Scottish slang for “10 years or more”?

I really liked the whole "true Scotsman" thing. Just remember, New Yorkers - if Sean Connery gets stabbed in the bronx, you boys are beholding to us. If it's Rod Stewart though, meh.

Anyway, once more for the hard of thinking. Megrahi was lawfully released by the Scottish Justice minister. If you feel that was some breach of obligation to relatives of the deceased, I'm sorry, but tough shit. If you really want to start looking at conspiracy theories about perversion of justice in this case, how about we look at the entire fucking case, starting with the trial. I'd have a fuck of a lot more sympathy for those who feel his release is a terrible thing, if it wasn't as blatant a stitch up job by the UK and US government from the start.

I really like the way that BP has now become the villain du jour for the US. I feel it's only a matter of time before someone points out they supplied the aviation fuel for the planes that hit the WTC, and links them to Osama. Don't get me wrong - they're a bunch of bastards, and really should be hung out to dry for various misdeeds over the years...but that could equally be applied to Shell, ConocoPhillips, and a whole pile of service companies too. For years people have ignored the various dodgy deals that oil companies have been doing with some really, really disagreeable regimes. It's almost funny how of all things they're finally being hounded for, it's probably one of the most reasonable deals they've done in years. What is it about people's need for one dimensional panto villains?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Almost a whole year later after his release it gets raked up again by a few foaming at the mouth Republicans as a stick to beat BP with, even thoguh there's actually no evidence of any connection.

Actually, it was brought up again by Democrats. Republicans have been falling all over themselves to caress BP's balls.

[Blank Slate]

Scotland is part of England. Like a county.

[Wallenstein]

Scotland is part of England. Like a county.

Is this a whoosh, or are you just being really, really stupid ?? :confused:

Cf. "Texas is part of Oregon. Like a country"

Same meaning, equally dumb.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Scotland is part of England. Like a county.
America and India, too. Sun never sets on the British Empire.

[Steophan]

Scotland is part of England. Like a county. America and India, too. Sun never sets on the British Empire.
I'm sure most people know this anyway, but to clarify for the hard of thinking: England is not synonymous with either Britain or the UK. England and Scotland are, and always have been separate countries.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Separate nations, yes. Separate countries, arguable, especially prior to devolution.

[jjimm]

Scotland is part of England. Like a county.Hilarious.

You may now leave the discussion, as there is nothing you can say that will be taken seriously from this point on.

[Steophan]

Separate nations, yes. Separate countries, arguable, especially prior to devolution.
Actually, I was wrong and going by a strict definition they're not separate countries at all. They are separate nations, which is what I meant.

[Kobal2]

To ensure that criminals guilty of crimes against US citizens are punished in a manner fitting the crimes committed, the same way that the USA has obligation to Scotland if a true Scotsman is murdered in New York, to ensure the murder gets an appropriate sentence. Eight years, a hero’s welcome in Tripoli and a fat oil contract to BP, does not fulfill those obligations.

Ah, I see. So, courtesy between sovereign nations, you think are obligations. That's good to know.

You failed.Hey, don't look at me, I'm French. You probably have thousands of reasons to despise the place, but this one ain't.

[Baron Greenback]

Separate nations, yes. Separate countries, arguable, especially prior to devolution.
Actually, I was wrong and going by a strict definition they're not separate countries at all. They are separate nations, which is what I meant.

If you want to take pedantry to hilarious new levels, they are separate kingdoms.

[Baron Greenback]

Scotland is part of England. Like a county.

Tabula rasa. You basically have the most appropriate username ever. Although aren't you a bit old to still be one. Better get on with that experience and perception thing, laddie!

[Blank Slate]

Tee hee.

[Baron Greenback]

Tee hee.

C'mon man. For a pit thread this is pretty informative, loads of folk are trying to explain stuff and offering info. If you're just yanking chains, then well done I guess.

[Steophan]

If you want to take pedantry to hilarious new levels...
I thought that was a given with this board?

[Blank Slate]

C'mon man. For a pit thread this is pretty informative, loads of folk are trying to explain stuff and offering info. If you're just yanking chains, then well done I guess.

I never expected anyone would take that seriously.

I'm just frustrated that the bulk of outrage expressed in this thread is over the feelings of some butthurt Scottish officials. If the situation were reversed, I wouldn't fault the Scots wanting to know why the U.S. released a bomber responsible for the deaths of 190 of their countrymen.
Further, the U.S. requested that al-Megrahi, if released, not be sent back to Libya over fears that he would be received as a hero. Of course, the Scots had every right to do what they did, but that doesn't mean it don't smell to the high heavens.

[Baron Greenback]

I never expected anyone would take that seriously.

It's hard to tell. Viewpoints need to be taken in context, and the source has to be considered, and well...


I'm just frustrated that the bulk of outrage expressed in this thread is over the feelings of some butthurt Scottish officials.


No, it isn't. Seriously. Read the thread again. I can only speak for myself, but I think that the original trial may possibly be a great travesty of justice, reducing my country's legal system to nothing more than a tool to be manipulated. I'm not cool with this. Even more importantly, way more importantly than parochial pride, there's the likelihood that the fuckers who planned and paid for all those people to be killed have fucking got away with it. Understand?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Further, the U.S. requested that al-Megrahi, if released, not be sent back to Libya over fears that he would be received as a hero. Of course, the Scots had every right to do what they did, but that doesn't mean it don't smell to the high heavens.
In what possible way is his reception in Libya relevant? People convicted (or accused) of crimes in faraway lands are often feted upon their return home. Remember Louise Woodward? Hell, how about Gary Faulkner?