Lockerbie bomber released...

Message boards : Politics : Lockerbie bomber released...
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4

AuthorMessage
malignantpoodle

Send message
Joined: 3 Feb 09
Posts: 205
Credit: 421,416
RAC: 0
United States
Message 935009 - Posted: 21 Sep 2009, 15:50:15 UTC - in response to Message 934979.  

where?

In the links I've shown you.
ID: 935009 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 935014 - Posted: 21 Sep 2009, 16:05:57 UTC - in response to Message 935009.  

where?

In the links I've shown you.


The links that have UK and Scottish Ministers repeatedly saying there was no deal (oil or otherwise) involving Megrahi's release on compassionate grounds, those links? And that's a blatant admission that there was? "No deal" = "deal" now I understand the confusion.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 935014 · Report as offensive
malignantpoodle

Send message
Joined: 3 Feb 09
Posts: 205
Credit: 421,416
RAC: 0
United States
Message 935019 - Posted: 21 Sep 2009, 16:27:22 UTC - in response to Message 935014.  

Yep, that's precisely it Bobby. All the links provided were supportive of your argument and not mine. All of those links proved there was no deal. It's just like you said, just like Glenn Beck.

OJ didn't do it either, and Nixon is not a crook.
ID: 935019 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 935038 - Posted: 21 Sep 2009, 17:30:40 UTC - in response to Message 935019.  

Yep, that's precisely it Bobby. All the links provided were supportive of your argument and not mine. All of those links proved there was no deal. It's just like you said, just like Glenn Beck.

OJ didn't do it either, and Nixon is not a crook.


Until and unless you can post a quote to support your claim that UK politicians have blatantly admitted Megrahi's release was the result of a deal for oil, yes it is just like Glenn Beck. There is no such blatant admission. In fact, this is different than Glenn Beck in that (to my knowledge) he has not denied the accusation, UK Ministers have, repeatedly.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 935038 · Report as offensive
malignantpoodle

Send message
Joined: 3 Feb 09
Posts: 205
Credit: 421,416
RAC: 0
United States
Message 935047 - Posted: 21 Sep 2009, 17:48:12 UTC - in response to Message 935038.  

Until and unless you can post a quote to support your claim that UK politicians have blatantly admitted Megrahi's release was the result of a deal for oil, yes it is just like Glenn Beck.


Jack Straw admits Lockerbie bomber's release was linked to oil

ID: 935047 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 935049 - Posted: 21 Sep 2009, 17:54:40 UTC - in response to Message 935047.  
Last modified: 21 Sep 2009, 17:56:03 UTC

Until and unless you can post a quote to support your claim that UK politicians have blatantly admitted Megrahi's release was the result of a deal for oil, yes it is just like Glenn Beck.


Jack Straw admits Lockerbie bomber's release was linked to oil



That's a newspaper headline, not a quote of a UK politician, apologies if it seems that I'm moving the goalposts.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 935049 · Report as offensive
malignantpoodle

Send message
Joined: 3 Feb 09
Posts: 205
Credit: 421,416
RAC: 0
United States
Message 935053 - Posted: 21 Sep 2009, 18:06:13 UTC - in response to Message 935049.  

Specific quotes underlined

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.

When asked in the interview if trade and BP were factors, Mr Straw admits: “Yes, [it was] a very big part of that. I’m unapologetic about that... Libya was a rogue state.

“We wanted to bring it back into the fold. And yes, that included trade because trade is an essential part of it and subsequently there was the BP deal.”


Ed Davey;
Ed Davey claimed Straw's admission raised questions over Gordon Brown's public denial of a trade deal.

He said: “Jack Straw’s long overdue admission that a trade for terrorists deal was under consideration after all, seems at least to have the virtue of honesty.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6823170.ece
ID: 935053 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 935062 - Posted: 21 Sep 2009, 18:32:45 UTC - in response to Message 935053.  

Specific quotes underlined

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.

When asked in the interview if trade and BP were factors, Mr Straw admits: “Yes, [it was] a very big part of that. I’m unapologetic about that... Libya was a rogue state.

“We wanted to bring it back into the fold. And yes, that included trade because trade is an essential part of it and subsequently there was the BP deal.”


Where Jack Straw is talking about the PTA negotiations, not the release.

Ed Davey;
Ed Davey claimed Straw's admission raised questions over Gordon Brown's public denial of a trade deal.

He said: “Jack Straw’s long overdue admission that a trade for terrorists deal was under consideration after all, seems at least to have the virtue of honesty.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6823170.ece


It appears that Ed's talking about the PTA negotiations.

Once again a quote that talks to Megrahi's release (which was not under the terms of the PTA), being part of a trade deal would be welcome.

That lastest article is interesting, at the end it has a comment from Deputy First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon:

"That's why I think we were right to both oppose that [PTA] agreement, but also to reject the application of the Libyan Government to have al-Megrahi released under it."


So even if trade were considered during the 2007 PTA negotiations, and Megrahi's case a consideration, when it came to it, the Scottish gov't rejected an application under the PTA for Megrahi's release. In case we forget, blurf's post:

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

This disgusts me..


Was made in reference to the release of Megrahi, not the PTA.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 935062 · Report as offensive
malignantpoodle

Send message
Joined: 3 Feb 09
Posts: 205
Credit: 421,416
RAC: 0
United States
Message 935065 - Posted: 21 Sep 2009, 18:38:38 UTC - in response to Message 935062.  
Last modified: 21 Sep 2009, 19:00:46 UTC

It appears that Ed's talking about the PTA negotiations.


Ed is talking about Straws admission of an oil deal with Libya over Megrahi.

Bobby, if I had a nickel for every piece of blatantly obvious evidence, newspapers, websites, and every other source that attests to the facts that he was traded for oil (not to mention, Kadafi's son saying the same thing that parliament members have mentioned), I'd have a Tesla personal supercomputer and smoke your 4 million credit mark in a couple of weeks.

You asked for a quote about the deal for oil and I gave it to you. You're now trying to dissect that into something else.

You'll believe what you want to believe. Megrahi was eligible for compassionate release a year ago and wasn't. Oh, the list goes on.

But think what you want.

That you refuse to acknowledge the facts presented, in light of the way some humans are capable of thinking, I suppose your perspective isn't all that radical :)
ID: 935065 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 935074 - Posted: 21 Sep 2009, 19:21:49 UTC - in response to Message 935065.  

It appears that Ed's talking about the PTA negotiations.


Ed is talking about Straws admission of an oil deal with Libya over Megrahi.


We agree, the deal was with respect to the PTA, under which Megrahi was not released.

Bobby, if I had a nickel for every piece of blatantly obvious evidence, newspapers, websites, and every other source that attests to the facts that he was traded for oil (not to mention, Kadafi's son saying the same thing that parliament members have mentioned), I'd have a Tesla personal supercomputer and smoke your 4 million credit mark in a couple of weeks.

You asked for a quote about the deal for oil and I gave it to you. You're now trying to dissect that into something else.

You'll believe what you want to believe. Megrahi was eligible for compassionate release a year ago and wasn't. Oh, the list goes on.


No he wasn't. Compassionate release is only available to those with less than three months expected lifespan. Less than a year ago (November 14th 2008), the Scottish Courts said.

[11] The Scottish Ministers have a statutory power to release a serving prisoner on licence on compassionate grounds. Advice has been issued as to the exercise of that power. Broadly speaking, in the case of a prisoner suffering from a terminal illness, life expectancy of less than three months may be considered a condition appropriate to occasion early release. It is not suggested that the applicant [Megrahi] presently meets that criterion.


But think what you want.


It's certainly preferable to letting you do my thinking for me ;).

That you refuse to acknowledge the facts presented, in light of the way some humans are capable of thinking, I suppose your perspective isn't all that radical :)


The facts? Megrahi's case was a consideration during the 2007 PTA negotiations, during those same negotiations trade was also a consideration. Agreed? Libya's request for Megrahi to be transferred under the terms of the PTA was rejected. Agreed? Compassionate grounds for release are different to terms under the UK Libya PTA. Agreed? Megrahi was released on compassionate grounds as doctors believe he has less than three months to live. Agreed?

Where we disagree is over whether Megrahi was released as part of an oil deal (essentially, this amounts to conflating the PTA negotiations with Megrahi's release on compassionate grounds). If we can agree on the facts in the previous para, I'll quite happily settle for agreeing to disagree on this last point.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 935074 · Report as offensive
malignantpoodle

Send message
Joined: 3 Feb 09
Posts: 205
Credit: 421,416
RAC: 0
United States
Message 935078 - Posted: 21 Sep 2009, 20:01:34 UTC - in response to Message 935074.  
Last modified: 21 Sep 2009, 20:36:42 UTC

So what you're telling us is then, all of the papers reporting that Straw admitting that Megrahi's release was related to oil are lying and are equating the PTA considerations of 2007 with the release of Megrahi in 2009?

Sounds like a vast conspiracy for CNN, Reuters, the AP, to all be on the same page and say that Straws admission to the release of Megrahi for the BP deal were two different incidents that they're combining in one.

The standard that you're setting is ridiculous. You're saying that in order to believe that Megrahi was part of the deal, that everyone on board has to say it's part of the deal, and that compassionate release is not on the table. Don't you think that if they were going to release him as part of the deal that they'd call it compassionate release?

Of course not. No, they never do that. And of course, only criminals that plead guilty are found guilty.

September 5, 2009
Jack Straw admits deal influenced Lockerbie release


This is referring to the release of Megrahi. The compassionate release of Megrahi. Yes, the compassionate release, the decision to release him on compassionate grounds, was influenced by the oil deal.

Compassionate release is not mandatory or compulsory. People can be and are denied compassionate release in Scotland. Compassionate release is an option, it is not required by law. This instance is in regard to his compassionate release, influenced by the oil deal.

It doesn't matter if it wasn't under the PTA. It matters that an oil deal influenced the decision to release Megrahi, regardless of the program under which he was released.

Your position is that if he wasn't released under the PTA, then the oil deal didn't influence his release. Come on.

The facts? Megrahi's case was a consideration during the 2007 PTA negotiations, during those same negotiations trade was also a consideration. Agreed? Libya's request for Megrahi to be transferred under the terms of the PTA was rejected. Agreed? Compassionate grounds for release are different to terms under the UK Libya PTA. Agreed? Megrahi was released on compassionate grounds as doctors believe he has less than three months to live. Agreed?


Yes.

Where we disagree is over whether Megrahi was released as part of an oil deal (essentially, this amounts to conflating the PTA negotiations with Megrahi's release on compassionate grounds).


Exactly!

And the reason I believe that oil influenced compassionate release is because people in British government are saying so!

I also found this. Apparently there was a PTA application by Libya as late as May 2009. If you read it, you see that the ensuing medical evaluations prompted by the application are what brought the notion of compassionate release to the table
Check this;
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/925/0085337.pdf

It's on page 2 of 3 if you're seeing it in pdf format.
ID: 935078 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 935089 - Posted: 21 Sep 2009, 20:50:24 UTC - in response to Message 935078.  
Last modified: 21 Sep 2009, 21:00:59 UTC

The facts? Megrahi's case was a consideration during the 2007 PTA negotiations, during those same negotiations trade was also a consideration. Agreed? Libya's request for Megrahi to be transferred under the terms of the PTA was rejected. Agreed? Compassionate grounds for release are different to terms under the UK Libya PTA. Agreed? Megrahi was released on compassionate grounds as doctors believe he has less than three months to live. Agreed?


Yes.


Great, makes life easier.

Where we disagree is over whether Megrahi was released as part of an oil deal (essentially, this amounts to conflating the PTA negotiations with Megrahi's release on compassionate grounds).


Exactly!

And the reason I believe that oil influenced compassionate release is because people in British government are saying so!


The article headlined "Jack Straw admits deal influenced Lockerbie release" has the following:

Straw told the Daily Telegraph newspaper today that the UK government wanted to use the PTA as a means of renewing business relations with Libya.

He said: "Libya was a rogue state. We wanted to bring it back into the fold.

"And yes, that included trade because trade is an essential part of it and subsequently there was the BP deal."


It does not have Jack Straw saying anything about a link of the PTA to Megrahi's release on compassionate grounds. "oil influenced compassionate release is because people in British government are saying so", they are? Where? Straw said the PTA negotiations were "academic" with respect to Megrahi's release on compassionate grounds, as in not related.

Here's another article talking to the same evidence but under a somewhat less hyperbolic headline.

I also found this. Apparently there was a PTA application by Libya as late as May 2009. If you read it, you see that the ensuing medical evaluations prompted by the application are what brought the notion of compassionate release to the table
Check this;
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/925/0085337.pdf

It's on page 2 of 3 if you're seeing it in pdf format.


Does this mean you're going to drop the claim that Megrahi was eligible for compassionate release a year ago? Could that PTA application be the one that Deputy First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon stated was rejected?
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 935089 · Report as offensive
malignantpoodle

Send message
Joined: 3 Feb 09
Posts: 205
Credit: 421,416
RAC: 0
United States
Message 935142 - Posted: 21 Sep 2009, 23:52:46 UTC - in response to Message 935089.  

More trolling. You asked, I delivered, you couldn't handle it. Don't waste your time addressing me anymore because I will not respond.
ID: 935142 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 935236 - Posted: 22 Sep 2009, 12:26:00 UTC - in response to Message 935142.  

More trolling. You asked, I delivered, you couldn't handle it. Don't waste your time addressing me anymore because I will not respond.


LOL, Ed Davey is not part of the British Gov't, Straw is and has consistently denied a link between trade and Megrahi's release. Trolling? You repeatedly claim that Megrahi's release was part of a trade deal, a claim that Lord Mandelson (also of the British Gov't) has said is:

"It's not only wrong, it's completely implausible and actually quite offensive," he added.


in the same article, David Milliband (also of the British Gov't), said the claim is:

The UK Foreign Office has also insisted the release of Megrahi -convicted of killing 270 people aboard a transatlantic airliner in 1988 - was a matter solely for the devolved Scottish authorities.

Foreign Secretary David Miliband said suggestions to the contrary were "a slur" on him and on the government.


So, you're repeating offensive claims that are a slur on the British Gov't is not trolling, but my defence of that Gov't is? I see. I repeat, nobody in the British Gov't has conceded that Megrahi's release had anything to do with the PTA negotiations, trade has not been linked to Megrahi's release on compassionate grounds.

Now that you've decided to drop out of the conversation, maybe the rest of us can get back to the more interesting topic of whether Megrahi was the victim of a miscarriage of justice.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 935236 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 935289 - Posted: 22 Sep 2009, 22:46:29 UTC - in response to Message 935236.  

What Scottish lawyers have to say on this makes for interesting reading:



Jonathan Mitchell (JM): The parole board advised that Megrahi should be released, the governor of the prison advised he should be released, the medical advice was that he was terminally ill. I don't see how you can turn round and say: "you're just the parole board, you're just the governor of the prison, you're only doctors, I am an elected politician responsible to the electorate and I say you're wrong". That would be outrageous.

Ian Smart (IS): All civilised legal systems have compassionate release. The minister made a decision based on the evidence that was presented to him and the law of Scotland. The theory that suggests he, Peter Mandelson, Colonel Gaddafi's son and others formed a conspiracy is just absurd. No sane person thinks he made the decision other than in good faith. We have to move on.
[...]
Catriona Headley (CH): The problem with the Megrahi decision is it appears to have been made by a politician for political reasons. If you look at the guidance that was available and the legislation followed by the justice minister, I don't think there was any other option but to release Megrahi.


That's Jonathan Mitchell QC, a member of the Faculty of Advocates' council, Ian Smart, the president of the Law Society of Scotland and Catriona Headley, the secretary of the Scottish Young Lawyers Association. So now it's not just the UK and Scottish Gov't ministers that released Megrahi for trade, but a prison governor, a group of medics and a parole board all involved in the release as part of some deal for oil, provided you don't mind being in the "no sane person" group.

On the miscarriage of justice angle, it seems that even the US had doubts about whether Megrahi was an intelligence agent for Libya:

The SCCRC’s concerns about Giaka’s testimony are shared by Michael Scharf, who was the counsel to the US counterterrorism bureau when Megrahi and Fhima were indicted for the bombing. He believes that the case should never have gone to trial.

He claimed the CIA had assured State Department officials that Giaka was “the perfect witness” and there was an “airtight” case against Megrahi and Fhima, who was cleared. “This is a bit like the OJ Simpson case, where the prosecution, together with the US government, tried to sex up the case and tried to hide the flaws,” he said.

“Unfortunately, because Megrahi’s appeal is not going to go forward we’ll never really know the full story.”


Giaka's testimony that Megrahi was an agent for the Jamahiriya Security Organisation (JSO), the Libyan intelligence service, was the only evidence provided by Giaka accepted by the original trial judges, the rest they threw out as stemming from an unreliable witness. Apparently this was one of the reasons that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) submitted Megrahi's case for a second appeal. I'll be the first to concede that this does not make Megrahi innocent, but I'd argue that it demonstrates that Megraho did not receive a fair trial.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 935289 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 935679 - Posted: 24 Sep 2009, 18:17:25 UTC

Private Eye has this to say:

The fact that the wrong man was in the dock was evident to those few independent observers who sat through the entire travesty of a trial in the Netherlands nearly 10 years ago. One of those was Dr Hans Kochler, appointed by the United Nations, who concluded: "There is not one single piece of material evidence linking [Megrahi] to the crime… the guilty verdict appears to be arbitrary, even irrational.”


and:

Governments are still influencing the case
Further evidence, which the Scottish criminal cases review commission (SCCRC) has seen, and which formed one of the six grounds that it cited pointing to the fact that the wrong man had been convicted, remains secret. Even now, 20 years down the line, the government is still claiming public interest immunity on evidence that the SCCRC said should never have been withheld.

With Megrahi’s agreement to drop his appeal and his resulting release, it is clear that governments are still influencing the case. If Britain’s new best friend, Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, and his government have been welcoming Megrahi back in a way that seems to have offended so many commentators, it is because they owe him. He was a step in their country’s rehabilitation with the west.

As the Eye has said ever since we predicted that the appeal would not be heard, it suits none of the administrations – the US, the UK or Libya – to have the case reopened. The forthcoming release of the papers by Tony Kelly, Megrahi’s Glasgow-based solicitor, should prove that the Libyan was not responsible for the atrocity in the skies over Lockerbie. The papers will not prove, however, who was responsible, nor why the chance to bring the real bombers to justice was so evidently botched – or, worse, deliberately sabotaged. That is what the politicians should really be shouting about.


No material evidence, only circumstantial, Megrahi was in Malta when it was alleged the suitcase bearing the bomb started it's journey to PA 103, Megrahi was said to bear a resemblance to the man that bought other items stated to be in that suitcase, Megrahi was said to work for the Libyan intelligence agency, and Megrahi worked in the same building as the manufacturer of the timing device alleged to have been used in the bomb. There are probably other circumstances that I've missed, but, to my knowledge, there was no forensic evidence entered that showed Megrahi had even touched the suitcase or the items in it.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 935679 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 935897 - Posted: 25 Sep 2009, 20:52:28 UTC

An interview with the Britsh PM is available for download here until 9/30. In it he talks, amongst other things, about Megrahi's release (a matter for the Scottish Executive) and the guilt of the convicted man (the guilty verdict still stands).
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 935897 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 938781 - Posted: 9 Oct 2009, 23:28:46 UTC
Last modified: 9 Oct 2009, 23:29:01 UTC

I mentioned in an earlier post that the single most important witness that lead to Megrahi ending up behind bars was Tony Gauci, the shopkeeper that sold items that were found to be near the source of the explosion, who had identified the purchaser of those items as a man over 6 ft tall and over 50 years old in statements made to the police prior to the trial. His eventual identification of Megrahi as the purchaser was less than ideal (having seen a photo of Megrahi a few days before being asked to identify the purchaser), but why would he lie? Perhaps this article provides about 3 million reasons. Oddly enough Megrahi's lawyers were not made aware that Gauci was in receipt of a fairly significant financial inducement to aid the prosecution.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 938781 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4

Message boards : Politics : Lockerbie bomber released...


 
©2022 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.