Lockerbie Bomber released

I am surprised there is no thread on this already - apologies if I have missed it.

BBC link

I simply can't understand why this man was released. There is a place for releasing prisoners on compassionate grounds when they are terminally ill and close to death. For example Ronnie Biggs was released earlier this month. BBC link re Mr Biggs. However each case needs to be treated on its merits. This person has been convicted for the murder of 270 people. In this case the compassion seems to have been shown to the perpertrator only and the feelings of the victims families have been ignored. Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi's reception in Libya will have been particularly painful; pain that could have been forseen and avoided.

There is an argument that he may have been the victim of a miscarriage of justice but this should have no bearing on his compassionate release. This is a separate isssue that could have been expidited if he only had a few months to live.

So why did Kenny MacAskill agree to release him. I suspect he gave too much consideration to the convict and not enough thought to the victims' families and indulged in some muddled thinking about whether the conviction was safe. A huge mistake that is shaming to Scotland and the rest of the UK by association.

I suspect there has been an exhange deal.

Anyway, welcome home, heartwarming http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=07e_1250836267

Quote:

---

I simply can't understand why this man was released.

---

Its quite obvious , key witnesses have already testified on oath that they were paid to lie in the original trial.
The attempts by the government to limit the scope of the legal appeal and to suppress evidence had failed .
Britain(and America) would be made to look very very bad if this case went back to court...so a compasionate release saves face for them and by getting the scots to do it they can claim it wasn't them who backed down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

I suspect there has been an exhange deal.

Anyway, welcome home, heartwarming http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=07e_1250836267

---

So would I, if the release had been agreed by Jack Staw (UK secretary of state for justice). However the last thing Kenny MacAskill would want to do is to make things better for the UK government or the Labour Party. I can't see how he could make a deal that would benefit Scotland and exclude the rest of the UK. Neither do I see him responding to pressure from the Foreign Office - quite the reverse. However the decision is not popular in Scotland and may benefit relations between the UK government and Libya. He and his party take the hit in the opinion polls and the UK (which he does not want to be part of) get the benefit. All in all a strange decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Its quite obvious , key witnesses have already testified on oath that they were paid to lie in the original trial.
The attempts by the government to limit the scope of the legal appeal and to suppress evidence had failed .
Britain(and America) would be made to look very very bad if this case went back to court...so a compasionate release saves face for them and by getting the scots to do it they can claim it wasn't them who backed down.

---

A possible explanation but there are three objections:

1. We British tend to back the courts' original decisions, especially in terrorism cases, well beyond the point where it is obvious there has been a miscarriage of justice without giving any thought to how "bad" we look. For example look at the Birmingham six if you want to see how we normally deal with such things.
2. If he only has three months to live it should be possible to draw things out long enough to make sure no court makes a decision.
3. Scottish authorities (especially the SNP) are not going to worry about making the Westminster government look bad - quite the reverse.

Whether the original conviction is safe or not will come out in the end. I don't think avoiding another appeal is will help in the end.

It's an odd case for sure. When we start getting into the murky world of international 'intelligence' and security - who knows what is right or wrong. It's no suprise that conspiraloons are so prevalent when anything important that happens has their scheming and counter-scheming all over it.

Should he be released? God knows. Was the trial dodgy? Yes. Was he responsible? God knows.

I'm rather incensed at this. If he's guilty, he's spent about a year for every 34 victims.

Any links to info on the 'dodginess' of the trial?

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Britain(and America) would be made to look very very bad if this case went back to court...so a compasionate release saves face for them and by getting the scots to do it they can claim it wasn't them who backed down.

---

That's a big if, why would this case go back to court, any new information?

On completely unrelated news, Libya has masses of oil and it is a source that doesn't rely on Russia or the Middle East...

In terms of reliability, I think Idaho has it nailed.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

I'm rather incensed at this. If he's guilty, he's spent about a year for every 34 victims.

Any links to info on the 'dodginess' of the trial?

CR

---

A Convienient Scapegoat?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Its quite obvious , key witnesses have already testified on oath that they were paid to lie in the original trial.

---

Or they're actually lying now as opposed to back then.

The subject of this thread is probably the first political thing I've heard everyone in RL give an opinion on of late, normally they don't take an interest in politics. The attitude from what I see is pretty mixed, although few people feel to strongly about it over here, since he's going to die anyway.

Technically, I suppose if he was convicted of such a crime then he shoudln't be released. However, from what I've seen on the news (yes not exactly conclusive, but I wasn't even born when Lockerbie happened), the evidence against Megrahi was pretty dubious and apparently one guy was paid millions to give evidence against him and now lives in a mansion in Australia.

And so with that taken into consideration, I'm not too bothered about him being released, in fact I'm glad that he will get to go back to his homeland before he dies, he has just wasted most of his life in a prison just across the river from where I live for something that he maybe didn't even do. :shrug:

Quote:

---

That's a big if, why would this case go back to court, any new information?

---

This would have gone back to court because from the very day the verdict was delivered its reliablity was widely challenged.
The new information is the statements of the key witnessess being withdrawn and the forensic evidence being challenged by the very people who presented it in the first place.
The scottish commisions report on questionable issues relating to the conviction ran to 800 pages , which is why they rejected the Crowns attempts to block the appeal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

...the evidence against Megrahi was pretty dubious and apparently one guy was paid millions to give evidence against him and now lives in a mansion in Australia.

And so with that taken into consideration, I'm not too bothered about him being released, in fact I'm glad that he will get to go back to his homeland before he dies, he has just wasted most of his life in a prison just across the river from where I live for something that he maybe didn't even do. :shrug:

---

I agree, for the most part. There's more to this though, obviously. [Aside from effects on business deals.] But he would be dead before any appeal cleared his name, though, so his decision to drop it in the deal to go home makes sense.

As for MacAskill? I don't believe he thought Megrahi was guilty, but other than that, he's most likely helped to maul the party. He didn't do himself any favours on Newsnight Scotland when all he seemingly wanted to do was hammer home points about lack of Government power. Can see where he was coming from, but nobody's going to take that from this episode.

On a positive note, from the strength of the negative coverage coming from the right-wing in the US, it looks like it wouldn't take much more for them to include us in some mock miniature axis of evil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

A Convienient Scapegoat?

---

Thanks. I suppose I agree with Idaho's assessment (never thought I'd be saying that!).

CR

coincidence that this happened the night after i saw a documentary about the Lockerbie disaster?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

coincidence that this happened the night after i saw a documentary about the Lockerbie disaster?

---

You think the Scottish legal system works around your TV watching schedule?

:wink:

more like youtube-watching schedule. remind me to use TOR more often.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

A Convienient Scapegoat?

---

Thanks, never got to read an article as comprehensive as this one. So what did Khadafi do for Megrahi's family to have him fall on his sword for this? It's odd that any of those involved in this would want it dredged up now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

Thanks, never got to read an article as comprehensive as this one. So what did Khadafi do for Megrahi's family to have him fall on his sword for this? It's odd that any of those involved in this would want it dredged up now.

---

It's all so shady. We'll never know. Somewhere in various CIA/MI6/Mossad/Lybian/Iranian/Palestinian/Lizard Folk offices someone is no doubt busy with the shredder.

I suspect he is either an innocent or a patriot following orders (this doesn't excuse crimes but makes it more understandable)

If he is truely innocent then he deserves every second of that hero's applause, lets us hope he lives a life of luxury for his final days on earth, god knows if he's guilty or not... but on the chance that he was innocent I wish him all the best....

He may be many things, but hero isn't one of them.

Sounds like some are claiming the release was a quid pro quo with the Libyans in exchange for oil contracts and other business deals.

Quote:

---

The British Government is under pressure after allegations of an alleged trade deal behind the release of Lockerbie bomber Abdul Basset al Megrahi.

The Libyans are adamant Megrahi’s release has always been tied up with the oil and gas business and massive contracts with with British companies like BP.

Specifically Colonel Gaddaffi’s son Seif insists whenever he met British officials to discuss business, Meghrahi’s release was a condition of a deal being struck.

---

Frankly, nothing would surprise me at this point. :no:

The consternation is laughable, how many mass murderers have the US and the UK kept safe and sound?

I'm surprised we didn't bang him up in some awful Richmond townhouse with a lifetimes worth of hihg living coupons, if oil was in the pipes.

To be honest, I think the most interesting thing here is the constitutional issue. Namely, that the Scottish Executive took a decision with massive foreign policy implications without having any responsibility for UK foreign policy. That the Scottish Executive tried to foist the blame off on Westminster is both pathetic and laughable. On the one hand, under the Devolution agreement Westminster has no responsiblity for Scottish prisoners, and the SNP would have raised merry hell, had they intervened. On the other hand, this is clearly not a decision that Scotland alone should have taken when it affects the whole of the UK.

Fault in Devolution here.

Quote:

---

Megrahi was convicted of murder in January 2001 at a trial held under Scottish law in the Netherlands.

---

I always thought that was an odd thing about the trial. I guess it was because of anger in Scotland at the time, considering that some of the people killed where Scottish. The number of witness statements for the case was amazing-over 15,000. It certainly seems to me that Scotland went to great lengths to insure he got a fair trial, or at least that it had the appearance of fairness.

Those times were very trying. I remember the Lockerbie crash, coming on the heels of the Gander Crash three years earlier. There was a great deal of hostility in the United States then toward the Libyan government. I am sure that the Libyans had good reason to be hostile toward the United Sates as well. That the Libyans felt they owed the US for attacks made against then in 1986, had something to do with all this.

I was in Egypt 3 years earlier with the US Army during one of the Operation Bright Star exercises. The practice air raids by our navy were a dress rehearsal for the type of raid made against Libya. The Army's role was to act sort of as a desert base camp, along with portions of the Egyptian Army and Air Force. The equipment and aircraft set up was very much like the Libyan capabilities. The US Navy and Air Force conducted three days of mock attacks against our positions. The Egyptian Air Force, with their outdated F-4 Phantoms acted as interceptors to the raid, engaging in many low level mock dogfights with the A-6 and A-7 Attack planes. Circling high overhead, F-14s kept a constant vigil, occasionally mixing in with the F-4s. It was an interesting spectacle to watch from the ground,

I only brought that up because in 1986, President Reagan ordered just such an attack against Mummar Kadaffi's Libya. He narrowly missed being killed by the attack, although several of his family were killed. It wasn't hard for many Americans to believe that the Lockerbie crash was a retaliation. Even the Libyan government admitted responsibility for the bombing and turned over the alleged perpetrators, when asked to. Scapegoats they may have been, but Libya certainly didn't want any more attacks against it after the last one. If he was really innocent, then may he live in peace and be able to forgive us. If he is not, may he still find peace with his family until his death. The problem is, who can give peace to his victims if he is guilty-only God I guess.

Quote:

---

a trial held under Scottish law in the Netherlands.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rotorgun

I always thought that was an odd thing about the trial.

---

Not sure consideration for any public feeling came into it at this end, though it was a condition of the extradition deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Default the Magyar

The consternation is laughable, how many mass murderers have the US and the UK kept safe and sound?

---

Okay, now I get it....

"Default" means default view that the governments of the US and UK are a bunch of vicious, self-serving ******** with no redeeming value. Must save time on the typing.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SSNeoperestroika

Not sure consideration for any public feeling came into it at this end, though it was a condition of the extradition deal.

---

I see, the article I read about the Lockerbie crash insinuated that the Netherlands was chosen to hold the trial in a neutral venue. In US law this is usually done if there is considerable feeling against the accused among the local population. If so, another venue is agreed upon to conduct the trial. So, were there no ill feelings among the Scots at the time?

I got the hero's appluase bit from the article, I meant if he's innocent he deserves that happiness... personally I don't know either way...