Merged [Ed] Convicted Lockerbie bomber released

[scissorhands]

Isn't it strange how you have nothing to do say about the direct quote from Salmond proving you wrong?

Salmond playing political football with unsubstantiated reports doesnt cut it for me Im afraid.
George Galloway is a more honest politician, equally loathsome, but at least with some kiind of integrity.

 

[funk de fino]

Because you keep refraining from telling me.

I have answered others in this thread about my thoughts on the issue when they asked me. When did you ask me if I thought the release was correct or not?

You mean republican AND loyalist prisoners?
Yes they did.
It was necessary for the peace process.

Yes, both and both sets were murdering terrorists who were relased early.

It was a political decisions yes? Taken by the UK govt? How many did those guys kill? Its allowed when you think it is neccessary and you dont really care what the victims families think in this case eh?

Explain when they freed someone convicted of killing 270 people on compassionate grounds before.

They have released murderers previously under these laws. The figure of 270 is a red herring.

Well thats a lot of assumptions isnt it?
I cant remember accusing you of anything there.

Your posting history betrays you. You even snip out and ignore questions put to you while badgering me forr answering your diversions and red herrings

But yes my post last night about hating nationalists may have been slightly over the top.
Im not a rabidly political until 10pm.

Most of your anti SNP rants have been over the top and few have been quite disgusting.

And see you still have failed to back up one single claim you have made.

 

[scissorhands]

The UK released the Irish murderers because it wanted something politically.

The UK released terrorists from both sides, because the people of NI wanted something.
It was called a peace process.
Maybe you dont approve of the peace process?
There again you dont live in Northern Ireland do you?

You still havent explained what was to be gained from the release of this mass murderer in comparison.

Stop dancing around the question and answer it.

I couldnt give a monkeys what you think of my posts concerning the SNP.

 

[Alt+F4]

I think the attitude that the Scots are so much more compassionate than the rest of the world and always follow the letter of the law can pretty much be thrown out the window. So much for not bowing down to the pressure of outsiders.

On Friday, Lord Trefgarne, chairman of the Libyan British Business Council, said Mr. Megrahi’s release had opened the way for Britain’s leading oil companies to pursue multibillion-dollar oil contracts with Libya, which had demanded Mr. Megrahi’s return in talks with British officials and business executives.

Hey Scotland, you're no different than the Americans when it comes to playing politics.

Linky:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/22/world/europe/22lockerbie.html?_r=1&hpw

 

[scissorhands]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...bs-Alex-Salmonds-Robert-Burns-invitation.html

I think this explains a lot.
The little toadface Salmond is still angry at Obama for snubbing him.

The SNP leader attempted to gloss over the snub, saying he was due to meet six US congressmen and Hillary Clinton has promised to come to Scotland if she has time.

However, opposition parties claimed it was a humiliating setback for Mr Salmond's bid to become an international statesman.

In same article...

Mr Salmond has previously attempted to enter the global political stage, writing to the 189 countries who have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

He asked that Scotland be given observer status at the next NPT meeting, but only 21 could be bothered to reply.

Last night Lord Foulkes, a Labour backbench MSP, said: "He just gets carried away with his own imagination of his own importance.

Well hes finally got himself in the limelight, hasnt he?

 

[Fiona]

A lot of this is irrelevant, IMO.

The question of whether Megrahi should be released is a matter for the Scottish Justice Minister. There was an application for prisoner transfer and that was fully considered and rejected. There was the question of release on compassionate grounds. That was also fully considered and it was granted.

McCaskill was clearly alive to the reactions which would be likely to ensue no matter what decision he took: this is evident in his speech. He laid out the law in both situation: the things he is constrained to consider: and the lengths he went to to make sure he had looked at all the relevant issues. This was a conscientious decision and I see no indication that it was not made properly. It is hard to see any relevant factor which was not addressed. Nor can I see any evidence that the decision was not reasonable

It is not to be expected that everyone will agree with it, but that has no bearing on the case. A decision was made by the proper authority in the proper way. The reasoning was made explicit and it is sound. That it is unpalatable to some does not change that.

It is possible that there are influences which have not been acknowledged. Perhaps practical politics was in play: that is even likely. I understand the pope is still a catholic. The idea that Scotland is more principled than other nations seems silly to me. International Relations are not really a good place to look for high principle and moral absolutism

But although that is true there is a place for compassion and I certainly cannot see any case for making law and legal decisions on the basis of the vengefulness of victims: I cannot see that the wishes of the most vengeful are trumps; and in fact I think those people can and should be overruled. This is not human nature in the sense that all victims feel the same way. They don't. We are influenced by our culture and if revenge is a strong motif more people will allow that particular part of the mix to come to the fore: if it is not respected fewer will do so. We are capable of many reactions: there is no reason to presume that the wish for revenge is more powerful or more worthy of respect than any other. It is for you to determine whether you wish to level down to our worst selves: or to try to support a better response to those who do us harm. I know that the way I have phrased that is loaded but I think it best expresses the way I view our options.

I wish to live in a civilised society: I know there will be realpolitik considerations in such situations and I regret it: but it cannot be helped. Within those limits I want the rule of law to prevail: and I want that law to be made by people who are not directly involved and who are trying to balance different and incompatible aims. I want us to behave well when we have been harmed: it is easy to behave well when we have not been: but we need help with that when we are victims. And that is why the law should not pander to the lowest common denominator however understandable their wishes are. Your aims may differ.

But again, most of that is irrelevant. The decision was taken properly and in accord with the law. Those who disagree with it and who live in Scotland can seek to change it through their votes. I hope they do not succeed

 

[Nogbad]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...bs-Alex-Salmonds-Robert-Burns-invitation.html

I think this explains a lot.
The little toadface Salmond is still angry at Obama for snubbing him.



In same article...





Well hes finally got himself in the limelight, hasnt he?

Meh! If you don't ask you don't get. Nothing is ever just "if diaries allow" in the media. It is either a snub or rabid endorsement. Such nonsense makes newspapers nigh unreadable.

Do you recall the hay Labour made when Obama allegedly said Cameron was a lightweight? It is all a bit sad really.

 

[Architect]

Iain Bell has written a rather good Op-ed in today's Herald, I thought:

http://www.theherald.co.uk/features...ht_in_the_middle_of_a_transatlantic_storm.php

There's also an interesting point made about apparent US double standards in the letters page:

http://www.theherald.co.uk/features...hypocritical_for_americans_to_voice_anger.php

So, Scissorhands, how do you square your views regarding what you perceive to be righteous US outrage when they've had the shoe on the other foot?

 

[scissorhands]

You mean you want to equate an airliner shot down by mistake by a warship of the US Navy with the deliberate bombing of an airliner at Lockerbie?
Is that where you are going with this?
You do realise the circumstances of that shoot down dont you?
The warship considered itself under attack.

 

[Alt+F4]

The question of whether Megrahi should be released is a matter for the Scottish Justice Minister.

Who seems to take his orders from the Libyan British Business Council.

If you could put your moral superiority aside for a second you might see what was really going on in the release of Megrahi.

 

[Fiona]

I have no moral superiority Alt+F4. I do have moral aspirations, however.

Unless you take the view that realpolitik can be excluded from international affairs I do not see the point of the rest of your post. You can have suspicions about "what was really going on" and you might even be right. If you are, then in this instance it seems that practical politics did not prevent the proper decision: and that is a happy circumstance, IMO

 

[Nogbad]

You mean you want to equate an airliner shot down by mistake by a warship of the US Navy with the deliberate bombing of an airliner at Lockerbie?
Is that where you are going with this?
You do realise the circumstances of that shoot down dont you?
The warship considered itself under attack.

The US ship was in Iranian territorial waters and the other two US ships nearby clearly identified it as a civilian plane on a routine flight. The captain's superior had already pulled him up once about being trigger happy. It wasn't a mistake it was incompetence which the US refused to apologise for (although they did pay damages 8 years later).

Can you imagine the reaction if an Iranian warship was in US territorial waters and shot down a US civilian plane (or even a military one)? There would be cruise missiles firing off all over the shop - no excuses accepted.

Am I right or am I right?

 

[scissorhands]

Am I right or am I right?

Nope you are wrong.
Heres an in depth investigation into what occurred that day.

http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/reading_room/172.pdf

The only people that should be considered at fault were the Iranians for letting airliner enter the middle of an ongoing battle.
There were errors made, there often are when someone has to make the decision to shoot or not at an unidentified potentially hostile target bearing down on them in a war zone.

 

[Alt+F4]

I have no moral superiority Alt+F4. I do have moral aspirations, however.

Unless you take the view that realpolitik can be excluded from international affairs I do not see the point of the rest of your post. You can have suspicions about "what was really going on" and you might even be right. If you are, then in this instance it seems that practical politics did not prevent the proper decision: and that is a happy circumstance, IMO

Politics is politics, the Scots play it, the Americans play it, everyone does, no country is above the fray. Scottish "compassion" had little to do with what went on here. If Quadafi had turned against Megrahi and insisted that he remain in prison until death the Scottish government would have gladly done it and called it "justice".

Of course personally you can have all the moral asperations you want to, we all do. I also know that you don't run the Scottish government. However, what the Scottish government did was wrong.

When traveling in Europe a few years ago Europeans gave me an earful about the wrong-doings of President Bush. My answer was always, "I didn't vote for him and he doesn't take my phone calls." What I did agree with was that he was wrong.

 

[Nogbad]

Nope you are wrong.
Heres an in depth investigation into what occurred that day.

http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/reading_room/172.pdf

The only people that should be considered at fault were the Iranians for letting airliner enter the middle of an ongoing battle.

Bollocks! It was a routine flight in a civilian air corridor. The US ship was involved in a minor skirmish with small Iranian craft. The small craft were retreating and the twit of a captain pursued them into Iranian territorial waters. He was at fault which is why the US paid compensation.

As I said, the other US ships knew the Vincennes had screwed up. The primary excuse for the shooting was that they were a bit stressed on the bridge which is why nobody hailed the plane on the standard civilian frequency. At no point was the Vincennes washed with radar suggesting a lock on for attack. They merely saw a blip and thought Cowboys and Indians. It was not the US navy's finest hour. To try to blame the Iranians is just a rather pathetic career saver.

PS it wasn't a battle it was a minor skirmish. The gulf was full of them duing the Iran Iraq war

 

[scissorhands]

Clearly you havent bothered reading the PDF I linked for you.

 

[Nogbad]

Clearly you havent bothered reading the PDF I linked for you.

I did actually - DOD transcripts of the enquiry/excuse

not all 200 odd pages obviously

Edit: worked for the MOD for 22 years so I am familiar with the form

why has the last acronym gone all red?

 

[Fiona]

Politics is politics, the Scots play it, the Americans play it, everyone does, no country is above the fray.

As I said.

Scottish "compassion" had little to do with what went on here.

No. The provision for release on compassionate grounds is part of Scottish law. To that extent it is to do with what went on here: just as any other country's compassion would be relevant if they had the provision in their law: it is there because it is one of the principles the people of that country wish to see incorporated in their law. If it were not there then he could not have been released on those grounds. It is there and so he could. It has a lot to do with what happened

If Quadafi had turned against Megrahi and insisted that he remain in prison until death the Scottish government would have gladly done it and called it "justice".

I like to think you are wrong but frankly I do not know and neither do you.

Of course personally you can have all the moral asperations you want to, we all do. I also know that you don't run the Scottish government.

That is correct. But the values of a culture are to some extent reflected in that country's laws. Morality is not the same as law but the two are intertwined to a greater or lesser extent.

However, what the Scottish government did was wrong.

That is your opinion: it is not mine: it is not the opinion of many of the Scottish posters here. It is probably the opinion of many other Scots: and I have no way of knowing how many. Neither do you. If it is a majority then that will perhaps be reflected in future elections: or perhaps other things will be seen as more important to the voters. In any case the Scottish government is accountable to the scottish people. On the basis of the small and probably unrepresentative sample of scottish posters here what the govenment did was certainly not wrong. If you have evidence that it was at odds with the views of the majority of all scots please post it

 

[scissorhands]

DOD transcripts of the enquiry/excuse

Starting with an open mind always helps when reading reports.
The fact that it disagrees with your opinions is irrelevant.

why has the last acronym gone all red?

Huh?

 

[Nogbad]

Starting with an open mind always helps when reading reports.
The fact that it disagrees with your opinions is irrelevant.

I already knew the summary of their report. It was hardly a surprise when it was made known. The military (any military) tend to close ranks. They were more concerned about the operational effectiveness of the systems and how they had been deployed than the cock up in the air.

Presumably you view the Iranian report on the incident with the same detachment.

Incidentally the Iranians claimed that the ship was in their territorial waters but the Vincennes logged a different location (where they had been ordered to stay) Several years later Admiral Crowe admitted that the ship had not followed orders and had gone into Iranian waters. Reports are fine but they serve a purpose and that isn't always to tell the whole truth.

I do not believe it was a deliberate act but I do still consider it gross incompetence brought about by a gung ho captain doing his own thing.

Oh! the MOD was red and underlined - weird!