News Did Gaddafi's Threats Lead to Lockerbie Bomber's Release?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mathnomalous
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The release of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Al-Megrahi was influenced by threats from Colonel Gaddafi, who warned of severe repercussions for UK interests if Megrahi remained imprisoned. This included the potential cessation of UK commercial activities in Libya and a deterioration of political relations. U.S. documents from WikiLeaks reveal that the UK government, under Gordon Brown, agreed to the release, raising ethical concerns about prioritizing oil interests over justice for the 270 victims of the 1988 bombing. The situation has sparked outrage among victims' families and criticism of medical professionals involved in assessing Megrahi's health, with accusations that their prognosis may have been manipulated for political gain. The controversy highlights the complex interplay between diplomacy, commercial interests, and moral responsibility.
Mathnomalous
Messages
83
Reaction score
5
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...bomber-freed-Gaddafi-threat-cut-UK-knees.html

Daily Mail said:
The Lockerbie bomber was freed following ‘thuggish threats’ from Colonel Gaddafi to take ‘harsh and immediate action’ against UK interests in Libya.

The dictator *threatened to cut Britain ‘off at the knees’ unless Abdelbaset Ali Al-Megrahi was sent home and offered a ‘parade of treats’ to the Scottish government.

By releasing the bomber, Scottish leaders sparked fury among the relatives of the 270 killed in 1988 when a Pan Am plane was brought down over Lockerbie.

The U.S. documents, released last night by the WikiLeaks website, reveal Libyan officials ‘convinced UK embassy officers that the consequences if Megrahi were to die in prison… would be harsh, immediate and not easily remedied’.

Among the ‘specific threats’ were the ‘immediate cessation of all UK commercial activity in Libya, a diminishing or severing of political ties, and demonstrations against official UK facilities’.

The papers are hugely embarrassing since they reveal that Gordon Brown’s government was in full agreement that Megrahi should be sent home.

So much for "humanitarian reasons" or "not negotiations with terrorists." 270 lives sold away for oil. Shame on you, UK.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org


Professors Sikora, Sharif, and Waxman have some explaining to do...
 


Mathnomalous said:
270 lives sold away for oil. Shame on you, UK.
270 - you aren't even trying !
 


WhoWee said:

yeah... but
Professor Sikora sparked fury on both sides of the Atlantic earlier this month when he said Megrahi could actually survive for “10 years, 20 years”.

The row has seen BP accused of lobbying for Megrahi’s release in a bid to win drilling rights. The company is about to start deep water drilling off Libya. Professor Sikora appeared to suggest the Libyans had encouraged the specialists to deliver a three-month prognosis.

Professor Waxman, who has written 11 books about cancer and founded The Prostate Cancer Charity, which raises £8million a year, said the anger generated by Professor Sikora’s comments was “his own fault for volunteering that information”. “He has been very silly,” he added. “However, I do think what he said was taken out of context.”

i don't see Waxman volunteering information now. so what did he/they actually say in their report to the scottish government? perhaps they said "could be 3 months, could be 20 years". and now Waxman is disappointed about that sort of information being volunteered.

i am not so much interested in how much wiggle room he may have given in his prognosis, so much as his foreknowledge of what the information was being used for. such a broad prognosis based on population statistics instead of the health of the actual patient would make it easy for a politician to err on whatever side he thinks is convenient to his interests.
 


Proton Soup said:
yeah... but


i don't see Waxman volunteering information now. so what did he/they actually say in their report to the scottish government? perhaps they said "could be 3 months, could be 20 years". and now Waxman is disappointed about that sort of information being volunteered.

i am not so much interested in how much wiggle room he may have given in his prognosis, so much as his foreknowledge of what the information was being used for. such a broad prognosis based on population statistics instead of the health of the actual patient would make it easy for a politician to err on whatever side he thinks is convenient to his interests.

re: bolded... That sounds right on the money to me. It fits his statement and reaction well, and it seems to dovetail with this whole fiasco. Maybe we should bomb Al Aziziya again...
 


Proton Soup said:
Professors Sikora, Sharif, and Waxman have some explaining to do...

Two words would suffice: "We goofed."

Yep...
 

Similar threads

Back
Top