quote:

---

"Your action rewards a terrorist ... (and) makes a mockery of the emotions, passions and pathos of all those affected by the Lockerbie tragedy," Mueller wrote.

"But most importantly, your action makes a mockery of the grief of the families who lost their own ... You could not have spent much time with the families, certainly not as much time as others involved in the investigation and prosecution."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Reverend:
From what I gather, some of the victim's families don't even believe the guy is guilty. Personally I don't know either way.
Though to my mind, guilty or innocent, the guy wasn't sentenced to death, so if he's bound to croak in a few months anyway what's the point in keeping hold of him until you have to send him home in a box? If this helps improve relations with Libia, then for the sake of a few months worth of prison food, it's probably worth it.

---

quote:

---

As for the FBI's opinion, I dare say our authorities have a little more experience with dealing with terrorists than they do and for that matter, a somewhat better track record with reconciliation. I think a lot of yanks have very short memories in this regard as it wasn't that long ago that the US authorities were turning a blind eye to it's citizens supporting and even funding terrorist groups in NI.

---

Short memories or no, it would be outrageous if the US had tried, convicted and inprisoned an IRA bomber- particularly one responsible for so many deaths- and released him to a hero's welcome.

Compassion be damned, there are certainly plenty of terminally ill fuckers rotting away in Scotish prison cells that did not get this treatment.

As to "turning a blind eye to it's citizens supporting and even funding terrorist groups",
Yes, it's a real fucking problem here- organized jackasses murder doctors, bomb women's clinics- fuck, the White Supremasists bombed the ATF building even and the government always says it was "an isolated incident" or "a disturbed indivual".

We have a ton of domestic terrorists and the Republicans are claiming the extremist element as a voter base.
It's gotten so bad that armed nuts are openly wearing firearms (assualt weapons and handguns) at Obama speaches.
Some-fucking-how this is a right granted by the ever-vague Second Amendment.
 

---

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
The conviction was completely unsafe. Intelligence agencies on both side of the Atlantic were fucking shitting themselves over what might have come out at the next appeal - the Heathrow baggage break-in, the dodgy Maltese identification, the Syrian connection that was ignored by a US administration with a hard-on for Libya (shades of 9/11 there with the immediate demand for evidence of Iraqi complicity, hmm?). The same FBI director now tut-tutting over the whole thing was going to have to face demands for explanations from US bereaved who find they've been lied to for 20 years. And the concept of Compassion, while recognised in the Scottish legal system, is alien to your legal system, formed as it appears to have been from the belief that it is better a thousand innocent people be punished wrongly than see a single guilty person go unpunished.

So, please, don't buy into all this manufactured outrage. The US govermnent wanted this to happen because it lets them off the hook. The British central government wanted this to happen because it makes the Scottish Nationalist government look bad (latest to dip his oar in is the former LABOUR First Minister, keen to score points with voters in the face of a potential devolution referendum). It sucks that the Libyans are determined to make as much of a hoo-hah about the release as they can, but unfortunately "We have to keep so-and-so locked up because letting him go will let the baddies gloat" isn't a part of even the allegedly-liberal Scottish legal code.
 

---

Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
 
"We have a ton of domestic terrorists and the Republicans are claiming the extremist element as a voter base.
It's gotten so bad that armed nuts are openly wearing firearms (assualt weapons and handguns) at Obama speaches.
Some-fucking-how this is a right granted by the ever-vague Second Amendment. "

You know I've been meaning to say something about that. I mean these people are overtly suggesting the President be killed. I seem to recall that being a crime. So let my overtly wonder why the Secret Service isn't picking these assholes off? I mean I don't care who you are or who the President is, you don't bring a gun to where he or she is going to be. I'm not one to wish death on anyone, but fuck sakes, I wouldn't shed a tear if these fucktards got more holes in them than cheese.
 

---

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
Yes, they'd all spent the first eight years of this decade insisting that despite what anyone might personally think of the government, it was everyone's duty to support the President in times of crisis, and anyone who didn't was a Goddamn Pinko Commie Traitor Who Should Go Live In Russia. Strangely this attitude was noticeably absent among their ilk prior to 2000, or from this current year on. Something seems to have changed, to get all these gun-nuts riled up and suddenly resolved to bear arms to protect themselves against guvmint oppreshun, when things like the Patriot Act and all that illegal wiretapping that went on, somehow failed to move them quite so much. I can't think what it could be.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lee:
And the concept of Compassion, while recognised in the Scottish legal system, is alien to your legal system, formed as it appears to have been from the belief that it is better a thousand innocent people be punished wrongly than see a single guilty person go unpunished.

---

quote:

---

You know I've been meaning to say something about that. I mean these people are overtly suggesting the President be killed. I seem to recall that being a crime. So let my overtly wonder why the Secret Service isn't picking these assholes off? I mean I don't care who you are or who the President is, you don't bring a gun to where he or she is going to be. I'm not one to wish death on anyone, but fuck sakes, I wouldn't shed a tear if these fucktards got more holes in them than cheese.

---

well, there's the thing, these asshats are outside where the President is giving his townhall or speach so they are never )so far) within line-of-sight and yes, the Secret Service is on them like white on rice, but it's an attempt at intimidation if nothing else:
Would you be at a rally if the police were letting heavily-armed nuts roam around?

The reason this is being allowed is that there are no specific laws saying that a legal-to-own firearm cant be publicly carried in a public space- only that they can not be concealed.

It's splitting hairs and someone's going to get killed over it- some nut will get into a screaming match with some Obama supporter and it'll escalate- hell, even a car backfiring might be mistaken for gunfire and start a stampede.

The first guy to show up at several rallies with a gun strapped to his leg (like he's some cowboy) was interviewed by the cable networks and played all politically nieve while lamenting how "all out freedoms are being stolen by the Obama administration" (where was this guy's anger the past eight years?).
Turns out he's on a bunch of extremist and "birther" online forums- under his real name no less- and had been trolling the rallis looking for media attention, which he got beacuse no one was smart enough to run a Google search on his name before interviewing him.

Score another one for the extremist Right.
 

---

Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
 
I'm not sure that there is another person guilty of multiple murders, conspiracy to murder and blowing up an aeroplane and serving a scentance in a Scotish jail, yet alone one who has a termial illness.

It's actually not that uncommon for a prisoner to be released from a Scottish or a British prison on compassionate grounds. The guidelines state that compassionate release is suggested in the event of a prisoner, regardless of their tarrif, being certified by a doctor as 3 months or less from death in their opinion. The decission is upto the relevant Minister of either the Scot's Parliament or Wesminster.

This I have no problem with. I actually have no problem with Al Megrahi's release on compassionate grounds. I also agree with Lee, that the conviction was based on shakey evidence, and I remember several cases of contempt and purjury being alledged to have taken place. Nonetheless he was convicted.

My anger is the strong suspicion that I have of a political motivation for his release. Given that he was probably a scaoegoat just complicates matters. Suffice to say, somewhere a deal was done.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
I have to say that a more compassionate thing to do wold be for his relatives to have been flown in for a final visit- then there could also have been compassion for the victims.

Here is a great article on someone that actually suffered this great loss- and her view on the release.

It's a sobering read.
 

---

Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
 
'Annie', Clearly is better than you or me... At least, according to this write-up, she's looking at this realistically.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Indeed.
I always find people capable of such forgiveness...

Well, I cant relate at all, but I respect the hell oit of them- it's something far removed from my own abilities, it seems.

Everyone seems to be hoping that the Lybians dont parade this bozo during gadafi's 40th anniversary of coming into power next month but I think that's exactly what theyll do- rub everyone's noses in it.
 

---

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
British comedians are having a field day with the notion of Yanks boycotting Scotland over this. Andy Parsons suggested that the notion of Scotland with absolutely no US tourists would make the rest of the world wonder if this was the year to visit. But my favourite comment was from Frankie Boyle - "Americans boycotting Scotland is like Wayne Rooney boycotting the Large Hadron Collider!"
 

---

Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
 
No U.S. tourists in Scotland? I Gotta go pack...
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Funny- people over here are calling Scotland "Terrorist Friendly" and writing editorials on how their justice system is hypicritical at best and complicit after the fact at worst- assuming Lybia really did negotiate this releae in exchange for friendly terms with the UK.

Why, here's a good editorial.

quote:

---

Yes, the former Libyan intelligence agent is purportedly dying of cancer. But as a London Times columnist asked: Would the same Scots release Robert Black, the Scottish serial killer of young girls, if he were on death's door?

---

quote:

---

Clearly something is going on here that has little to do with compassion. Americans, who remember the Lockerbie tragedy with horror, deserve to know the real reason Megrahi was freed.

The most likely possibility falls under the heading ``business and blackmail.'' The Brits have extensive trade interests in Libya, and Megrahi had become an obstacle to them. (No one believes British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's claim that the decision rested solely with Scottish officials.) [As Saif Gadhafi, a son of Libya's leader, put it last week, ``In all commercial contracts for oil and gas with Britain, Megrahi was always on the negotiating table.'' His father, the mercurial Moammar, went out of his way to embarrass Brown, along with Queen Elizabeth and her son Prince Andrew (a regular visitor to Libya on trade missions), by thanking them publicly for their alleged role in Megrahi's release.

The British had been seeking to unload Megrahi for some time since Gadhafi's renunciation of terrorism and his scrapping of Libya's weapons of mass destruction in 2003. Gadhafi made clear that lucrative oil deals depended on Megrahi's repatriation.

Moreover, Gadhafi has been using his oil and gas wealth to blackmail Europeans into accepting his unorthodox behavior. Over the past year, the Libyan leader waged economic war against the Swiss after his son Hannibal, a reputed playboy, was briefly arrested by police in a Geneva hotel based on complaints that he had been beating his servants.

In response, Gadhafi cut off crucial oil supplies to Switzerland and made two Swiss citizens living in Tripoli virtual hostages. After the Swiss president made a groveling apology, Libya promised to restore normal relations and to let the hostages go.

British expats were threatened with similar reprisals if Megrahi died in prison, according to The London Times. So home he went.

---

quote:

---

And we suffered for decades from the US' notions of what constitutes terrorism. So, make a fuss about it now, it'll soon blow over.

---

Well there's the problem- a lot of people are defensive about whatever they think the US had wronged them on in the past and are not seeing this case clearly.
There is NO dispute that this is terrorism, for pete's sake- they intentionally blew up a plane!
That's pretty much covered in any definition, I'd say.

There is a lot to show the Lybians were behind it-Their admitting they were most of all: a story which remained unchanged until this release.
Now they can say whatever they like.

It's amazing how the international community has used the reparations for a henious act of terrorism as an excuse to do business with this awful dictatorship.
Gadafi was the major sponsor of world terrorism in the 80's but hey, he's our pal now.
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
Of course, Saddam Hussein was blowing people up left and right in the '80s, and he was our pal then. Just because he didn't like the Iranians. Who were also, secretly, our pals.

And let's not even get into bin Laden and the Taliban.

If you're amazed, you haven't been paying attention.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
I'm not saying we dont (historicly) suck- just that we're not letting assholes go free and calling it "compassionate".

In fact, for the past eight years out government did not even know the word.
 

---

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
Compassion just is. It doesn't matter whether the recipient is deserving of it or not.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
But it's not justice- justice serves the victims, not the criminal.
We dont have a "Criminal compassionate system"- we have a Criminal Justice System of governance.
This one man crtainly did not act alone but letting him go free tosses aside what tiny amount of justice was meted out by the courts.

In this case, it can be argued that his impending death is a mitigating factor, but unless the Socts offer the same "compassion" for every criminal diagnosed with a terminal codition, it's all bullshit.

Bullshit disguised as compassion is still bullshit.

Please prove me wrong- find a case- any case- of a Scottish man -guilty of multiple homicides- that has gone free on such "compassionate" grounds.
As the victims are likely to be Scottish (and local), the backlash for releaseing such a person would prevent it- not so here.

In this case, the international community is so eager to jump (back) into bed with Lybia that the restitution paid to some of the victim's famalies is thought of as somehow evening the scales.
As though it brings people back to life after being murdered.

If I had lost someone on that plane, I'd feel betrayed, and not just disgusted with these events.
 

---

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
You don't have a criminal justice system either, you have a criminal vengeance system. And we're sorry to have thwarted your little don't-get-mad-get-even scheme. The guy was about to win his appeal anyway, unless the specific evidence certain to guarantee that was suppressed - again - by government order.

And Americans can hardly carp over the denial of one group of people's interests in favour of the interests of a government. That's exactly what happened in South-East Asia after World War II, when the native peoples, after being encouraged by the US to fight the Japanese with a promise of eventual independence from French Colonial rule, found that once the war was over, it suited US interests FAR better if, um, French Colonial rule was re-established.

OK, so the repercussions of that little miscalculation were a tad more severe than there being a few less Yanks staring hopefully at Loch Ness next summer, but the point is valid.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 

quote:

---

And we're sorry to have thwarted your little don't-get-mad-get-even scheme

---

quote:

---

The guy was about to win his appeal anyway, unless the specific evidence certain to guarantee that was suppressed - again - by government order.

---

Here's where the Scottish courts seems to have some shady goings on- and I in no way think additional evidence would be permitted, based on their past refusal.

So either the Scots have willingly supressed evidence that would aquit an innocent man or they (and the US) know he's guilty and botched the case so badly that a court would throw it out, and so deny an appeal in the cause of justice (though illegal).
Add to all this, the emerging details of a possible deal for normalization of relations between Lybia and the UK, and the old "compassionate release" notion does not hold water.

Be here next week for my next book (which will be shorter than this post).
 

---

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
You started it. "We dont have a "Criminal compassionate system"- we have a Criminal Justice System of governance."

And, LIbYa, dammit.

Ah, yes, the circuit board. Found months after under dubious circumstances, and with a chain of custody that would get it laughed out of even a US court.

The fact that other Libyans have apparently used similar bombs is circumstantial evidence at best - it was hardly a copyrighted design.

I myself an rather puzzled as to how Big Al McGrahy came into the frame. And frame it may well have been - his whole implication in the crime rests with the identification of the Maltese shop-keeper.

For all that it was the Scottish government who tried him, it was the US and British intelligence agencies keeping evidence out of the trial. Try to remember that. It was the Scottish legal system trying to put him behind bars in the first place.

Yes, the 2003 letter failed to show remorse, and accepted responsibility for the actions of its officials. To you that's a clear admission of guilt. But to many others it's exactly the opposite. The letter says they accept responsibility because the agent has been found guilt. Simply that. And yes, they failed to show remorse. Why would they? There are millions of people in the world who. Don't. Like. America. That among their number might be a Dictator who lost an (adopted?) child, in the 1986 US air-strike intended to assassinate him, should be no more surprising (or incriminating) than the notion that a few Iraqis might fancy painting a celebratory 9/11 mural.
 

---

Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
 
Lock please. It's old news...
 

---

Posted by esecallum (Member # 2074) on :
 
i am very angry at this release.

RAGING.

i urge all Americans to BOYCOTT SCOTLAND and to impose an embargo.Tell the British to ban their ships and aeroplanes.

don't buy scottish food or drink.

they are a traitor to us Americans.

YOU ARE WITH US OR AGAINST US.

The War on Terror must be won and SCOTLAND HAS RELEASED TERRORIST MEGRI.We must not allow them to continue defying USA.

I URGE ACTION.
 

---

Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
 
Oh Jesus Crist! E! (usually you rant about Star Trek. How you been? )

Hey! It took him ... alright, slightly less than a year for him to post again. Do he troll really that much that to make a forum run, it takes close to a year?

Yeah, in actuality, we sorta did miss you, E.
 

---

Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
 
Let's boycott esecallum.
 

---

Posted by FawnDoo (Member # 1421) on :
 
You know what, speaking as a Scottish person who is in the unusual position of agreeing with the SNP on something, I'd sooner we lived in a society with the capacity for compassion than the alternative - I'd even go so far as to say I agree with the Church's stance on this one:

"It is not about whether he deserves compassion, it is about whether we have the capacity to give it and it is really important for the fullness of our humanity that we remain capable of showing mercy. This decision has sent a message to the world about what it is to be Scottish. I understand the deep anger and grief that still grips the souls of the victims' families and I respect their views. But to them I would say justice is not lost in acting in mercy."

Good grief, it feels weird to be talking about the SNP and the Church, and be agreeing with them both.

I also agree with Lee's point - the conviction was never exactly watertight, was it?

So, just to sum up - that's me agreeing with Salmond (yeek), the Church (yikes) and Lee. What one should I be most worried about?
 

---

Posted by FawnDoo (Member # 1421) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
Funny - people over here are calling Scotland "Terrorist Friendly"

---

I don't think Scotland is terrorist friendly, at least not at the moment. If we really were aiming to be terrorist friendly, we would pick a terrorist group from some country that some of our citizens fancied they had a connection to, hold fundraisers for that organisation year on year, and pump uncounted millions to them regardless of the ugly uses that money was being put to - after all, why would we care? The bombs wouldn't be going off in our back yard, right? Now that would be terrorist friendly.

Hmm...now that I think about it, I might be in danger of stealing someone's idea. I'm sure some country did that recently...
 

---

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
It just really depresses me. Thousands of people - from all over the world - are killed in a monstrous attack on US soil. The whole world is united in sympathy and detestation of the act. And then you go and piss it all up the wall to further the lunatic ambitions of a bunch of PNAC cunts. Britain becomes a near-pariah for standing by you, rightly or wrongly, when no-one else would. But then - we let ONE GUY out of prison to die at home, and all of sudden the wingnuts are threading us right onto that Axis of Evil. I'd imagine the very existence of our working-quite-nicely socialised health care system is just adding insult to injury.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lee:
Ah, yes, the circuit board. Found months after under dubious circumstances, and with a chain of custody that would get it laughed out of even a US court.

The fact that other Libyans have apparently used similar bombs is circumstantial evidence at best - it was hardly a copyrighted design. [/b]

---

quote:

---

Yes, the 2003 letter failed to show remorse, and accepted responsibility for the actions of its officials. To you that's a clear admission of guilt. But to many others it's exactly the opposite. The letter says they accept responsibility because the agent has been found guilt. Simply that. And yes, they failed to show remorse. Why would they? There are millions of people in the world who. Don't. Like. America. That among their number might be a Dictator who lost an (adopted?) child, in the 1986 US air-strike intended to assassinate him, should be no more surprising (or incriminating) than the notion that a few Iraqis might fancy painting a celebratory 9/11 mural.

---

That is no excuse to murder 270 innocent civillians.
If they bombed a military target it would be diffrent- those cowards would not do that, as it would have been an act of war- which Libia would have badly lost.
Instead they killed mothers, children and just normal people that had nothing to do with any gripe Libia might have had.
And then they admitted it- it's not a letter stating that they accept international law- it's a letter saying the ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY for the bombing.
That's a whole seperate thing- it's a confession that only now do they recant- now that the internatinal community has embraced them as "reformed".

So yeah- fuck them.
They should pay however possible and their bomber should not recieve any walk- compassion would be for Sotland to have flown in his family for a visit, not to trade this killer for oil rights in a country that-suprise- is still funding extremism in it's madrassas, media and in the hero's welome this bomber recieved.
If this is compassion, I'd really like to see another case like it where cotland let a murderer go free- really. If it's their policy, and there is precedent for murderers to be released if terminal, I'd accept it- but it's not the case and calling this anything but a shady political deal is a farce.

But I'm no wingnut- I dont think any boycott is required or even useful: the damage is done and there are plenty in the UK that agree with my POV, I'm sure.

I am not adverse to seeing the case opened back up and letting the evidence (or lack thereof) be seen though. I think all cases of terrorism need to be as transparant as possible- and obviously this was not (in part because of Gadafi's insistance that it not be a jury trial and not be televised).
I doubt it will happen- Gordon will want to get this behind him as quickly as possible.

As to some of out nuttier wingnuts calling names, dont take that too personally- the Republicans have been trying any crazy thing to avoid an honest debate on healthcare- one jackass just interrupted the President's speach to congress and called the President a liar.

Those people are fucking crazy.

quote:

---

If we really were aiming to be terrorist friendly, we would pick a terrorist group from some country that some of our citizens fancied they had a connection to, hold fundraisers for that organisation year on year, and pump uncounted millions to them regardless of the ugly uses that money was being put to - after all, why would we care? The bombs wouldn't be going off in our back yard, right? Now that would be terrorist friendly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
Gee, if you mean that as an IRA reference, it's doubly ironic- as Libia supplied most of their explosives that killed so many in the UK.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TSN:
I don't think it was a UK/IRA reference. I think it may have been a US/Israel reference.

---

Not really, I was talking about the IRA, in terms of a terrorist group receiving financial support from citizens of another country. While I may have my problems with the treatment of the Palestinian people at the hands of the government in Israel, that's a far cry from likening them to a terrorist organization. Now there's a conversational minefield, neatly sidestepped!
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
See, this is where arguments break down- we can go 'round and 'round over terrorism and various shameful instances where the US/UK/USSR/Whoever supported or fought it but the matter at hand is a singular case- and, as far as I know, unprecedented.
Maybe I'm just to cynical- I cant buy the notion of a compassionate release while all the other stuff is pointing to a political swap (which would piss on the victim's families, in my opinion).
Nor can I accept the notion of the reasons for his release not mattering, as he's terminal anyway.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TSN:
I don't think it was a UK/IRA reference. I think it may have been a US/Israel reference.

Also : "Libia"? Are you just doing this on purpose now? At least you had all the right letters before.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lee:
Jesus Christ. I swear I could lead the massed peoples of the rest of the world in chanting a massive epic on the various reasons why people might not like the USA, in front of the whole population of the USA, and at the end of it you'd all just shrug and mutter something complacently about how we're only jealous of your freedom and your way of life.

Please. PLEASE just explain to me, how I can point out that Gaddafi has REALLY personal reasons to dislike the USA, and therefore might not feel moved to show any sympathy for any misfortune that might befall it, and you just read that as my excusing his (alleged) murder of innocent civilians? All I said was one could hardly expect him to show remorse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TSN:

I suppose, technically, five-thousand-and-something is "over a thousand"...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mars Needs Women:
And the war in Afghanistan continues...and NO BIN LADEN!!!

---

That's only because he's taking refuge in a country friendly to the US.
You know, because the Pakistani government are our friends.
Right? Yep. Pals. that's why we given them billions each year- as a token of our friendship.
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
If I had the necessary Photoshop skills, I would totally make a picture of a muslin jet fighter right now.
 

---

Posted by FawnDoo (Member # 1421) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by TSN:

"Not really, I was talking about the IRA..."

You were, but Lee was the one who made the reference which Jason identified as being about the IRA.

---