Release Lockerbie bomber Abdelbasset Ali al-Megrahi or not?

[weltweit]

It is also interesting that so stung are Milliband and Brown by the accusations of Oil deals that they are releasing documents to the public (online) to try to show that there was no oil deal.

This release of correspondence seems a pretty rare event, I certainly cannot think of another time it has taken place. Normally politicians are a pretty secretive lot.

 

[newme]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/polit...s/brown-bids-for-terrorist-vote-200909022024/

 

[agricola]

It is also interesting that so stung are Milliband and Brown by the accusations of Oil deals that they are releasing documents to the public (online) to try to show that there was no oil deal.

This release of correspondence seems a pretty rare event, I certainly cannot think of another time it has taken place. Normally politicians are a pretty secretive lot.

Indeed, which does tend to reinforce the theory that the oil-deals story were nothing more than a smokescreen to distract the press from what is more likely to be the truth - namely that they (and by they I mean the UK, and almost certainly the US governments) let Megrahi go to stave off the spectre of his forthcoming appeal.

 

[lewislewis]

If we're going on track record then neither country has moral authority over the other. Britain has much worse anti-terrorism laws than the USA, and while we've nothing on the scale of Guantanamo, we're no stranger to long-term detention without charge. (Detention without trial is an accepted norm, and every justice system I'm aware of has it.) Allegations of complicity with torture have recently been made, and our "security services" certainly engaged in it in Ireland. Ditto complicity in "extraordinary rendition". And of course we're as complicit as the USA in the Iraq war.

Given that little lot, we're in no position to take the moral high ground over America!

Has the current Scottish Government detained anyone long-term without charge lately?

They certainly haven't supported the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq, so perhaps they do have the moral high ground (Scotland, not the UK). I seem to recall the Scottish Government also criticising extraordinary rendition and particularly the covert use of Scottish airports for that purpose. Also, when Scotland did suffer a terrorist attack under the current administration their response was noble, there was no talk of revenge but instead Salmond went out of his way to make sure they didn't give off any messages that would divide Scotland's communities.

 

[DexterTCN]

Reasons to release him.

• Justice
• Compassion
• To Help Bring Peace to the Middle East
• To Show Less Advanced Peoples And Governments How To Behave in Public
• He Wasn't Guilty
• Trade
• Because We Can
• Closure?

And so on.

Is it just me or is the BBC giving an awful lot of air-time to angry Americans just now? Going on about how they would have killed him and bombed his country and their sadly-oh-so-predictable-teenage-fury.

How quickly they forget their own little faux-pas over the last decade...none of which erred on the side of 'justice' or 'compassion'.

Labour have fucked themselves....the documents released showing they agreed with it and wanted it while their Scottish party votes against it. However Labour have been fucking themselves a lot lately, no big thing there....but it will probably have a longer effect in Scotland. I hope so because, frankly, they're just 1990s Tories now, too long in power.

Disillusioned Scots will lean more towards the SNP now, especially many who had doubts over the whole case from bombing to trial to release. Not for separation from the UK but for a voice for those sick of this constant war, rhetoric and neo-cold-war shite.

I know this isn't well thought out, I've not read the whole thread nor even looked at it for a little while, it'll blow over soon enough, probably.

 

[weltweit]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8232734.stm

SNP defeated over bomber release

The Scottish Government has suffered a defeat in parliament over its handling of the Lockerbie case.

Opposition parties united in a vote to condemn the decision to free terminally-ill Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds.

...

Annabel Goldie, leader of the Scottish Conservatives said: "Tonight's vote is a clear message to Alex Salmond that the SNP Government's decision to release Mr Megrahi back to Libya is not in the Parliament's name, nor is it in Scotland's name. Mr Salmond's boast that he stands up for Scotland is in tatters."

 

[gosub]

From the same article Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray said after the vote: "The Scottish Parliament has made clear its opposition to both the decision to release Megrahi to Libya and the woeful handling of the decision and announcement."

 

[weltweit]

From the same article Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray said after the vote: "The Scottish Parliament has made clear its opposition to both the decision to release Megrahi to Libya and the woeful handling of the decision and announcement."

Which is interesting in itself,

Personally I thought MacAskill handled the decision fine and his announcement, or rather his speech replayed live on Radio 4 was clear concise and rather well spoken, if a touch long.

 

[Azrael]

[The current Scottish Government] certainly haven't supported the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq, so perhaps they do have the moral high ground (Scotland, not the UK).

For the time being Scotland is part of the United Kingdom, and until recently the Scottish government was a coalition between the Lib Dems and the party that launched the Iraq war. Scottish soldiers served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Until Scotland is an independent nation it can't wash its hands of it all.

 

[rioted]

For the time being Scotland is part of the United Kingdom,..

And we're all citizens so we're all responsible? Fuck off.

 

[Azrael]

"Annabel Goldie, leader of the Scottish Conservatives said: 'Tonight's vote is a clear message to Alex Salmond that the SNP Government's decision to release Mr Megrahi back to Libya is not in the Parliament's name, nor is it in Scotland's name. Mr Salmond's boast that he stands up for Scotland is in tatters.' "

To her credit, Ms Goldie suggested an alternative to leaving Mrgrahi languishing in a Scottish gaol. She suggested he be held in a Scottish hospital under guard.

It's more humane but it's also pointless. There's no retributive purpose being served, and it's needlessly cruel in separating Megrahi from any family and friends he has back home in Libya. It's just face saving. Ms Goldie admits this: "48 police officers would have been a small price to pay to protect our country’s reputation." [1]

Hard as it is to say, I'm fast coming to the conclusion that Megrahi's compromise-ridden trial and imprisonment didn't serve the needs of justice. Whatever the system, sometimes it has to let suspects go.

 

[Azrael]

And we're all citizens so we're all responsible? Fuck off.

No, any more than Americans are automatically responsible for what Washington gets up to. My point is simply that neither country has moral authority over the other.

 

[lewislewis]

For the time being Scotland is part of the United Kingdom, and until recently the Scottish government was a coalition between the Lib Dems and the party that launched the Iraq war. Scottish soldiers served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Until Scotland is an independent nation it can't wash its hands of it all.

'Until recently'. There was a change of government in Scotland over 2 years ago in case you didn't notice.

 

[lewislewis]

This is an interesting take on it, from a source that has its head screwed on alot more securely than the BBC:

http://waleshome.org/2009/09/devolution-can-win/

 

[Azrael]

'Until recently'. There was a change of government in Scotland over 2 years ago in case you didn't notice.

I consider two years ago to be fairly recent. Even if you don't, Scotland's position in the United Kingdom remains a fact, however unwelcome some may find it.

 

[newharper]

Interestingly,

Libyan Islamist fighters who once tried to assassinate Muammar Gadaffi are about to publicly spurn violence in a move that is intended to weaken al-Qaida by undermining the religious rationale for waging jihad against Muslim regimes and killing innocent civilians.

Behind bars in Tripoli's Abusalim prison the top leaders of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group have written a 420-page book which Arab and western governments hope will strike a new blow in the ideological war against Osama bin Laden.

The move is doubly significant because Libyans have long played a key role in al-Qaida. The brother of one key bin Laden aide and Islamic scholar, Abu Yahya al-Libi, is one of the authors of the LIFG recantation document, entitled Corrective Studies in Understanding Jihad.

It is to be published in Arabic later this month after leading Muslim clerics, including Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, approved the text.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/04/libyan-islamist-fighters-reject-violence

 

[agricola]

Today's Libyan spat is over Brown and HMG not supporting the victims of IRA terrorism in their attempts to get compensation from Libya (who supplied training, some arms and semtex), because of trade.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8240689.stm

It is a bit mad, after all (unlike Lockerbie) noone is alleging that Libya or Libyan agents carried out any of the attacks (of course the IRA did)... the BBC for example wheeled out a survivor of the Docklands bomb to criticize the Government for not getting the compo, despite that bomb being an ANFO bomb (ie: not of Libyan manufacture).

Nor has anyone made the seemingly obvious connection that, if Libya is at fault for supplying the explosives and arms that the IRA used in its attacks, then surely the country that probably funded the purchase of those explosives (as well as directly and indirectly supplying tonnes of explosives and thousands of firearms in its own right) is at least as equally liable, though of course they have now stated they find terrorism less fashionable.

 

[Azrael]

The other obvious point is that the British government is liable for releasing hundreds of convicted murderers and terrorists as part of a grubby deal with the terrorist organisations. (The elephant in the room when it comes to Labour's laughable claim to be "tough" on terrorism, ignored because all major parties were complicit in it.) They're in no position to go condemning Libya for consorting with this sort.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Nor has anyone made the seemingly obvious connection that, if Libya is at fault for supplying the explosives and arms that the IRA used in its attacks, then surely the country that probably funded the purchase of those explosives (as well as directly and indirectly supplying tonnes of explosives and thousands of firearms in its own right) is at least as equally liable, though of course they have now stated they find terrorism less fashionable.

They are really taking the piss with this, look at all the dodgy regimes the uk supplies weapons to, Gaddafi should tell him where to shove it.

 

[chazegee]

This has been unravelling for some time.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n12/mile01_.html

Written by my friend Hugh a couple of years back.

 

[Azrael]

That article makes a lot of Megrahi being tried without a jury. Has he ever demanded one, and moreover, was there anything stopping him from traveling to Scotland, where jury trial is automatic, and surrendering himself?

 

[agricola]

That article makes a lot of Megrahi being tried without a jury. Has he ever demanded one, and moreover, was there anything stopping him from traveling to Scotland, where jury trial is automatic, and surrendering himself?

Why should he have? I wouldnt travel to Libya if they indicted me.

 

[spring-peeper]

I read today that he isn't doing well - they were saying maybe days left to live.

 

[weltweit]

I read today that he isn't doing well - they were saying maybe days left to live.

That does not surprise me, I thought he looked at deaths door when he was getting off the plane in Tripoli.

So, when he dies, will we ever know the truth about the bombing?

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

no.

 

[Corax]

Shit poll. No option for releasing him cos the conviction was unsafe in the first place.

 

[spring-peeper]

That does not surprise me, I thought he looked at deaths door when he was getting off the plane in Tripoli.

So, when he dies, will we ever know the truth about the bombing?

Even if he lives, we will never know the truth.



But, imo, this isn't about getting to the truth. It's about letting a sick man die with his family.

 

[Azrael]

Why should he have? I wouldnt travel to Libya if they indicted me.

Leaving aside the obvious fairness gap between Libyan and Scots law, if Megrahi wanted to try and avoid trial, fine. But a possible consequence was forgoing his right to trial by jury. Still not sure the man even wanted one: not all cultures share the value we place in juries.

Like I said above, I'm not sure the messy compromise trial was just. But if Megrahi was free to travel, certain parts of his fate were in his own hands.

 

[agricola]

Bumped because al-Megrahi has published a dossier that he apparently would have based his appeal on, an appeal that appears to have been strongly backed by the Scots CCRC:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/sep/18/lockerbie-bomber-megrahi-trial-dossier
http://www.megrahimystory.net/

 

[weltweit]

Bumped .. because fancy that - he is still alive!!