Lockerbie Bomber Set Free

[Nagishkaw 510]

WE???????????????/ AMericans.. thats we and I can say whatever I please since I was born here, raised here, my dad was navy, brother airforce, uncle navy...im American and we think in this country WE know everything...

0r at least YOU think you do. How's that for being an American?

[NArocks 13]

[Nagishkaw 510]

WE???????????????/ AMericans.. thats we and I can say whatever I please since I was born here, raised here, my dad was navy, brother airforce, uncle navy...im American and we think in this country WE know everything...

Are WE going to bring up our ancestors?

Edited August 21, 2009 by Nagishkaw

[HAL 9000 96]

So if you have no ancestry with military experience... you can't say what you want?

[Nagishkaw 510]

Nope, just no need to hide behind it.

[Twisted K 2]

sister rocks, pass the

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

So if you have no ancestry with military experience... you can't say what you want?

i'm pointing out that it's silly to ride the coattails of those who served in the military when the op didn't. kinda reminds me of a few officer's wives who wear their husband's rank.

[HAL 9000 96]

sister rocks, pass the

That does remind me... I once went to the movies in Glasgow where I had some really good sweet popcorn.

[Peikko 1,575]

More on the story.

I think this is really interesting because to my mind it highlights the political desire to 'bend' justice and the Scottish Justice Minister's desire to stand by their system of justice, but anyway:

The White House tonight gave vent to its fury over the release of the convicted Lockerbie bomber when it described the triumphalist scenes greeting his homecoming at Tripoli airport as "outrageous and disgusting".

Amid growing anger on both sides of the Atlantic at the decision of the Scottish government to free the man convicted of the murder of 270 people on Pan Am flight 103, the British government went out of its way to distance itself from the decision.

Downing Street confirmed that Gordon Brown had written a personal letter to Muammar Gaddafi calling on Libya to "act with sensitivity" and to ensure a "low-key return" for Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. Hours after Britain sent the letter, however, Megrahi was cheered by hundreds of supporters, some waving Scottish flags, as he landed at Tripoli airport accompanied by the Libyan leader's son.

David Miliband, the foreign secretary, drew criticism for refusing to offer an opinion on whether he supported the release, and felt moved to calm the diplomatic row by publishing a statement on the website of the British embassy in Washington saying that the decision to release Megrahi was entirely a matter for the Scottish government.

US unease with the way the episode is playing with victims' families was highlighted last night when the White House condemned the scenes at Tripoli airport in unusually undiplomatic language. Robert Gibbs, Barack Obama's spokesman, said: "I think those images we saw in Libya yesterday were outrageous and disgusting. We continue to express our condolences to those families that lost loved ones as a result of this terrorist outrage."

Obama himself described the scenes in Tripoli as "highly objectionable", and the White House warned the Libyan government that it risked a rift in relations between the two countries if there is any repetition of the hero's welcome for Megrahi. Gibbs said the US would be keeping a close watch on what happens next in Libya. The US told the Libyans it wants Megrahi to be held under house arrest. Part of the American anger is because Libya snubbed a direct plea by Obama on Thursday, before Megrahi arrived back, not to award him a hero's welcome.

Downing Street was also irritated by the scenes at the airport. Sir Vincent Fean, the British ambassador to Tripoli, delivered Brown's letter to the Libyan prime minister an hour after the plane flying Megrahi home had left Glasgow airport at 3.26pm on Thursday.

British government sources said they were "not over the moon" about the celebrations. But they accepted Libyan explanations that it had not been an official demonstration and that security officials had turned away crowds at the airport.

Miliband made clear that he will be monitoring Libyan conduct. Britain will be upset if Megrahi maintains a high profile and Gaddafi meets him in person. Describing the scenes at the airport as "deeply upsetting", Miliband said: "I think it's very important that Libya knows – and certainly we have told them – that how the Libyan government handles itself in the next few days after the arrival of Mr Megrahi will be very significant in the way the world views Libya's re-entry into the civilised community of nations."

In a sign that Anglo-Libyan relations have been damaged by the release of Megrahi, British government sources indicated last night that it was highly unlikely that the Duke of York would attend ceremonies next month to mark the 40th anniversary of the Libyan revolution that brought Gaddafi to power. No formal invitation has been sent but the duke, Britain's official trade envoy, had been expected to attend the event as part of Britain's growing trade relationship with Libya.

Amid hopes in London and Washington that the row will quieten down over the weekend, the Scottish government is planning to launch a strong defence of its decision. Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish justice secretary, who released Megrahi on compassionate grounds because he has terminal prostate cancer, is expected to criticise London's conduct when the Scottish parliament, which is being recalled, meets in emergency session on Monday.

MacAskill is said to be furious with the UK government for refusing to take part in his consultations over the release. SNP sources believe that Brown ordered ministers not to take part - in contrast to the US authorities, who had lengthy discussions with MacAskill – so that London could distance itself from the decision.

The UK government refused to answer in detail a letter from MacAskill after the US authorities told him that London had given an assurance that Megrahi would always serve his sentence in Scotland. MacAskill says London's failure to answer this question was one reason why he could not transfer Megrahi to a prison in Libya.

David Cameron called on the prime minister to say whether he supported the decision, pointing out that Gaddafi's son had publicly thanked the Scottish authorities and the British government for their stance.

Link

While any jubilation at the return of a convicted criminal is obviously difficult to stomach and certainly no one in their right mind is going to condone it this notion that the UK and US governments were going to be able to stop it when one considers the nature of the Gaddafi regime is beyond strange.

It is becoming increasingly clear to me that politicians are less and less willing to stand up and deliver unpalatable truths to their electorate, preferring instead to pander and gloss. This is the real danger to our liberty in my opinion, not the fact that a guilty man was treated with compassion by a civilized nation.

Edited August 21, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[_Simpson_ 250]

Do you blame them, I wouldn't want anything to do with that decision.

[Peikko 1,575]

I am increasingly disturbed by the fact that the one person who has stood up to be counted, that made a decision that should be appladed for it's judicial integrity is the one person who is being castigated and vilified while the rest of the dirty scheming bastards tut tut and shake heads. It's scurrilous.

Do you blame them, I wouldn't want anything to do with that decision.

No, because you are weak like they are. Doing what is popular is not always doing what is right.

I think that would read better as doing what is right is not always doing what is popular

Edited August 21, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[_Simpson_ 250]

I am increasingly disturbed by the fact that the one person who has stood up to be counted, that made a decision that should be appladed for it's judicial integrity is the one person who is being castigated and vilified while the rest of the dirty scheming bastards tut tut and shake heads. It's scurrilous.

Do you blame them, I wouldn't want anything to do with that decision.

No, because you are weak like they are. Doing what is popular is not always doing what is right.

I think that would read better as doing what is right is not always doing what is popular

I am weak because I would of rather seen him die in a hospital alone and away from his family rather than in a place where he will have his family and be looked at as a hero. The minister did have wiggle room and should of used it and I dont blame the gov. for not wanted to be associated with such a decision.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The Secretary had to release the guy on legal grounds (or else it would have created a new precedent under Scottish law), his personal opinion didn't factor into the decision - nor did he allow outside political interference to influence the decision.

[HAL 9000 96]

Away from his family. That seems like punishment for the family, not the guy. And I don't think the family went on trial.

[Peikko 1,575]

I am increasingly disturbed by the fact that the one person who has stood up to be counted, that made a decision that should be appladed for it's judicial integrity is the one person who is being castigated and vilified while the rest of the dirty scheming bastards tut tut and shake heads. It's scurrilous.

Do you blame them, I wouldn't want anything to do with that decision.

No, because you are weak like they are. Doing what is popular is not always doing what is right.

I think that would read better as doing what is right is not always doing what is popular

I am weak because I would of rather seen him die in a hospital alone and away from his family rather than in a place where he will have his family and be looked at as a hero. The minister did have wiggle room and should of used it and I dont blame the gov. for not wanted to be associated with such a decision.

What 'wiggle room' did he have? To set a precedent that would irrevocably change Scottish law and not because there was any problem with the application, it passed every legal test, but because of public outcry? To change the law in order to pander to political expediency?

Again, you do not seem to appreciate what you are expecting of this minister, that somehow your need to see a criminal die in as horrible circumstance as is possible (even though it would really not be all that different to how it will pan our), is more important than Scottish law. As I said, the minister did the right thing, not the popular thing. Nothing materially changes because he is released early in order to die from a terminal illness.

Edited August 21, 2009 by Madame Cleo