Releasing Al Megrahi.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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?

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

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?

Unusual, no. Degree of loathsomeness and getting caught at it, noteworthy.

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.

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.

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

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).

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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

Which ones are those, pray tell ?