The accusation is that this is connected to the release of the Lockerbie terrorist Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi. This is vehemently denied by the UK government, the Scottish government, BP, Libya and my dog.
The evidence against al-Megrahi is apparently dubious but leaving that aside I was wondering whether the decision to release him could be viewed as the correct one anyway even if it was done to secure oil rights given the huge potential benefits to be had by gaining access to another oil source.
al-Magrahi is just one guy. Maybe, in the great scheme of things, the release of one guy placed against access to a huge oil resource can be seen as no big deal? The oil will benefit millions of people in the west whereas the release of one terrorist really only offends our sense of justice. Our sense of justice is important but there’s no real actual concrete benefit to be had from it, unlike with a huge reservoir of oil which does have real actual concrete benefits.
I don’t think you can leave aside the fact that he was convicted under dubious circumstances, to be honest. He was appealing, his appeal was likely to be granted, and the role of various security services were going to be heard in open court (a proper court, this time, too). Convenient that he had to drop his appeal to be released on compassionate grounds after an unprecedented visit from the Scottish Justice Secretary.
I’d say hold on, the evidence that there is any connection between the release of al-Megrahi and BP being given the right to drill, is aside from the accusation, non-existent.
It was always seen at the time that the fact that his conviction was seen as unsafe was a huge factor in his release. If his conviction had been seen as safe there was no way he would’ve been released.
Of course the release of al-Megrahi and the oil rights are part of the same deal.
Loving the moral high ground of the US Senators on this issue given the USA’s record on international bribery, corruption and bogus invasions resulting in the deaths, over several decades, of millions of civilians.
It’s almost as amusing as complaining to China about human rights violations.
The crew of the USS Vincennes must be chuckling to themselves as they shine their combat medals.
Within the context of a US Navy carrier group off the coast of a nation deemed hostile, pointing guns and inviting attack, sure.
I’m sure there are many reasons why such an accident hasn’t happened again - at least as far as civilian airliners are concerned, maybe the fact of Pan Am 103 six months later has even contributed to the extra vigilance. It was sure as hell tit-for-tat though. IMO.
The crew of the USS Vincennes are still shining their medals.
The best laugh for me is seeing the US have to face up to the mirror image of its own system of Federal vs State governements.
In the capital punishment debate the Federal Government often takes a stand different to the State about , for instance, whether the state should have informed the foreign embassy before a trial. The Federal Government shrugs its shoulders and says that it is a States Rights issue.
The same is now occurring with Scotland and the UK (except that the Scottish Judiciary is constitutionally separate from the UK one.
In this case it looks like a deal was planned by the UK (the agreement in the desert) but was not enforcable on Scotland!
Scotland then applied its own laws on prisoner release- over which the UK government has no control.
And if the Libyans thought that Pan Am 103 was a fighter jet, I’d be more forgiving. But there’s a world of difference between accidentally, even carelessly, shooting down a passenger plane after mistaking it for a hostile fighter, and deliberately blowing up a passenger plane that you know is a passenger plane.
So please don’t try the false equivalence. Not to mention the fact that this had nothing to do with the Vincennes shooting.
It wasn’t revenge for the Vincennes thing. Libya didn’t give a damn about the shooting down of an Iranian plane. If it was revenge for anything it was for the ship sinkings in the Gulf of Sidra and Operation El Dorado Canyon.
Right. So you’re making a comparison between the American political class “giving out medals” to the crew of the Vincennes for shooting down the Iranian airline, while condemning the Libyan guy who participated in bombing the Pan Am flight. That means you’re making an equivalency between the Vincennes incident and Lockerbie.
The OP seems to be about the moral justifiability of releasing a prisoner against the course of justice in exchange for significant other benefits to society. So I’m ignoring any doubts around al-Megrahi’s conviction or the connection between his release and BP’s new Libyan drilling operaions for the purpose.
There are clear arguments in favour of al-Megrahi’s release being justifiable for this purpose - the direct economic benefit is obvious, and you could perhaps argue that the more intangible societal or even emotional benefits due to the taxes on this operation could outweigh the hurt that was caused to the families of those who died in the Lockerbie crash, and those who share their pain.
My issue is with the slippery slope. This is not a single corrupt policeman or judge taking a bribe. This (under the assumptions above) is an arrangement implicitly sanctioned (or maybe worse, out of the control of) a democratic government as a whole. A small sacrifice in the integrity of the rule of law is the first step towards every crime having its price, rather than its punishment, and I don’t have confidence in any government to then not be tempted further, and more easily.
That risk is something I don’t know how to put a cost on. And if someone else did, I wouldn’t know how to trust them.
Well, that’s fine. You’re not required to care what I think. I often times don’t care what I think. But do you understand what I’m saying, even if you don’t care about it?
Because the way I read it, you’re making a tu quoque argument accusing the US of “international bribery, corruption and bogus invasions resulting in the deaths, over several decades, of millions of civilians.” including the approval by the US government of the acts of the Vincennes, and somehow saying that justifies al-Megrahi’s release in exchange for the oil deal.