Merged [Ed] Convicted Lockerbie bomber released

Giz - I happen to agree with you. I was leaving that issue aside for the moment though.

Cicero said:
Yes, the U.K. has authority over Scotland's government when it comes to foreign affairs.
Click to expand...

Not when it comes to the legal say-so for the release of a prisoner like Megrahi. Which is what we were talking about.

Scotland's parliament is not a sovereign body and could be abolished by the UK parliament.
Click to expand...

So what? See above.

Why is Megrahi's flesh more precious than the flesh of other convicts "rotting" in Scottish prisons? But in Megrhai's case, cancer seems to be the chief culprit for his "rotting" condition. Now that Megrahi is out of prison, has his flesh ceased to rot, or has it accelerated?
Click to expand...

Not sure of your point, but this wasn't the thrust of my post in any case. See my reply to Giz - I personally don't agree with the SNP decision to refuse the PTA and then let him out anyway. But questionable morals aside (and I concede that this is a huge issue), they seem pretty blameless in this. They were essentially dropped in it by the UK gov, and saw this as the best compromise - the only other option being to let him die on Scottish soil - I don't have a problem with that, but clearly they did under their own legal system and interpretation thereof.
 
Giz said:
Actually, I don't think that unremorseful convicted terrorists should be granted compassionate release.

If we doubt the conviction, then expedite the appeal. While the conviction stands, he should rot in jail.
Click to expand...


"Unremorseful" - back to the question of whether convicted people who assert that they are victims of a miscarriage of justice should be denied parole rights because of this assertion, while the guilty who say the right things are home clear.

And who thinks they could expedite that appeal, given the legal obstacles and procrastination going on? Does anybody even know the identity of the "friendly power", to protect relations with which, the prosecution have been refusing to hand over a document the court ordered should be produced?

Speculation as to why this appeal has been moving with the speed of continental drift is probably more suited to the CT forum area.

Rolfe.
 
Big Les said:
Giz - I happen to agree with you. I was leaving that issue aside for the moment though.

Not when it comes to the legal say-so for the release of a prisoner like Megrahi. Which is what we were talking about.
Click to expand...

So Scotland acted with complete autonomy when they made the decision to release this guy? Was the British government in favor of releasing Megrahi as far back as two years ago? Sure. Was the U.K. government or MacAsskill unaware that the release of Megrahi had far reaching geopolitical consequences? It isn't the same as releasing Jimmy Boyle.

So what? See above.

Not sure of your point, but this wasn't the thrust of my post in any case. See my reply to Giz - I personally don't agree with the SNP decision to refuse the PTA and then let him out anyway. But questionable morals aside (and I concede that this is a huge issue), they seem pretty blameless in this. They were essentially dropped in it by the UK gov, and saw this as the best compromise - the only other option being to let him die on Scottish soil - I don't have a problem with that, but clearly they did under their own legal system and interpretation thereof.
Click to expand...


Since the U.K does not have jurisdiction over Scots Law, Scotland cannot run for cover under the excuse that the U.K. government made us do it.
 
Cicero said:
So Scotland acted with complete autonomy when they made the decision to release this guy?
Click to expand...

That's what the evidence suggests. Have you actually read it?

Was the British government in favor of releasing Megrahi as far back as two years ago? Sure.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Not the Scots though. They were still trying to get the UK to specifically exclude him from any PTA at that point.

Was the U.K. government or MacAsskill unaware that the release of Megrahi had far reaching geopolitical consequences? It isn't the same as releasing Jimmy Boyle.
Click to expand...

Of course they weren't. They say as much in the released documents. This is precisely why the UK government was so keen to point out the whole time that any actual release was a devolved matter. Scotland would be forced to consider first the PTA application, then the compassionate release appeal lodged by Megrahi's legal team. Had the PTA not been put through as was, no doubt they still would have received the compassionate release request in due course - whether they would still have released him under that, I can't say, but presumably they would have.

Since the U.K does not have jurisdiction over Scots Law, Scotland cannot run for cover under the excuse that the U.K. government made us do it.
Click to expand...

No, they can't. Nor are they. I'm saying they were 'dropped in it' (though clearly if they'd have released him anyway on compassionate grounds, all the UK machinations are a bit moot). They are standing by their autonomous decision to release on compassionate grounds. Which is precisely what their solution allows them to do. They assessed Megrahi according to their own laws and guidelines, and decided to release him.

Personally I think they had the leeway to (and should have) made an exception to keep him where he was. In fact I wonder why they didn't, as it would have made life tricky for Gordon Brown et al. The only answer I can see is that they really believe that they've done the right thing.

In any case, this is getting off the point. You said;

Scotland was planning to release Megrahi long before he was diagnosed with cancer.
Click to expand...

Whereas the evidence clearly shows that the SNP were the ones pushing to have Megrahi excluded from the PTA!
 
Last edited:
My own personal view is that so long as Megrahi was middle-aged and healthy, the Scottish government was content for him to stay where he was and get on with the appeal. Which was proceeding at a glacial pace, but would presumably have come to court eventually. The UK government (or more specifically Tony Blair) would have preferred to do a prisoner transfer deal with Gaddafi, in connection with oil exploitation rights for BP.

This was kind of tricky, in that the PTA wasn't technically in Blair's gift - it was a matter for the Scottish executive. Blair seems to have made this clear, but in the initial stages of the agreement he seemed confident that he could deliver nonetheless. I don't have the reference for this, but it was what was being reported in May/June 2007. Of course he would have had reason to be confident, because when he began negotiations the Labour party formed the administration in Scotland, and could reasonably have been expected to do what they were told. However, on 4th May 2007 the SNP won the election, and as soon as they found out about the "deal in the desert" they announced that Megrahi was going precisely nowhere.

In any case, Megrahi had an outstanding appeal, so the PTA was academic anyway. Megrahi stayed where he was, the appeal remained stalled (at least partly because of difficulties in getting this top-secret document with sensitive information about "a friendly power" released), impasse.

However, last autumn it was announced that Megrahi was suffering from cancer. The question of compassionate release was discussed openly almost immediately, but the response was, no way, he's not sick enough. This changed this summer, when he got sicker.

I think MacAskill wasn't going to go for the PTA because he didn't want to do what Tony Blair wanted him to do. Also, because the PTA was inextricably linked with the BP oil deal, and he wouldn't want to be associated with that sort of horse-trading. However, I think he wanted Megrahi out of the country, and not just on compassionate grounds. I think he would have shared Brown's reported opinion that allowing Megrahi to die in jail would foster enmity and bitterness in middle eastern relations for a generation.

And that's not even bringing up the matter of the extremely large question marks over Megrahi's guilt (well, not to put too fine a point on it, the absence of actual evidence that he did it), or whether there are any parties who have an interest in avoiding any further enquiry into what actually happened on the winter solstice of 1988.

Rolfe.
 
I think that sums it up nicely. Anyone that thinks the SNP would do Labour's bidding is dreaming.
 
Rolfe said:
My own personal view is that so long as Megrahi was middle-aged and healthy, the Scottish government was content for him to stay where he was and get on with the appeal. Which was proceeding at a glacial pace, but would presumably have come to court eventually. The UK government (or more specifically Tony Blair) would have preferred to do a prisoner transfer deal with Gaddafi, in connection with oil exploitation rights for BP.


...snip...
Click to expand...

I disagree that we can conclude this from the actual information we have access to.

From what has been released I would say that the UK government was using a possible PTA that did not exclude Megrahi as part of the diplomatic talks with the Libyans.

Some of the media (and politicians) seem to have been astonished that the UK government does not always tell the truth to foreign governments, and engages in shenanigans by saying different things to different people, a view that I find incredible naive.

From the documents that have been released I just see the typical diplomatic horse trading any government does (and should) engage in when trying to promote the interests of the country that it represents. And I'd say the UK government was showing a great amount of tact and appreciation for the fact that they were discussing issues that would effect the entire UK when they were responding to questions from the Scottish government.

From the documentation that has been released it would appear that what was originally stated was the simple truth i.e. he was released on compassionate grounds and the decision was entirely in the hands of the Scottish government.
 
Maybe. But the surrounding politics of it taint the whole affair. I see no way around calling this a smoke and mirrors backdoor deal years in the making. To me it looks like the Scottish government was used as a sacrificial pawn without them even knowing it. And there are still unanswered questions. Is this "secret document" ever going to be released? That might clear up a few things. But yes the release seems straightforward and uncomplicated. It's EVERYTHING ELSE that is the problem.
 
Policenaut said:
Maybe. But the surrounding politics of it taint the whole affair. I see no way around calling this a smoke and mirrors backdoor deal years in the making. To me it looks like the Scottish government was used as a sacrificial pawn without them even knowing it. And there are still unanswered questions. Is this "secret document" ever going to be released? That might clear up a few things. But yes the release seems straightforward and uncomplicated. It's EVERYTHING ELSE that is the problem.
Click to expand...

I would only disagree with the bolded part. It seems to me that the scottish government could see quite clearly what was planned and that is why they sought the exclusion. I find that quite reassuring. They were not naive and they were not stupid. They did not have the power to avoid being placed in an invidious position, but they did recognise the potential
 
Obviously doctors cannot be wrong (they wear white lab coats and have impressive titles). This is either a conspiracy or the handiwork of Allah.
 
Cain said:
Obviously doctors cannot be wrong (they wear white lab coats and have impressive titles). This is either a conspiracy or the handiwork of Allah.
Click to expand...

Even phony titles:

"Professor Karol Sikora, the cancer specialist is no stranger to media headlines. This year, he was formally disowned by Imperial College after it was revealed that his online C.V (published on his own website) stated that he was “Professor of Cancer Medicine and honorary Consultant Oncologist at Imperial College School of Medicine, Hammersmith Hospital, London”. As it turned out, that wasn’t quite true."

"The false claim was repeated underneath an article he wrote for UnionLeader.com. It was written on the same day an advert, in which he appeared opposing President Barack Obama’s healthcare reforms, was aired on US television for the first time in May. The rector of Imperial issued a statement, published in The Guardian:"

“I can confirm that Karol Sikora is not on the staff at Imperial and does not hold the title of honorary professor of oncology,” the rector of the college, Prof Sir Roy Anderson, said. “This individual has been warned before by the college for making claims that he is employed by us, or associated with us. His views are very certainly not the views of the college.”

"All of this raises the question: why was a man who has shown a lack of attention to detail in his professional life asked to examine the Lockerbie bomber to decide how long he had to live?"


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/w...n’t-the-lockerbie-doctor’s-first-pr-disaster/
 
Cicero said:
"All of this raises the question: why was a man who has shown a lack of attention to detail in his professional life asked to examine the Lockerbie bomber to decide how long he had to live?"
Click to expand...

I think there's already several threads about this case in the Conspiracy Theory area. This (that the doctor was somehow in on it) is a new CT on me but you might get some traction there.
 
Matthew Best said:
I think there's already several threads about this case in the Conspiracy Theory area. This (that the doctor was somehow in on it) is a new CT on me but you might get some traction there.
Click to expand...

Traction? Professor Karol Sikora lying about his credentials and then misdiagnosing the severity of Al Megrahi's condition is not a case of some conspriacist spinning their wheels. These are the facts. If you consider these facts beyond their own significance, then you are the one spinning woo.
 
Cicero said:
Traction? Professor Karol Sikora lying about his credentials and then misdiagnosing the severity of Al Megrahi's condition is not a case of some conspriacist spinning their wheels. These are the facts. If you consider these facts beyond their own significance, then you are the one spinning woo.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant anyway, as his prognosis was not used by the Scottish prison health board. We know who made the case for an estimated three months. Throw out your red herrings, they stink.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom