Lets not forget:

How is remembrance served by argument over the release of a person who in all likelihood was the victim of a miscarriage of justice? Or by attacking the integrity of our allies?

I simply pointed out that the real victims should be remembered. I did not attack anyone or place blame...

Lets not forget:

How is remembrance served by argument over the release of a person who in all likelihood was the victim of a miscarriage of justice? Or by attacking the integrity of our allies?

I simply pointed out that the real victims should be remembered. I did not attack anyone or place blame...

Apologies. My comment, while a reply to yours, was directed at other comments in the thread. I should've been clearer.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Lets not forget:

How is remembrance served by argument over the release of a person who in all likelihood was the victim of a miscarriage of justice? Or by attacking the integrity of our allies?

I simply pointed out that the real victims should be remembered. I did not attack anyone or place blame...

Apologies. My comment, while a reply to yours, was directed at other comments in the thread. I should've been clearer.

Understood, I thought that is what you were getting at.

I am still undecided if I agree or disagree with the release. I tend to believe our allies made the best dicision they could given the circumstances. But since then, the fecal matter has definately hit the fan! This story is all over the news.

Tim : It's all gone Pete Tong!
Rob : Naa mate, its all gone Jackie Chan!
Tim : Jackie Chan?
Rob : Sh**'s hit the fan!

I am still undecided if I agree or disagree with the release. I tend to believe our allies made the best dicision they could given the circumstances. But since then, the fecal matter has definately hit the fan! This story is all over the news.

Tim : It's all gone Pete Tong!
Rob : Naa mate, its all gone Jackie Chan!
Tim : Jackie Chan?
Rob : Sh**'s hit the fan!

I'm surprised there hasn't been much on the U.S. news (that I've seen) beyond "shock/outrage" at the early release of this "mass murderer/convicted terrorist". Here's a comment from a Scottish Emeritus Professor Of Law, Professor Robert Black, University of Edinburgh, one of the architects of the 2001 trial, to provide a little perspective on what that conviction amounted to:

Before the verdicts in the original trial were delivered, I expressed the view that for the judges to return verdicts of guilty they would require (i) to accept every incriminating inference that the Crown invited them to draw from evidence that was on the face of it neutral and capable of supporting quite innocent inferences, (ii) to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci, positively identified Megrahi as the person who bought from his shop in Sliema the clothes and umbrella contained in the suitcase that held the bomb and (iii) to accept that the date of purchase of these items was proved to be December 7, 1988 (as distinct from November 23, 1988 when Megrahi was not present on Malta).

I went on rashly to express the opinion that, for the judges to be satisfied of all these matters on the evidence led at the trial, they would require to adopt the posture of the White Queen in Through the Looking-Glass, when she informed Alice: "Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." In convicting Megrahi, it is submitted that this is precisely what the trial judges did.

FWIW, for three years after the bombing Gauci stated that the person who bought clothes in his shop was over 6 feet tall and over 50 years old, Megrahi was 37 in 1988, and is 5 feet 8 inches tall. Also, Gauci, recalled that when the clothes were bought in his store the purchaser also bought an umbrella because it was raining. There was no recorded rainfall in Malta on December 7th, though there was on November 23rd (when Megrahi could not have been in Malta).

Professor Black was not the only one critical of the 2001 trial, the UN observer (Dr. Hans Köchler) was also dissatisfied. From his Report On And Evaluation Of The Lockerbie Trial Conducted By The Special Scottish Court In The Netherlands At Kamp Van Zeist:

The Opinion of the Court is exclusively based on circumstantial evidence and on a series of highly problematic inferences. As to the undersigned's knowledge, there is not one single piece of material evidence linking the two accused to the crime. In such a context, the guilty verdict in regard to the first accused appears to be arbitrary, even irrational.

And then there's Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the bombing:

I entered the court at Zeist at the beginning of the trial believing that this guy was responsible for killing my daughter. Having listened to the evidence, I came away convinced that Megrahi was a scapegoat and should never have been convicted.

The architect, the observer and the affronted all came away from the trial thinking the same thing, there was a significant lack of evidence that the person found guilty was the perpetrator of the largest terrorist attack on US citizens before 9/11/2001. In the interests of accuracy, maybe the thread should be renamed ...

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Word has it there was also a deal made with the British to make trade with Libya easier....

This disgusts me..

I think this "word" falls under the same category as the word that has it that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990, i.e. rumor unsubstantiated by any available facts. Odd that News Corp outlets, such as Fox, Sky, etc have chosen to ignore this particular word.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

i do not find alleged bomber released disgusting me, i find double standards to some countries disgusting me, and i find quite a lot countries doing that, and most disgusting it is if the country you live in is doing the same.

Word has it there was also a deal made with the British to make trade with Libya easier....

This disgusts me..

I think this "word" falls under the same category as the word that has it that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990, i.e. rumor unsubstantiated by any available facts. Odd that News Corp outlets, such as Fox, Sky, etc have chosen to ignore this particular word.

Looks like there may be some substantiation after all.


UK minister: Oil deal considered in Lockerbie release
Jack Straw admits Lockerbie bomber's release was linked to oil

i do not find alleged bomber released disgusting me, i find double standards to some countries disgusting me, and i find quite a lot countries doing that, and most disgusting it is if the country you live in is doing the same.

theres nothing alleged about his involvement. He was found guilty from a proponderence of the evidence. He was and is quite guilty of his crimes. However, I was listening to the radio the other day and it appears he may be dying quicker than was thought. He's been in a hospital for a few days. I assume this isnt for a physical.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Word has it there was also a deal made with the British to make trade with Libya easier....

This disgusts me..

I think this "word" falls under the same category as the word that has it that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990, i.e. rumor unsubstantiated by any available facts. Odd that News Corp outlets, such as Fox, Sky, etc have chosen to ignore this particular word.

Looks like there may be some substantiation after all.


UK minister: Oil deal considered in Lockerbie release
Jack Straw admits Lockerbie bomber's release was linked to oil

It's all in the details, from the CNN story "An oil deal and trade concerns with Libya were at one point considered", and from the Telegraph piece "Documents published this week showed Mr Straw originally promised that a PTA would only be reached with Libya if Megrahi was excluded. But he later caved in to Libyan demands to include Megrahi.". Megrahi was not released under the provisions of the PTA, thus any dealings there were incidental. Megrahi could not be released under the PTA while both he and the Scottish prosecution service were appealing the outcome of his trial.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

i do not find alleged bomber released disgusting me, i find double standards to some countries disgusting me, and i find quite a lot countries doing that, and most disgusting it is if the country you live in is doing the same.

theres nothing alleged about his involvement. He was found guilty from a proponderence of the evidence. He was and is quite guilty of his crimes. However, I was listening to the radio the other day and it appears he may be dying quicker than was thought. He's been in a hospital for a few days. I assume this isnt for a physical.

Interesting. Perhaps you can provide some details of this preponderance of evidence. As noted in an earlier post, three eye witnesses to the trial (the UN Observer, the Scottish Professor who set up the trial, and a victim's father) all came away thinking the wrong man was convicted. The Scottish Appeals service appeared to think the conviction so weak that they were allowing a second appeal.

The conviction depended on the bomb being smuggled onto a plane in Malta, but oh dear:

Two years after the bombing, Granada TV ran a programme about the bombing featuring a dramatic reconstruction, in which a bag containing a bomb was loaded on to an Air Malta flight by a sinister-looking Arab, who then sloped off without boarding. Upset by the damage to its reputation, Air Malta sued Granada TV. The airline's solicitors compiled a dossier of evidence demonstrating that all the bags checked on to that flight were accompanied by passengers and none travelled on to London. The evidence was so convincing that Granada settled out of court.

This, and the fact that Heathrow baggage handling was broken into less than 24 hours before PA 103 took off (a fact withheld from the defense), should raise alarm bells for anyone asserting a preponderance of evidence.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Word has it there was also a deal made with the British to make trade with Libya easier....

This disgusts me..

I think this "word" falls under the same category as the word that has it that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990, i.e. rumor unsubstantiated by any available facts. Odd that News Corp outlets, such as Fox, Sky, etc have chosen to ignore this particular word.

Looks like there may be some substantiation after all.


UK minister: Oil deal considered in Lockerbie release
Jack Straw admits Lockerbie bomber's release was linked to oil

It's all in the details, from the CNN story "An oil deal and trade concerns with Libya were at one point considered", and from the Telegraph piece "Documents published this week showed Mr Straw originally promised that a PTA would only be reached with Libya if Megrahi was excluded. But he later caved in to Libyan demands to include Megrahi.". Megrahi was not released under the provisions of the PTA, thus any dealings there were incidental. Megrahi could not be released under the PTA while both he and the Scottish prosecution service were appealing the outcome of his trial.

Thanks for that Bobby, but let's not move the goal posts. You originally compared the allegations of him being released under an oil deal to Glenn Beck raping and murdering someone, that it was THAT kind of rumor. It obviously isn't that kind of a rumor, nor a rumor of any kind.

Doesn't matter now because it's wide open that Megrahi was part of the oil deal. We don't have to speculate anymore, members of British government have openly admitted it.

Thanks for that Bobby, but let's not move the goal posts. You originally compared the allegations of him being released under an oil deal to Glenn Beck raping and murdering someone, that it was THAT kind of rumor. It obviously isn't that kind of a rumor, nor a rumor of any kind.

Doesn't matter now because it's wide open that Megrahi was part of the oil deal. We don't have to speculate anymore, members of British government have openly admitted it.

Umm, no, I have to disagree. The deal for a Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) between Britain and Libya was contingent upon Megrahi's being eligible, and that future trade between Britain and Libya was a UK government consideration for establishing that PTA.

Megrahi's release was not under the PTA, he was not transferred but released on compassionate grounds. Any suggestion that Megrahi's release was related to an oil deal is precisely as I stated it, rumor and speculation. The PTA was made between the UK government, the release by the Scottish, there is no evidence that the UK government pressured the Scottish to release Megrahi for any purpose. For those with knowledge of Scottish politics, it's clear why, Scotland now has a Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) government, the UK a Labour Party government, in Scotland, the SNP and Labour are competitors in many areas.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Oh I see, so a few UK parliament members come out and say straight out that the release of Meghari was part of the deal is as speculative as the experimental rumor of saying Glenn Beck raped and killed a girl in 1990.

Got it.

there is no evidence that the UK government pressured the Scottish to release Megrahi for any purpose.

Reuters says otherwise

BP set to drill 4 days after release, as UK documents showed

Bobby, you're still trying to argue from the point that this is speculation. It was speculation at one time. It's all over the place now, and it's fact. There is no speculation anymore, and when there was, it certainly wasn't akin to the Glenn Beck character assassination garbage you posted.

Members of parliament have come out stating that he was traded for the oil deal. Bluntly. It doesn't get any more obvious than that.

Even the US Senate is being asked to probe the deal

Yep. No substantiation to any of it. It's crazy. Nuts. Like Glenn Beck being a murderer, or Obama being an Indonesian Muslim.

Oh I see, so a few UK parliament members come out and say straight out that the release of Meghari was part of the deal is as speculative as the experimental rumor of saying Glenn Beck raped and killed a girl in 1990.

Got it.

there is no evidence that the UK government pressured the Scottish to release Megrahi for any purpose.

Reuters says otherwise

BP set to drill 4 days after release, as UK documents showed

Bobby, you're still trying to argue from the point that this is speculation. It was speculation at one time. It's all over the place now, and it's fact. There is no speculation anymore, and when there was, it certainly wasn't akin to the Glenn Beck character assassination garbage you posted.

Members of parliament have come out stating that he was traded for the oil deal. Bluntly. It doesn't get any more obvious than that.

Even the US Senate is being asked to probe the deal

Yep. No substantiation to any of it. It's crazy. Nuts. Like Glenn Beck being a murderer, or Obama being an Indonesian Muslim.

I wish you'd read the articles you link, instead of the headlines, from Reuters:

Straw told BBC radio the alleged link between trade and Megrahi's release was an "absurd confection."

London had made clear to Tripoli that Scotland would retain an absolute right to refuse a prisoner transfer, he added,

Straw said the issue was "academic" given that Scotland eventually released Megrahi on compassionate grounds and not under the transfer agreement.

Fromm CNN:

The Scottish and British governments released more than 100 pages of previously secret government letters Tuesday. Video Watch more about the documents.

They are trying to squelch newspaper claims that the British government wanted al Megrahi to be eligible for release as a part of a deal allowing BP to drill for oil in Libya.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Justice Minister Jack Straw have forcefully denied the claim that he was freed as part of a deal over oil.

When al Megrahi was ultimately released last month -- on MacAskill's orders -- it was because he had terminal cancer, not as part of a prisoner transfer agreement.

Are you asserting that the Scottish and UK governments released documentation that refutes their claim that Megrahi was not released as part of a deal?

That the US Senate is going to look into the matter doesn't change the facts, and you have none to claim that the UK released Megrahi as part of an oil deal just as I have none to assert that Glenn Beck murdered anyone.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

I've read the articles. It has Straw saying that there was no connection. Of course. It then has Straw saying that there was a connection once the documents were leaked.

I mean, if you want to buy the hog go ahead. It's like Bush wanting to close down Social Security. Oh wait, he wouldn't close it down; he just wanted a 1 trillion dollar loan with an indefinite payback period. So no, that wouldn't be shutting the program down.

You also quote mined the articles.

The Sunday Times said two letters from Straw, dated five months apart, showed he reversed an original plan to exclude Megrahi from a prisoner transfer agreement that was being discussed with Libya.

The paper said the change of heart appeared to be linked to a stalled $900 million oil and gas exploration deal with Libya for British oil giant BP that was ratified a few weeks later.

Or, the link I posted earlier.

Jack Straw admits Lockerbie bomber's release was linked to oil
Jack Straw has reignited the row over the release of the Lockerbie bomber by admitting for the first time that trade and oil were an essential part of the Government’s decision to include him in a prisoner transfer deal with Libya.

The Justice Secretary said he was unapologetic about including Abdelbaset al Megrahi in the agreement, citing a multi-million-pound oil deal signed by BP and Libya six weeks later.

In his interview today, Mr Straw admits that when he was considering in 2007 whether the bomber should be included in a prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) with Libya, Britain’s trade interests were a crucial factor.

Documents published this week showed Mr Straw originally promised that a PTA would only be reached with Libya if Megrahi was excluded. But he later caved in to Libyan demands to include Megrahi. It followed a warning from BP that a failure to include the bomber could hurt the oil giant’s business interests.

So no, there IS evidence that it was part of the deal. And no, it's NOT comparable to the Glenn Beck silliness you posted earlier.

It doesn't get any more obvious than that. You were just wrong. That will be my final say on the subject. It has been proven to you, with the words and documents straight from the people involved. Continuing on is just an attempt to save face which doesn't interest me.

I've read the articles. It has Straw saying that there was no connection. Of course. It then has Straw saying that there was a connection once the documents were leaked.

I mean, if you want to buy the hog go ahead. It's like Bush wanting to close down Social Security. Oh wait, he wouldn't close it down; he just wanted a 1 trillion dollar loan with an indefinite payback period. So no, that wouldn't be shutting the program down.

You also quote mined the articles.

The Sunday Times said two letters from Straw, dated five months apart, showed he reversed an original plan to exclude Megrahi from a prisoner transfer agreement that was being discussed with Libya.

The paper said the change of heart appeared to be linked to a stalled $900 million oil and gas exploration deal with Libya for British oil giant BP that was ratified a few weeks later.

Or, the link I posted earlier.

Jack Straw admits Lockerbie bomber's release was linked to oil
Jack Straw has reignited the row over the release of the Lockerbie bomber by admitting for the first time that trade and oil were an essential part of the Government’s decision to include him in a prisoner transfer deal with Libya.

The Justice Secretary said he was unapologetic about including Abdelbaset al Megrahi in the agreement, citing a multi-million-pound oil deal signed by BP and Libya six weeks later.

In his interview today, Mr Straw admits that when he was considering in 2007 whether the bomber should be included in a prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) with Libya, Britain’s trade interests were a crucial factor.

Documents published this week showed Mr Straw originally promised that a PTA would only be reached with Libya if Megrahi was excluded. But he later caved in to Libyan demands to include Megrahi. It followed a warning from BP that a failure to include the bomber could hurt the oil giant’s business interests.

So no, there IS evidence that it was part of the deal. And no, it's NOT comparable to the Glenn Beck silliness you posted earlier.

It doesn't get any more obvious than that. You were just wrong. That will be my final say on the subject. It has been proven to you, with the words and documents straight from the people involved. Continuing on is just an attempt to save face which doesn't interest me.

What has been proven, and what Straw has conceded, was that the particulars of Megrahi were a consideration in the UK Libya PTA negotiations. There is no evidence that Megrahi's release on compassionate grounds was in any way related to the PTA negotiations. There is no evidence the UK Gov't pressured the Scottish to release Megrahi under any circumstances. Your argument is the one Straw dismissed as academic, I'd like to do the same.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

I love this.

What has been proven, and what Straw has conceded, was that the particulars of Megrahi were a consideration in the UK Libya PTA negotiations.

and then the very next line

There is no evidence that Megrahi's release on compassionate grounds was in any way related to the PTA negotiations.

:)

I love this.

What has been proven, and what Straw has conceded, was that the particulars of Megrahi were a consideration in the UK Libya PTA negotiations.

and then the very next line

There is no evidence that Megrahi's release on compassionate grounds was in any way related to the PTA negotiations.

:)

Glad you do. UK and Libya held negotiations to reach a Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) some years ago. The UK initially wished to exclude Megrahi from eligibility but Libya insisted he be included. The UK acquiesced to Libya's request with future trade a consideration. Under the terms of the PTA Megrahi did not qualify for transfer while he and the Scottish Prosecution Service had appeals in progress. Megrahi was released by the Scottish Attorney General on compassionate grounds, not the PTA. Megrahi was not released when the PTA was negotiated. Megrahi's release was not part of some deal for oil. What part do you find confusing?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Which parts do I find confusing? None.

That major, reputable news sources have confirmed the trade was for oil. That the documentation and the private interests of BP were considered in the release (this is documented), is perfectly clear. That politicians involved themselves blatantly admit that he was traded in an oil deal is well documented. That there is enough evidence here for Congress to consider a probe into the matter has been shown to you. Or the fact that compassionate release wasn't even on the table when it was found that he had terminal, metastasized cancer almost a full YEAR ago.

That you take all of that information and just basically say, "nuh-uh!" to it, makes it clear that this is more about Bobby trying to be right when he was obviously wrong.

It's all perfectly clear to me. I'm not confused about any of it.

Which parts do I find confusing? None.

That major, reputable news sources have confirmed the trade was for oil. That the documentation and the private interests of BP were considered in the release (this is documented),

where? Trade interests were considered during PTA negotiations. Megrahi was not transferred to Libya under the terms of the PTA.

is perfectly clear. That politicians involved themselves blatantly admit that he was traded in an oil deal is well documented.

where? The quotes I've posted consistently show the politicians involved denying a link between Megrahi's release and trade ("absurd confection"). I appear to have missed the ones you're talking about, please post one. Note that an admission that his case was discussed during PTA negotiations is not an admission that his eventual release on compassionate grounds was linked to PTA negotiations and/or trade.

That there is enough evidence here for Congress to consider a probe into the matter has been shown to you. Or the fact that compassionate release wasn't even on the table when it was found that he had terminal, metastasized cancer almost a full YEAR ago.

That you take all of that information and just basically say, "nuh-uh!" to it, makes it clear that this is more about Bobby trying to be right when he was obviously wrong.

It's all perfectly clear to me. I'm not confused about any of it.

Once again I have to disagree, you do appear to be confused about the PTA negotiations and what they mean with reference to Megrahi's eventual release (the record shows nothing, you claim otherwise).

[edit]Of course there may have been a deal of an entirely different nature.[/edit]

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...