If anyone’s interested I can send via email a PDF of the Private Eye special report on Lockerbie by the late great Paul Foot. Its about 2MB and very interesting. PM me.
The judgements from the trial and first appeal are available here:
I was thinking of the recreation angle.
What difference would it make? Over there they have that evil socialist medicine shit, and since he isn’t a productive member of society, a death panel would just kill him anyway.
Do I have to do the thinking for everyone?
It’s realpolitik, the whole idea is things aren’t as they seem.
This was a simple example for starters, now try healthcare or Iraq.
For some, it seems pretty clear the origins lay with Flight 655 and the USS Vincennes. The timeline is right, the target is right, the holiday is right. But a lot of people don’t like that idea.
A reminder of Flight 655.
I’m of tow minds here. I think He’s definitely guilty and has no call being released. However, it’s also clear that the Big Boss sold out his pet killer in exchange for the matter not being his problem any more.
Why?
On what grounds? Did he really plant the bomb in Malta? Was the bomb so well hidden that it remained undetected during the Heathrow stopover - and so well timed that it exploded perfectly on the US leg? Does the evidence (undeclared at trial) of a massive perimeter breach at Heathrow on the night of the stopover not trigger your Occam’s Razor sense?
Could somebody kindly give a quick rehash of the reasons to doubt the rightfulness of the conviction for us who haven’t followed this case, or preferably point me towards a good source to read further? I was a kid when it happened, and little concerned with the outside world :).
I might stupidly enough have gotten myself into a discussion about this in a rather hostile forum - where the rhetoric goes mostly like “outrage outrage, blah blah, all because of oil, they should have let the fucker rot in prison” - by claiming that there are doubts expressed of the trial’s validity. I could really use some information to beef up my understanding.
The link in post #6 covers the ground.
Come on, didn’t ya read? It’s their “christian duty” to release him. :rolleyes:
What in the link indicates that he wasn’t responsible other than the usual “CIA=bad” theory?
Perhaps you can refresh my memory… I’m having trouble recalling any high-profile criminal trial which the CIA is accused of subverting.
They are generally accused of sneaking around, subverting folks and being tacky. Snide remarks aside, what about the link supports his innocence? I’m as ready to be outraged by false accusation and conviction as the next guy. 
Not much, really. The link doesn’t cover it well, but some of the factors which have led people to believe he’s innocent are: the Maltese shopkeeper who allegedly sold him the shirt found in the bomb-containing briefcase was interviewed several times by several investigative agencies and his testimony was all over the place; some of the scientific analysis of the crash data and debris was performed by investigators who were mysteriously unavailable for cross-examination; the defence lawyers were not allowed access to various pieces of evidence which were nonetheless used at the trial; and the evidence initially pointed to a Syrian bomb plot, not a Libyan one.
PM Struan for the Private Eye report. It probably explains it much better than I do (not having paid that much attention, myself).
As much as he recognized him in some versions but did not in others, or he gave different descriptions of the color of his shirt?
Initially pointing to a Syrian rather than a Libyan plot-that’s why they keep investigating. Perhaps they were initially mistaken. Ghadaffi (sp) paid of the relatives, did he not?
I think he did plant it. I’m not convinced that anyone was looking. As to the timing mechanism, well that’s not hard. At the least, he was involved. Now, he shouldn’t have been convicted alone. This was probably backed by Quaddafi and who knows how many people.
You’re right, from the link, “On Wednesday Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in televised remarks that she opposed the release. She added that she took “this very personally” because she knows the families of some of the victims, a group of students from Syracuse University in New York who died in the bombing.”
Oh wait, she’s not right wing.
…and oh wait, I didn’t say she was, or accuse her of talking nonsense.
Try not to be a tedious, straw-manning cock, there’s a dear.
Are you really that fucking stupid? You make an asinine comment about how "the right wing in the US will throw all manner of nonsense about on this one. " while ignoring the fact that so far the only one “throwing all manner of nonsense” is someone who belongs to the left wing. That is what my previous post was illustrating.
I personally don’t give a flying fuck which wing says what to who about what, but your post makes you look like a hypocrite for calling out the right wing for something none of them did yet while ignoring something already said by a member of the right wing.
If you really thought my previous post was me saying you called her a member of the right wing or that you said she was talking nonsense then you really need to work on your reading comprehension.