Thread: The release of the Lockerbie bomber

Release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi a mistake, government says | Politics | The Guardian




These American senators are being a tad hypocritical about the whole affair.
I work for a major American Engineering and Construction Company and we have been openly pursuing projects in Libya for the last 5 years and have succeeded in acquiring one multi-million EPC contract, with more to come.
Let’s face it Megrahi’s conviction was at best dubious and at worst purely political.




The controversy surrounding the release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing reignited yesterday after Britain's ambassador to the US said the government regretted the Scottish decision to free Abdelbaset al-Megrahi and considered it a "mistake".
Sir Nigel Sheinwald's remarks come amid claims by a group of Democrat senators that BP lobbied the British government to release Megrahi to help it secure an oil deal with Libya.
The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, is to look into the allegations, while the powerful Senate foreign relations committee will question BP executives at a special session later this month. The prisoner transfer agreement with Libya was signed in 2007 – the same year BP sealed a $900m (£584m) exploration agreement with Tripoli.
Gordon Brown insisted at the time that not he but the Scottish government had taken the decision to release Megrahi, and he "respected" the Scottish ministers right to do so, a phrase that was taken as an endorsement of Megrahi's release.
Last night, Sheinwald issued a statement that made it clear that the coalition government takes a different view.
said: "The new British government is clear Megrahi's release was a mistake. [It] deeply regrets the continuing anguish that his release on compassionate grounds has caused the families of Megrahi's victims in the UK, as well as in the US. However, under UK law, where Scottish justice issues are devolved to Scotland, it fell solely to the Scottish executive to consider Megrahi's case. Under Scottish law, Megrahi was entitled to be considered for release on compassionate grounds. Whilst we disagreed with the decision to release Megrahi, we have to respect the independence of the process. The inquiry by the justice committee of the Scottish parliament concluded in February that the Scottish executive took this decision in good faith, on the basis of the medical evidence available to them at the time, and due process was followed.
"We have to accept that the release licence does not provide a mechanism for a person who has been released on compassionate grounds to be returned to prison if they have survived for longer than the period diagnosed by the relevant medical authorities."
A spokesman for the Scottish executive denied it had any contact with BP before releasing Megrahi. It said it had transferred him purely on compassionate grounds because of his ill health. "We had absolutely no representations from BP. Mr Megrahi … was sent home to die according to the due process of Scots law, based on the medical report of the Scottish Prison Service director of health and care, and the recommendations of the Parole Board and prison governor."
Clinton discussed the issue with the foreign secretary, William Hague, who raised the idea of Britain explaining the circumstances to the US lawmakers, the State Department said.
Claims that Megrahi was released because of an oil deal and that medical evidence supporting his release, was paid for by the Libyan government, were not true, said Sheinwald.
Yesterday, BP acknowledged it pressed the government over the signing of the prisoner transfer agreement with the Gaddafi regime, but insisted it had made no representations about Megrahi's actual release. Megrahi was the only man to be convicted of involvement in the bombing of Pan Am flight 103, which killed 270 people in 1988. He was freed on compassionate grounds after being diagnosed with terminal cancer and given three months to live.
Libya says the guilt of the former intelligence agent has never been proven, although it paid compensation.New York Democrat senators Frank Lautenberg, Kirsten Gillibrand and Charles Schumer and New Jersey Democrat senator Robert Menendez called for an inquiry, after reports that a cancer expert, who backed the three-month prognosis, now believed Megrahi could live for 10 or 20 years.
But yesterday, professor Karol Sikora, medical director of CancerPartners UK, said his words were taken out of context, and that the chances of Megrahi surviving for a decade were "less than 1%".
Sikora said: "There was a greater than 50% chance, in my opinion, that he would die within the first three months then gradually as you go along the chances get less and less.
"So the chances of living 10 years is less than 1%, something like that."
In a letter to Clinton, the senators questioned whether BP was prepared to "trade justice ... for oil profits".

Whatever anyone's view on the guy's guilt or innocence, is not relevant to the issue being discussed here. Its about his release and how that came about and importantly, whether it was right?

Legally yes, if you believe all the reports on the processes that were followed. Did they have to release him, no. Should they have released him, no. It was a morally bankrupt decision, the circumstances of which and in particular the actions of the Scottish Minister involved, demonstrated a lack of maturity in governance, IMO.

Which I wouldn't otherwise care a toss about, I'm quite happy for the Scots to have full indedependance from the UK and in turn to stop being a leach on the South East of England, which props them up. But that's a different debate.

But in this instance, their immaturity has brought shame to the rest of the UK.

^
I beg to differ, of course its relevant.
There has always been doubt about the conviction? The conviction was to appease the Americans. The trial was held in Holland for a specific reason namely Gaddhafi did not trust the UK or US justice systems, and after seeing how this conviction was manipulated by the prosecution on the flimsiest of evidence, he had a very fair point.
The biggest problem that faced the Scottish government was the fact that if Megrahi had gota retrial because of all new evidence that had become available, he would have walked anyway. Then there would be a very damaging lawsuit for wrongful arrest and imprisonment

Even Dr. Jim Swire whose daughter died as a passenger on the flight said Megrahi is a scapegoat, and the real perpitrators are still at large in Syria or Iran.

Scotland on Sunday Online - Scotland's biggest selling quality Sunday newspaper

Scotland on Sunday
14/01/2001

“Not guilty or not proven, in the highly-charged political atmosphere of Lockerbie, would be as much a triumph as finding the guilty men. To compromise the standards that dictate innocence or guilt would be a defeat”.

Megrahi's appeal would have released embarrassing info into the public domain, that the UK and US wanted kept quiet.

Couple of points to bear in mind Megrahi wasn't responsible for the Lockerbie bombing both the British and US governments know this.

He was released for no other reason than the Scottish Executive wanted to pretend it was a player on the World Stage when it is nothing more than a jumped up local council.

If Megrahis appeal had gone ahead it would have been highly embarrassing for the British and US Governments and the Scottish Executive, the Scottish Police, MI6, the FBI and the CIA.

He was released for no other reason that if it had gone to a retrial he would have most certainly walked with the new evidence available.

The Scottish Executive was stuck between a rock and a hard place. With a man in jail who everyone knew did not plant the bomb on the aircraft.

The collusion,posturing and downright lying between the US and UK governments to secure a conviction during the trial in the Netherlands was absolutely appalling.

He done the time because he was a member of Libyan Intelligence nothing more and nothing less.

It was a grave miscarriage of justice brought about by the US and UK governments intelligence services being unable to find out who the real perpitrators were and apprehend them accordingly

You're all making lots of assertions about why he was released, so I can only assume you were all involved in the investigation or subsequent trial and have had the opportunity to examine in detail all the evidence, or any new evidence? Of course not, so whilst there could be some merit in your views, in reality its all conjecture (and please don't direct me to the usual internet nut sites where the definition of 'evidence' is a victim).

At the moment all we know is that the Scottish Govt. made a decision to release him on medical grounds so he could die at home and they didn't have to. That's a fact.

Originally Posted by caller

You're all making lots of assertions about why he was released, so I can only assume you were all involved in the investigation or subsequent trial and have had the opportunity to examine in detail all the evidence, or any new evidence? Of course not, so whilst there could be some merit in your views, in reality its all conjecture (and please don't direct me to the usual internet nut sites where the definition of 'evidence' is a victim).

At the moment all we know is that the Scottish Govt. made a decision to release him on medical grounds so he could die at home and they didn't have to. That's a fact.

Caller


I don’t know about the other posters, but I certainly was not part of the investigation or subsequent trial or have I had the opportunity to eximine in detail all the evidence, or any new evidence, but that does not disqualify me from having an opinion, after all opinions are like assholes, we have all got one.

^^
Assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups as they say in the good ole US of A.

Six months prior to the shooting down of the Pan-Am flight, the USS Vincennes shot shot down a civilian airliner en route from Iran to Dubai (UAE)9
Having probably pissed off the Iranian government along with everyone else in the Middle East due to their shoot shoot to kill attitude worldwide.Its a fair assumption that the Iranians fucked the Pan Am flight in revenge for the attack on the Airbus.

Read the transcripts from the trial in Holland, its actually educational and shows you how by law how a prosecution can be flawed.

Given that its quite possible, and believable, that the pan-am bombing was revenge for the plane shot down by the Captain of the USS Vincennes, on I believe his crews 6th attempt to fire the missile; it is quite likely if the US government had treated the captain as a common murderer then the bombing would not have happened. It would have also have meant that the US government could have critized the release of this man without looking like a bunch of hypocrites.

Personally I would rather release him to die at home in anonymity than have him die in prison as some kind of martyr.