Merged [Ed] Convicted Lockerbie bomber released

Donal said:
Were they federal prisoners? Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the UK part of the Good Friday accords? I'm pretty sure they'd have to sign off on that sort of thing.
Click to expand...

Yes, so you think it is OK to release these terrorists early?

or not?
 
Donal said:
1) when was I incorrect prior to this?

2) what part? Did Tony Blair not negotiate a Memorandum of Understanding with Libya and several MidEast nations? About Scotland having jurisdiction in the case? About the MoU possibly influencing the release (it has previsions regarding extraditing prisoners)?

If you could, you know, clarify. Two word statements with no backing what so ever do nothing to progress the discussion.
Click to expand...

The UK Government negotiated a treaty with a foreign nation, that is one of its purposes. All UK citizens whether they label themselves Scottish, Welsh, English, Northern Irish, Geordies or any other label are represented by the UK government and we all (can) vote for who forms our government.
 
Donal said:
Hey, EJ, what is your opinion of the fact that Tony Blair cut this deal with Libya without consulting with the Scottish government, who actually held jurisdiction in the case?

Is this a case of standing up to US bullying or a case of folding to English bullying?
Click to expand...


Tony Blair cut a deal with Libya in early 2007, in the belief that the Labour party would win the imminent Scottish election and he could then tell Jack the Lad what to do. I think he intended to tell Jack to grant the prisoner transfer after having persuaded Megrahi to drop his appeal (as that would have been necessary for the transfer to go ahead). In the event, Labour lost that election and Jack the Lad was out on his ear. The incoming SNP government has at no point folded to that deal. Kenny McAskill specifically stated that the application for prisoner transfer had been rejected.

He also said that while he'd listened to what Hillary had to say, he had made the decision to grant compassionate release.

I think he's being quite careful not to look as if he's caving in to anyone.

I do think something is going on though, because I think he twisted Megrahi's arm to drop that appeal, which could quite easily have gone ahead even with the compassionate release.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
Shaun from Scotland said:
Never mind the Good Friday Agreement. How about the ones who fled there and are currently sunning themselves in Boston and other parts with the collusion of American politicians?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. My issue is with some posters that think the UK is somehow morally superior when it comes to playing politics. You may call them crisps, we may call them potato chips, but we're really not different at all.
 
Last edited:
Fiona said:
It is barbaric imo too, Guybrush, But the us is a sovereign nation and while I can abhor the decisions they take and the thinking behind it I believe that is their right. I believe that it is quite dangerous to lose respect for sovereignty

That is not to say we cannot criticise, just as the us can criticise our decisions. They have done so and that is fine with me so long as it is all they (and we) do
Click to expand...
Two German resident aliens once robbed a bank in Arizona. They tortured and killed the bank clerk. They were caught and sentenced to die by lethal injection. They were guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. A witness had been suspicious and had taken down the tag number of the getaway car. The money was found in their possession and ballistics taken from the gun they used to kill the clerk matched the gun the police found in the car.

After many years they were executed over the objections of the Pope and Amnesty International. I felt no compassion for them. I am a compassionant person but I limit my compassion to the mentally ill criminals and to the victims and their familys.

I do not feel that Aileen Wournos should have been executed. I feel that her horrible mistreatment during her childhood had caused her to be at least partially insane. So you see I am not heartless.
 
funk de fino said:
Yes, so you think it is OK to release these terrorists early?

or not?
Click to expand...

No, not really, but if they were in federal custody and the UK government (which was a party to the Good Friday Accords) signed off on it, there really isn't too much more to be said.

By the way, my statements regarding Blair and the MoU were just my ham-fisted way of pointing out how silly and hypocritical the OP's drama of Hillary Clinton's statements was. But it is a prisoner transfer, technically. He is supposedly going to be serving out his sentence in Libya. It just seems to be a house arrest than regular prison sentence.

And "life in prison" does indeed mean that you are intended to die in prison.
 
Shaun from Scotland said:
Never mind the Good Friday Agreement. How about the ones who fled there and are currently sunning themselves in Boston and other parts with the collusion of American politicians?
Click to expand...


Send them back to the proper countries for a fair trial.
 
Donal said:
No, not really, but if they were in federal custody and the UK government (which was a party to the Good Friday Accords) signed off on it, there really isn't too much more to be said.

By the way, my statements regarding Blair and the MoU were just my ham-fisted way of pointing out how silly and hypocritical the OP's drama of Hillary Clinton's statements was. But it is a prisoner transfer, technically. He is supposedly going to be serving out his sentence in Libya. It just seems to be a house arrest than regular prison sentence.

And "life in prison" does indeed mean that you are intended to die in prison.
Click to expand...

No, it is NOT prisoner transfer. He has been freed on compassionate grounds.
 
He also said that while he'd listened to what Hillary had to say, he had made the decision to grant compassionate release.
Click to expand...

Which is perfectly reasonable. He is mainly concerned with the will of his electorate and his country's law while also considering the opinion of a major ally who was affected by the prisoner's alleged actions.
 
Donal said:
But it is a prisoner transfer, technically. He is supposedly going to be serving out his sentence in Libya. It just seems to be a house arrest than regular prison sentence.

And "life in prison" does indeed mean that you are intended to die in prison.
Click to expand...

Technically it is not a prisoner transfer. That was applied for and the application was denied. Megrahi has been released on compassionate grounds: a different process which is also part of Scottish law.

"Life in prison" may or may not mean what you say. A life sentence does not mean that here.
 
Fiona said:
That is not correct. The speech made it very plain that the representations of both the US government and the families of the victims were canvassed; and were taken into account in making the decision along with a lot of other things.

It is not the case that no attention was paid to those things and it would not have been right to make the decision without considering the whole picture
Click to expand...

The leader of the Scottish government Alex Salmond is reported as follows: -

'...Speaking after the receipt of a letter from several high-profile US senators, including Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, the First Minister said: "There will be no consideration of international power politics or anything else. It will be taken on the evidence in the interest of justice."..'
from http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Alex-Salmond-paves-the-way.5565766.jp

He was also reported in the same article as follows
'...But despite the unprecedented international pressure, Mr Salmond was adamant that Mr MacAskill, who has to make the decision, would look at the applications to send Megrahi home on their merits and not be bullied one way or the other.'...'

The Scottish government has absolutely no duty to the US government in any shape or form and the vindictiveness of the US government has nothing to do with the merits of the case or the evidence or the interests of justice. Scotland does not share US values in this area.
 
Darat said:
Ah I see - you haven't heard what the Scottish justice minister actually said the Scottish government had done - try to grab hold of a transcript or catch it on our national news tonight and you'll find you are very much mistaken.
Click to expand...

If you scroll up the thread you'll find where I posted some of what the First Minister has actually said. Then you will find that I am not unless you believe that US government vindictiveness is somehow of 'merit' or 'evidence' or part of Scottish law in relation to the case.
 
Edited by Darat: 
Removal of part of a post moved to AAH.


Don't worry she wouldn't be allowed in no matter how much she scweams and scweams until she is sick - as the Scottish government has just amply demonstrated. We don't share her blood lust. Happily.
Click to expand...
So issuing one statement is "scweams and scweams" (must be more of that Oxford English). And wanting to see a sentence handed down by a court legally carried out is blood lust.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
E.J.Armstrong said:
Don't worry she wouldn't be allowed in no matter how much she scweams and scweams until she is sick - as the Scottish government has just amply demonstrated. We don't share her blood lust. Happily.

PS

Your Usan dictionary seems to have given you the wrong spelling for the Scottish national dish.
Click to expand...
What blood lust? All she suggested was that you keep a terrorist in prison. She didn't say burn him at the stake.
 
Cainkane1 said:
What blood lust? All she suggested was that you keep a terrorist in prison. She didn't say burn him at the stake.
Click to expand...

He's gone from calling her a bully to saying she's demanding blood lust. Hilliary must scare the heck out of him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom