Lockerbie Bomber: Was Scotland correct.... or down right courrpt?

[Ice]

Edit: Mods please add a poll if you don't mind. The title of the poll should be the question and either yes, no, or gah is fine. Thanks


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704421304575383391106279322.html?mod=WSJ_World_LEFTSecondNews



LONDON—Scotland's government has rebuffed a U.S. Senate committee request to send two Scottish officials to testify next week at a hearing that will explore the country's release last summer of the convicted Lockerbie bomber.

Neither Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill nor Scottish Prison Service health director Andrew Fraser will attend the hearing, a Scottish government spokesman said Thursday, noting that Scotland had already provided comprehensive written information to the Senate.

The Senate request comes amid renewed allegations that oil company BP PLC, may have influenced Scotland's decision to release the convicted bomber.

The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee has invited BP Chief Executive Tony Hayward, BP Special Adviser Mark Allen and former U.K. Justice Secretary Jack Straw to testify. A spokesman for BP said Thursday that the company had received the invitations but had yet to respond. Mr. Straw couldn't be reached immediately for comment.

The Senate intends to explore Scotland's decision last summer to release former Libyan security agent Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the only person convicted in the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am flight 103, which killed 270 people, including 189 Americans, when it exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland.

The inquiry will look at "allegations surrounding the decision to release al-Megrahi, and in particular, whether a $900 million oil exploration deal between BP and Libya directly or indirectly influenced the decision to release al-Megrahi," hearing chair Senator Robert Menendez (D., NJ) wrote in the invitations.

Scotland, the U.K. and BP have all said the oil company played no part in the decision to release Mr. Megrahi.

The complex circumstances surrounding Mr. Megrahi's release have revived questions about BP's connection to the affair. BP has said that in late 2007 it lobbied to speed up the passage of a Prisoner Transfer Agreement between the U.K. and Libya, which was ratified in 2009 and could have allowed Mr. Megrahi to return to his home country. Libya applied for Mr. Megrahi to be sent back under the agreement, but its application was rejected.

Instead, the Scottish government granted him a so-called "compassionate release," on the grounds that he was suffering from terminal prostate cancer and likely had no more than three months to live. More than 11 months after his release, Mr. Megrahi remains alive at his home in Libya.

Though Mr. Megrahi wasn't released under the transfer agreement, the Senate's attention has fallen upon the pact amid greater scrutiny of BP after the Gulf oil spill.

Mr. Allen, a former British security-services member with close ties to Labour Party officials, called Mr. Straw in October 2007 to discuss the slow progress on the transfer deal, a BP spokeswoman said last September. BP has said that it was concerned it feared a delay would hurt a $900 million oil deal it had signed with Libya in May 2007.

Separately, Mr. Straw rebuffed a request from the Scottish government to exclude Mr. Megrahi from the prisoner transfer agreement. "The wider negotiations with the Libyans are reaching a critical stage and in view of the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom, I have agreed that in this instance the PTA should be in the standard form and not mention any individual," Mr. Shaw said in a 2007 letter to Mr. MacAskill.

It seems odd that he was released for medical reasons and given three months to live, and here we are today... 11 months later... and the guy is still breathing. It starts to smell like **** when you realize BP was lobbying for his release under a separate agreement, and they were negotiating new in oil deals with the Libyan government at the same time. This doesn't seem like a coincidence.

[rvg]

Personally, I do not care. The guy's dead meat as far as I'm concerned. Him dying of cancer in Tripoli saves Scottish taxpayers a bit of money, so there's a positive side to the whole thing.

[Beskar]

It seems odd that he was released for medical reasons and given three months to live, and here we are today... 11 months later... and the guy is still breathing. It starts to smell like **** when you realize BP was lobbying for his release under a separate agreement, and they were negotiating new in oil deals with the Libyan government at the same time. This doesn't seem like a coincidence.

Not really, my brother was diagnoised as "Could die at any time" and has lived Four years, which is pretty much on a 'miracle' level, thanks to the NHS.

It happens all the time. Some people die sooner, others die after a while.

[Ice]

Personally, I do not care. The guy's dead meat as far as I'm concerned. Him dying of cancer in Tripoli saves Scottish taxpayers a bit of money, so there's a positive side to the whole thing.

While I'm not going to argue that saving taxpayer money is a bad thing, do you think it justifys releasing the man early? How would you feel if your mother, sister, brother, uncle, etc were on the plane when it exploded?

[Ice]

Not really, my brother was diagnoised as "Could die at any time" and has lived Four years, which is pretty much on a 'miracle' level, thanks to the NHS.

It happens all the time. Some people die sooner, others die after a while.

You said it yourself... it's was a "miracle". Like I said, although this could be a considence, when certain pieces start falling into place it looks less and less like one.

[Centurion1]

he should be dead.

of unnatural causes

[InsaneApache]

he should be dead.

of unnatural causes

Indeed. A suspended sentence would do nicely.

[Fragony]

Not really, my brother was diagnoised as "Could die at any time" and has lived Four years, which is pretty much on a 'miracle' level, thanks to the NHS.

It happens all the time. Some people die sooner, others die after a while.

Yikes.. sorry to hear that. Seen it wreck many a person but it's so unfair when they are so young

[rvg]

While I'm not going to argue that saving taxpayer money is a bad thing, do you think it justifys releasing the man early? How would you feel if your mother, sister, brother, uncle, etc were on the plane when it exploded?

Personally, I'd have him fried years ago. The current situation does not bother me, since Id personally rather be dead in one shot than slowly wither away from cancer.

[Centurion1]

the problem is he gets to wither away from cancer with his family nearby while the families of those he killed will never see their loved ones.

[Tellos Athenaios]

You may also want to read the other thread on this. Suffice to say I'm not really impressed by the argument “BP lobbied for a PTA”, “Scotland releases Lockerbie man to die of cancer”, “ergo BP lobbied for Lockerbie man to be released”.

[rvg]

True, but since the crime occurred so long ago, the show of mercy by the Scottish government does not bother me. That man is done for, and whether he dies tomorrow or a year from now means little to me. The true justice would have been to put a bullet in his head 20 years ago.

[Incongruous]

Of course there is the fact that he did not really recieve a real trial.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I said I was neutral when he was first released, although this does make it seem a bit suspicious. I'm not sure having a prolongued death from prostate cancer is really escaping justice though.

In any case, as Bopa pointed out, the original trial was pretty dodgy. Although there's no doubt that Magrahi was a very dodgy figure himself, it's not certain he was the Lockerbie bomber.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I said I was neutral when he was first released, although this does make it seem a bit suspicious. I'm not sure having a prolongued death from prostate cancer is really escaping justice though.

In any case, as Bopa pointed out, the original trial was pretty dodgy. Although there's no doubt that Magrahi was a very dodgy figure himself, it's not certain he was the Lockerbie bomber.

Quite, it's also highly unlikely their was any real corruption, unless the doctor was payed off. In any case, Scotland is not actually that important (sorry guys, but even at the time the Scottish Justice Minister sought London approval), and the Westminster Parliament under which he was realeased has since been dispanded.

In every sense the horse has bolted and a few vindictive American Senators will do nothing more than worsen US-UK relations, which Obama has done enough of already.

[Louis VI the Fat]

You may also want to read the other thread on this. Suffice to say I'm not really impressed by the argument “BP lobbied for a PTA”, “Scotland releases Lockerbie man to die of cancer”, “ergo BP lobbied for Lockerbie man to be released”.I must say must say that I am impressed by the argument. What reason does an oil company possibly have to lobby for transfer of prisoner agreements? What concern is it possibly to them, other than to serve a specific purpose?

BP and the politicians are smart enough not to mention a specific case, not to leave a smoking gun. And so both parties can happily claim - correctly - that 'read my lips: BP did not lobby for the release of the Lockerbie bomber'. Which is of the level of 'I did not inhale'.
I would simply reverse the burden of proof. Let BP show that it has any other reasonable interest, any interest at all, in lobbying for a PTA between Libya and the UK but for the specific object of gaining a contract in Libya.



This is how oil deals with Libya are struck. Just ask Dick Cheney, he had lots of experience lobbying for Libya as CEO of Halliburton.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Obviously: when BP lobbies for something as a PTA with a highly corrupt government that sits on a rather large amount of oil, it is not because BP has suddenly become a philanthropic enterprise. But hey, that is the nature of the lobbying game, and crucially: they are entitled to do that. BP is entitled to express their beliefs that their world would be a bit better if only the relationship between the UK and a dozen or corrupt-to-the-hilt regimes would improve a little; it is even entitled to lobby for this to happen. So your alternative argument of “BP lobbies for a PTA” “break out the pitchforks, torches and grill some executives over an oil barrel on fire” doesn't leave me any more convinced than the previously mentioned argument with the “post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy so big it's pathetic.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Obviously: when BP lobbies for something as a PTA with a highly corrupt government that sits on a rather large amount of oil, it is not because BP has suddenly become a philanthropic enterprise. But hey, that is the nature of the lobbying game, and crucially: they are entitled to do that. BP is entitled to express their beliefs that their world would be a bit better if only the relationship between the UK and a dozen or corrupt-to-the-hilt regimes would improve a little; it is even entitled to lobby for this to happen. So your alternative argument of “BP lobbies for a PTA” “break out the pitchforks, torches and grill some executives over an oil barrel on fire” doesn't leave me any more convinced than the previously mentioned argument with the “post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy so big it's pathetic.There is no post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy because the syllogism is not applicable.

“BP lobbied for a PTA”
“Scotland releases Lockerbie man to die of cancer”
ergo
“BP lobbied for Lockerbie man to be released”

The second premise is unnecessary. BP lobbied, or not, regardless of any eventual release. For example, if he hadn't been released at all, the conclusion could still be valid.


'Louis wrote post #16'
'Tellos replied in post #17'
ergo
'Louis wrote his post to get this reply'.

This is a “post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy so big it's pathetic indeed. Nevertheless, I would maintain I wrote #16 indeed.



So your alternative argument of “BP lobbies for a PTA” “break out the pitchforks, torches and grill some executives over an oil barrel on fire" doesn't leave me any more convincedI would agree, or disagree, but I am not sure what you are not convinced of? Not convinced BP lobbied for that prisoner's release? Not convinced of Scottish / British corruption? Not convinced BP headquarters must be attacked by an angry mob with pitchforks?

[CountArach]

Poll added... let me know if you want it to be a public vote.

[Tellos Athenaios]

There is no post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy because the syllogism is not applicable.
Hmm or is it? A PTA is not the same as an exchange trip of a single particular prisoner (the Lockerbie man). You pointed this out in your own post. So some sort of premisse related to him directly (flawed as it may be) is still required to reach a conclusion in which BP lobbies for his release. And unless you (or anyone else) can prove that BP did not in fact lobby for a general PTA, but for one which specifically included this Lockerbie bomber; we remain with some sort of logical fallacy if you want to entertain the accusations of these Senators.

True, I assumed these Senators merely jumped on the let's-score-a-BP-point bandwagon so I made it a post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc one. I don't think we heard them a year ago when that decision was actually made.



I would agree, or disagree, but I am not sure what you are not convinced of? Not convinced BP lobbied for that prisoner's release? Not convinced of Scottish / British corruption? Not convinced BP headquarters must be attacked by an angry mob with pitchforks?

I am not convinced that BP lobbying for a PTA which did later occur means that this is a case of corruption; and I am not convinced that BP specifically lobbied for the release of the Lockerbie bomber either.

[KukriKhan]

Scotland's perpetrator = Scotland's business, IMO. If we wanted to handle the slimeball, there were ways to achieve that in the 80's. "Summoning" non-US citizens to testify in the US Senate 20-some years later is not one of those ways.

That said, I'd be careful were I BP and whatever officials were involved: our lawyers/poli's are scrambling and eager to find ways to pin the Gulf oil spill bills on anybody's taxpayers but their own. If they can show that this evil oil company (BP) wielded UNDUE influence over a supposedly sovereign government - to the extent that it WAS the sovereign government, in effect - then that gov't might be legally liable for any damages caused by that puppeteer, the company BP. Things could get sticky in International Courts.

[Rhyfelwyr]

If they can show that this evil oil company (BP) wielded UNDUE influence over a supposedly sovereign government - to the extent that it WAS the sovereign government

The issue of sovereignty only further clouds things, since of course the Scottish 'Government' as it has been dubbed since the SNP took power is only a devolved institution. And although it has a fair bit of autonomy in reality, if we were to go down the route of courts and legal disputes, it would have to be remembered that the Scottish Government can technically be removed at any time by Westminster. All the powers of the Scottish Government have been granted too it freely from London, and do not have any constitutional foundations.

So any legal disputes would have to involve British politicians, not just a few Scottish ones which are lower down the chain.

[Ja'chyra]

Those two options from an American??????


Very good.

[rory_20_uk]

The oncologist who gave the opinion was paid by Libya. Any conflict of interest? Of course not...

The trial was purely an exercise to lock someone up for the Americans who feel righteous indignation over this, and no grasp of how their overseas activities are seen by others. Utter hypocrisy. And they want foreign nationals to come along and explain themselves. Have they ever done that in any other country?

The Senators epitomise this. Is there an election coming up shortly?

~:smoking:

[lars573]

Yep.

[Ice]

Poll added... let me know if you want it to be a public vote.

A public vote is not necesssary. Thanks, CA.

[PanzerJaeger]

White House backed release of Lockerbie bomber (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/white-house-backed-release-of-lockerbie-bomber-abdel-baset-al-megrahi/story-e6frg6so-1225896741041)


THE US government secretly advised Scottish ministers it would be "far preferable" to free the Lockerbie bomber than jail him in Libya.

Correspondence obtained by The Sunday Times reveals the Obama administration considered compassionate release more palatable than locking up Abdel Baset al-Megrahi in a Libyan prison.

The intervention, which has angered US relatives of those who died in the attack, was made by Richard LeBaron, deputy head of the US embassy in London, a week before Megrahi was freed in August last year on grounds that he had terminal cancer.

The document, acquired by a well-placed US source, threatens to undermine US President Barack Obama's claim last week that all Americans were "surprised, disappointed and angry" to learn of Megrahi's release.

[Ice]

White House backed release of Lockerbie bomber (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/white-house-backed-release-of-lockerbie-bomber-abdel-baset-al-megrahi/story-e6frg6so-1225896741041)


The note added: "Nevertheless, if Scottish authorities come to the conclusion that Megrahi must be released from Scottish custody, the US position is that conditional release on compassionate grounds would be a far preferable alternative to prisoner transfer, which we strongly oppose."

It seems odd though. This makes no sense... why would they prefer him released rather than jailed?

[Banquo's Ghost]

It seems odd though. This makes no sense... why would they prefer him released rather than jailed?

Almost certainly because at the time of the release decision (as we discussed at length in the Backroom) his appeal hearing was pending. That appeal was going to hear some highly embarrassing evidence that had a very good chance of proving that he could not have been the Lockerbie bomber (or that there was reasonable doubt).

The condition of Megrahi's release on compassionate grounds required that he drop his appeal. Guaranteed freedom versus probable freedom. An ongoing scapegoat versus a disastrous revelation that the real bombers have never been caught.

[rory_20_uk]

And so some Senators are quite prepared to throw a spanner into the well-oiled diplomatic realpolotik of UK-US relations for a few votes.

The outcome doesn't matter as long as they are seen to be doing something by the masses.

~:smoking:

[Beskar]

A good government is when there is no need for any new laws or motions by the legistrative body.

[drone]

And so some Senators are quite prepared to throw a spanner into the well-oiled diplomatic realpolotik of UK-US relations for a few votes.

The outcome doesn't matter as long as they are seen to be doing something by the masses.

~:smoking:
One more reason to repeal the 17th amendment.

[Ja'chyra]

It seems odd though. This makes no sense... why would they prefer him released rather than jailed?

Not such a good story now?

[Hosakawa Tito]

Hearing on Lockerbie sets off more finger pointing (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/world/europe/26britain.html?_r=1&ref=world).


The prospect of new scrutiny in the affair has prompted a fresh round of finger-pointing between the Scottish and British officials involved, and a suggestion that the Obama administration has engaged in what a headline in The Sunday Times of London described as “double-talk” over the case.
The newspaper based its article on a letter written eight days before Mr. Megrahi’s release to the Scottish government by Richard LeBaron, deputy chief of the United States Embassy in London. The letter set out the United States’ position, including what The Sunday Times described as a preference for Mr. Megrahi to be freed on compassionate grounds rather than released under a December 2007 prisoner-transfer agreement between Libya and Britain.
British officials confirmed the letter’s authenticity on Sunday in telephone interviews with The New York Times. But the British newspaper appeared to have misrepresented the American position by suggesting that the United States was ready to accept Mr. Megrahi’s return to Libya on compassionate grounds.
In fact, the sections of the letter quoted by the paper showed that Mr. LeBaron was arguing that the least harmful option being considered by Britain was to free Mr. Megrahi on compassionate grounds, but subject him to some looser form of confinement in Scotland, possibly in a hospice, not send him back to Libya under the prisoner-transfer pact.

The plot thickens. Has the American response been misrepresented? Full disclosure by both sides could clear this up.

[Myrddraal]

Was Scotland correct.... or down right courrpt?

I think a fourth option (not Gah!) is needed. Wrong, and incompetent seems closer to the mark I think.

[Scienter]

Megrahi is a terrorist and he should die in prison. I was appalled that he was released, he doesn't deserve compassion.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Personally, I do not care. The guy's dead meat as far as I'm concerned. Him dying of cancer in Tripoli saves Scottish taxpayers a bit of money, so there's a positive side to the whole thing.

But why would you guys care anyhow? Most deaths were American anyhow.


White House backed release of Lockerbie bomber (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/white-house-backed-release-of-lockerbie-bomber-abdel-baset-al-megrahi/story-e6frg6so-1225896741041)


I guess Obama wants to be "fair" to everyone!:juggle2::dizzy2:

[Ser Clegane]

But why would you guys care anyhow? Most deaths were American anyhow.

rvg IS American

[Incongruous]

Megrahi is a terrorist and he should die in prison. I was appalled that he was released, he doesn't deserve compassion.

I too, do not believe in fair trials. Off with their heads!