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.
Anyway, he’s just playing to his constituency, so it’s really no big deal IMO.
: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.
This Scottish official made a statement regarding al-Megrahi’s release, and it’s really insulting to me that he’s not taking this more seriously.
They are? 
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.
Oh. A little ignorance fought in the Pit today, then. 
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.
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 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.
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.
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”) 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.
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.
Could you be more specific? :dubious:
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.
Public playing of bagpipes, in contravention of the War Crimes Act of 1996.
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.
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.
If only karma heads could prevail.
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.