News Terminally ill Lockerbie bomber can live on for a decade.

[shoehorn]

The main purpose of the trial is to find out whether or not the perpetrator actually is the perpetrator. Having the victim interfere unnecessarily will only interfere with this process and could serve to make an innocent person into a victim.

To be fair, that's not how victim impact statements work. They are usually (always?) delivered to the court orally or in written form after a guilty verdict but before sentencing has taken place. I have difficulty seeing how this risks producing an incorrect verdict.

 

[Evo]

Of course. But there seems to be a worrying undercurrent that the feelings of victims' families should be given undue weight largely because they are American, not because they are victims. This is quite bizarre.

I don't think the nationality should make a difference, I think the point was that there were considerably more of them. I believe that a member claimed that some Scottish victim's families thought the release was ok, as if them being Scottish gave them more weight in the matter.

 

[shoehorn]

I don't think the nationality should make a difference, I think the point was there were considerably more of them. I believe that a member claimed that some Scottish victim families thought the release was ok, as if them being Scottish gave them more weight in the matter.

Some of the Scottish victims' families did indeed say they were okay with the release; largely this was to do with the fact that they didn't actually believe the original verdict was safe. (As before, see previous editions of BBC Newsnight or Private Eye.)

As to whether or not this lends more credence to their opinions, I don't know. One could possibly make the case that it's their country, their legal system, and their tax revenue that paid for the trial, incarceration, and subsequent appeals. One could also make the case that there's still a large degree of resentment in Scotland and the UK more broadly about the interference of the US state department and law enforcement in the case. Whether these are convincing arguments I doubt any of us can say.

 

[madness]

Better late than never - I found one of the news stories from the time with Scottish families' opinions. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/south_of_scotland/8199574.stm

Some British relatives of the victims believe Megrahi was only a small part of the terrorist plot, while others believe he should not have been convicted at all.

Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the bombing, said he had never been convinced that Megrahi had carried out the bombing.

"The sooner he is back with his family, the better," he said.

"On reasonable human grounds it is the right thing to do.

"If it's true that he is to be returned on compassionate grounds, then that would be more to Scotland's credit than returning him under the prison transfer agreement."

Martin Cadman, who lost his son Bill, would also support Megrahi's release.

He said: "I think he is innocent and even if he were not innocent, I still think it's the right thing to do on compassionate grounds."

Lockerbie resident Maxwell Kerr, who witnessed the devastation caused by the bombing, said he was also in favour of Megrahi being freed.

"As far as I'm concerned he should be released on compassionate grounds," he told BBC Radio's Good Morning Scotland programme.

 

[Evo]

So 2 relatives that thought Magraghi wasn't the right man to begin with. The third was just a bystander, so doesn't count.

That's not the many that you claimed. We've moved past that, but I really appreciate that you took the time to find it. Thank you.

 

[madness]

So 2 relatives that thought Magraghi wasn't the right man to begin with. The third was just a bystander, so doesn't count.

That's not the many that you claimed. We've moved past that, but I really appreciate that you took the time to find it. Thank you.

That's not really a fair assessment - the article says that the release would provoke mixed reactions from victims' families. It gives the opinion of 2 families who would be against, 2 families who would be for, and 1 witness who would be for his release. Of the two relatives that wanted his release one said they wanted his release whether or not he was guilty and the other simply didn't believe he was guilty.
The article does not in any way portray the Scottish families who are for his release as a minority or fringe group.

 

[russ_watters]

If the criterion is that the prisoner not be (medically) expected to live for more than 3 years, then his living beyond 3 years does not imply that the criterion is not met. Only a revelation that this was not a truthful expert estimation can do that.

That's months, Gokul, not years.

And you're splitting hairs. Again, I'm not claiming the judge knowingly did anything wrong: as far as the information in front of him said, the criteria was met. But the fact that the prisoner has lived much longer than 3 months means that the prediction was wrong. It's logically the same as making any other decision based on a wrong fact. Whether the judge knew it was wrong or not isn't really relevant: it was still wrong.

 

[NeoDevin]

That's months, Gokul, not years.

And you're splitting hairs. Again, I'm not claiming the judge knowingly did anything wrong: as far as the information in front of him said, the criteria was met. But the fact that the prisoner has lived much longer than 3 months means that the prediction was wrong. It's logically the same as making any other decision based on a wrong fact. Whether the judge knew it was wrong or not isn't really relevant: it was still wrong.

Just because he has lived this long, does not mean the diagnosis was wrong. Statistics: There are always outliers.

 

[Gokul43201]

But the fact that the prisoner has lived much longer than 3 months means that the prediction was wrong. It's logically the same as making any other decision based on a wrong fact.

No, it's not, Russ (that is, going by my best guess of what a "wrong fact" is). These are probabilistic models we are talking about. Whatever the determined time period was, is usually associated with some confidence level (at least in principle). One can only predict expectancies to say, a 90% confidence, or a 99% confidence or whatever. The nature of such a situation requires that some percentage of any sufficiently large sample set outlive the prediction.

Or, as NeoDevin puts it:"Statistics: There are always outliers."

 

[Cyrus]

No, it's not, Russ (that is, going by my best guess of what a "wrong fact" is). These are probabilistic models we are talking about. Whatever, the determined time period was, is usually associated with some confidence level (at least in principle). One can only predict expectancies to say, a 90% confidence, or a 99% confidence or whatever. The nature of such a situation requires that some percentage of any sufficiently large sample set outlive the prediction.

Or, as NeoDevin puts it:"Statistics: There are always outliers."

While what you are saying is correct, I feel like you are looking at the trees and missing the forest. The Judge was in no way obligated to let him go (as far as my understanding goes), and therefore this was a horribly poor political decision by the Judges.

 

[madness]

While what you are saying is correct, I feel like you are looking at the trees and missing the forest. The Judge was in no way obligated to let him go (as far as my understanding goes), and therefore this was a horribly poor political decision by the Judges.

Politics shouldn't come into it. This is a legal court, and the judge is obliged to make an unbiased decision based on Scots law. The only question (in my opinion) is whether it was the correct decision in the context of Scots law.

Edit: And from a more cynical point of view - if the release was politically motivated (as some have suggested), then it was probably not a poor political decision. If this were the case then presumably the oil deals with Libya were considered more important than some negative press in America.

 

[Evo]

Politics shouldn't come into it. This is a legal court, and the judge is obliged to make an unbiased decision based on Scots law. The only question (in my opinion) is whether it was the correct decision in the context of Scots law.

Edit: And from a more cynical point of view - if the release was politically motivated (as some have suggested), then it was probably not a poor political decision. If this were the case then presumably the oil deals with Libya were considered more important than some negative press in America.

Which makes me wonder if the Scottish Judge would have been so quick to cut a deal if Scots had been the target and the majority of victims had been Scottish? It was not an act of terrorism against the Scots. Their only involvement was that the plane crashed in Scotland. There were only 12 Scottish victims on the ground

 

[Gokul43201]

While what you are saying is correct, I feel like you are looking at the trees and missing the forest. The Judge was in no way obligated to let him go (as far as my understanding goes), and therefore this was a horribly poor political decision by the Judges.

I'm not arguing for or against the broader case at all. And you are right: I am missing the forest. But I'm doing that intentionally; the forest doesn't interest me as much as the trees.

 

[Cyrus]

Politics shouldn't come into it. This is a legal court, and the judge is obliged to make an unbiased decision based on Scots law. The only question (in my opinion) is whether it was the correct decision in the context of Scots law.

Edit: And from a more cynical point of view - if the release was politically motivated (as some have suggested), then it was probably not a poor political decision. If this were the case then presumably the oil deals with Libya were considered more important than some negative press in America.

This ain't America, what SCTOUS has no role here, and, BTW, SCTOUS does not make law, so "SCOTUS LAW" is meaningless.

 

[madness]

This ain't America, what SCTOUS has no role here, and, BTW, SCTOUS does not make law, so "SCOTUS LAW" is meaningless.

Lol took me a while to work out what you were talking about here. You might find this helpful - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_law.

 

[Cyrus]

Lol took me a while to work out what you were talking about here. You might find this helpful - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_law.

LOL. My bad!

 

[mheslep]

Unbelievable:

LONDON — The oil giant BP faced a new furor on Thursday as it confirmed that it had lobbied the British government to conclude a prisoner-transfer agreement that the Libyan government wanted to secure the release of the only person ever convicted for the 1988 Lockerbie airliner bombing over Scotland, which killed 270 people, most of them Americans.

The admission came after American legislators, grappling with the controversy over the company’s disastrous Gulf of Mexico oil spill, called for an investigation into BP’s actions in the case of the freed man, Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi...

And why? Libyan oil lease:

BP’s statement on Thursday repeated earlier acknowledgments that it had promoted the transfer agreement to protect a $900 million offshore oil-and-gas exploration deal off Libya’s Mediterranean coast. The British justice minister at the time, Jack Straw, admitted shortly after Mr. Megrahi was repatriated and freed that the BP deal was a consideration in the government’s review of his case.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/world/europe/16britain.html?_r=2&hp

Both Shaw and the BP execs responsible need to take a specially prepared airplane trip.

 

[Gokul43201]

Distasteful as it may be, I can't imagine that lobbying the government for a prisoner exchange is illegal.

 

[russ_watters]

Presidents and Congressmen (PMs and Parliaments) take actions based on lobbying and it is perfectly legal. For a judge to make a ruling in a court of law would be illegal and would be an enormous affront to the rule of law*. Do we have any evidence for this truly extrordinary claim that the judge rendered his decision based on the influence of lobbyists (or government officials who were influenced by lobbyists)?

*Yes, it would be much worse than if the PM just granted clemancy and released him.

 

[rootX]

It is not clear yet that BP acknowledged this.

15 July 2010
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south+scotland-10645909

BP has denied making any representations over his case.

BP has confirmed it did press for a PTA because it was aware that a delay might have "negative consequences" for UK commercial interests.

However, it said it did not express a view about the specific form of the agreement which was a matter for the UK and Libyan governments.

It added that it had not made representations over the Megrahi case, which was solely a matter for the Scottish government.

The Scottish government said BP did not lobby its ministers, and insisted Megrahi was released on compassionate grounds alone.

I believe PTA and lockerbie bomber are not related.

 

[j93]

Do we have any evidence for this truly extrordinary claim that the judge rendered his decision based on the influence of lobbyists (or government officials who were influenced by lobbyists)?

It is damn near impossible to prove this claim even if it did happen.

It is pretty much equivalent to 3 people(A,B,C) playing "im thinking of a number" (never write down this number but only keep it in person A's head) where two of them are friends (A,B) and the third is a random person and the friend (B) wins. Its not possible to know if B really picked the right number or person A just said it was the right number.
Assuming person A doesn't just come out and admit what happened truthfully.

 

[NeoDevin]

It is damn near impossible to prove this claim even if it did happen.

It is pretty much equivalent to 3 people(A,B,C) playing "im thinking of a number" (never write down this number but only keep it in person A's head) where two of them are friends (A,B) and the third is a random person and the friend (B) wins. Its not possible to know if B really picked the right number or person A just said it was the right number.
Assuming person A doesn't just come out and admit what happened truthfully.

If they communicated by email or text message, it might be provable.

 

[edward]

BP admits that they lobbied for the release. The man was released. I don't need anymore proof that BP was involved. It may have been legal, but certainly not honorable.

http://www.examiner.com/x-58460-Pho...e-rogue-admits-lobbying-for-alMegrahi-release

BP previously admitted to working for a 2005 Libyan prisoner release, and U.S. Lawmakers demanded to know whether the company had anything to do with a similar deal for Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi. Al-Megrahi is the only person ever convicted for the airliner bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland. He remains a celebrity in Libya a year after he left prison with 3 months to live.

The company cracked just before 4:00 PM Phoenix time. BP admitted that they lobbied the British government to transfer al-Megrahi in order to protect a $900 million deal for Libyan oil. That becomes blood money, plain and simple.

 

[rootX]

BP admits that they lobbied for the release. The man was released. I don't need anymore proof that BP was involved. It may have been legal, but certainly not honorable.

http://www.examiner.com/x-58460-Pho...e-rogue-admits-lobbying-for-alMegrahi-release

Note that you did not directly quote BP

 

[edward]

Note that you did not directly quote BP

You are looking for what?? A direct first person confession by BP?

BP’s statement on Thursday repeated earlier acknowledgments that it had promoted the transfer agreement to protect a $900 million offshore oil-and-gas exploration deal off Libya’s Mediterranean coast. The British justice minister at the time, Jack Straw, admitted after Mr. Megrahi was repatriated and freed that the BP deal was a consideration in the review of his case.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/world/europe/16britain.html?_r=1

 

[j93]

If they communicated by email or text message, it might be provable.

They would be idiots to do that, even the corner crack dealer doesn't keep a notebook where he writes "Tuesday: a crack rock sold to Tosh. Wednesday: Pick up illegal amount of heroin"

 

[Office_Shredder]

Pick up illegal amount of heroin"

As opposed to the legal amount of heroin

People keep electronic records of some pretty stupid things, so it wouldn't surprise me if there we emails (probably not text messages though, that seems like a pretty informal way to commit conspiracy). Even if they did email each other, there would be no way for us to know about it

 

[mheslep]

It is not clear yet that BP acknowledged this...

More important is the fact that the British foreign secretary did acknowledge the oil deal influence; it was he who approved (at least tacitly) the repatriation. The BP scoundrels could only lobby. It was government that actually reached into the prison and released the murderer under false pretence.

Jack Straw, admitted shortly after Mr. Megrahi was repatriated and freed that the BP deal was a consideration in the government’s review of his case.

 

[rootX]

It is not clear yet that BP acknowledged this.

15 July 2010
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south+scotland-10645909




I believe PTA and lockerbie bomber are not related.

You are looking for what?? A direct first person confession by BP?



http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/world/europe/16britain.html?_r=1

See the above post. BP did not confess.

 

[mheslep]

Worse yet: WaPo says yesterday, buried down in the 9th paragraph, that the Obama administration went along:

A source familiar with BP negotiations at the time said BP kept the U.S. government informed of its discussions with Libya and the United Kingdom, including talks about prisoner releases. BP had also hired Mark Allen, a Middle East expert and veteran of Britain's MI6 intelligence agency, and other former British government experts to help talks with Libya.

"The Libya deal was done with the full blessing of the U.S. government," said the source, who sought anonymity to preserve his business relationships. "There was always a policy of no surprises with the U.S. government."

Now the source is unidentified, but if true those in the US responsible can board the same specially prepared airplane I recommended above for Shah and BP, say one with a lot of cracks in the wings.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/15/AR2010071506546.html?hpid=topnews

 

[j93]

As opposed to the legal amount of heroin

The amount for a intent to sell charge.

 

[edward]

See the above post. BP did not confess.

Actually I used the word confess as an intentional exaggeration because you seemed to want a direct quote from BP. But then you knew that.

The link in the above post was my link and among other things states:

BP’s statement on Thursday repeated earlier acknowledgments that it had promoted the transfer agreement to protect a $900 million offshore oil-and-gas exploration deal off Libya’s Mediterranean coast. The British justice minister at the time, Jack Straw, admitted after Mr. Megrahi was repatriated and freed that the BP deal was a consideration in the review of his case.

It leaves no doubt that BP was involved in the lobbying.

 

[russ_watters]

BP admits that they lobbied for the release. The man was released. I don't need anymore proof that BP was involved. It may have been legal, but certainly not honorable.

That may satisfy you, but that's not evidence that would satisfy any legal standard. Proof of a coincidence is not proof of causality. You need direct evidence that the judge made his decision based on the lobbyist's influence.

 

[russ_watters]

More important is the fact that the British foreign secretary did acknowledge the oil deal influence; it was he who approved (at least tacitly) the repatriation. The BP scoundrels could only lobby. It was government that actually reached into the prison and released the murderer under false pretence.

Still not enough.

The bottom line here is that a judge (not "the government") ordered this release and he had in hand testimony that made it allowable (the 3 months to live prediction). In order to prove that the release was known to be improper at the time, you have to gain some insight into what was going on in that judge's head that influenced his decision.

Right now all we have is the coincidence that lobbying happened - but so what? Lobbying always happens!

 

[mheslep]

Still not enough.

The bottom line here is that a judge (not "the government") ordered this release and he had in hand testimony that made it allowable (the 3 months to live prediction). In order to prove that the release was known to be improper at the time, you have to gain some insight into what was going on in that judge's head that influenced his decision.

Right now all we have is the coincidence that lobbying happened - but so what? Lobbying always happens!

At the moment I'm not concerned about the judge or the legal aspects. I doubt anything illegal occurred here. I find the fact that the British foreign secretary and some officials in the US government gave their 'blessings' for the release of the bomber, in secret, appalling and repugnant.

 

[edward]

That may satisfy you, but that's not evidence that would satisfy any legal standard. Proof of a coincidence is not proof of causality. You need direct evidence that the judge made his decision based on the lobbyist's influence.

I wasn't tryiing to prove a legal issue. We will probably never know the judges motivation. My point was that the admitted lobbying itself was not an honorable thing to do.

 

[nismaratwork]

Yes, not a legal issue, just one for which anyone involved should be dealt with as Munaẓẓamat Aylūl al-aswad (Black September) was. They are beyond the law, so "send in the boys".

 

[russ_watters]

My point was that the admitted lobbying itself was not an honorable thing to do.

What is dishonorable about it?

 

[Cyrus]

What is dishonorable about it?

Seriously?

 

[nismaratwork]

Russ: What Cyrus said... if that isn't dishonorable, what IS?!

 

[russ_watters]

Seriously?

Yes.

Russ: What Cyrus said... if that isn't dishonorable, what IS?!

C'mon guys, no games. If it is so obvious to you, then you shouldn't have a difficult time explaining it.

 

[Cyrus]

Yes. C'mon guys, no games. If it is so obvious to you, then you shouldn't have a difficult time explaining it.

It should be fairly self evident that the act of lobbying to have a known mass-murdering terrorist released to secure an oil deal , thereby undermining the judicial process which is to remain fair and balanced, leaves much to be desired.

 

[nismaratwork]

It should be fairly self evident that the act of lobbying to have a known mass-murdering terrorist released to secure an oil deal , thereby undermining the judicial process which is to remain fair and balanced, leaves much to be desired.

Yeah, what he just said. This seems like a burden-of-proof issue for you Russ_Waters; I think most people would consider that 11 days served per murder would be a very light sentence, especially with a profit motive.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What is dishonorable about it?

Because it places profit above justice.

You wouldn't buy hot dogs from a racist [who may have done nothing actual], but you see no moral imperative in play when a company seeks to excuse murder for a price? How is this consistent?

How do you justify this?

 

[nismaratwork]

Because it places profit above justice.

You wouldn't buy hot dogs from a racist [who may have done nothing actual], but you see no moral imperative in play when a company seeks to excuse murder for a price? How is this consistent?

How do you justify this?

I like my racist hot dogs with extra sauerkraut. Sorry, just trying to inject some levity into a really depressing topic. I don't see how this can be construed as anything other than a miscarriage of justice, and a slap in the face of international courts and law. There is nothing to be done now, that would not endanger Libyan-International relations.

 

[j93]

What is dishonorable about it?

This is how you know you have reached libertarian nirvana

 

[Cyrus]

This is how you know you have reached libertarian nirvana

Come again? You'll have to explain that one to me.

 

[russ_watters]

Because it places profit above justice.

You wouldn't buy hot dogs from a racist [who may have done nothing actual], but you see no moral imperative in play when a company seeks to excuse murder for a price? How is this consistent?

How do you justify this?

Don't make assumptions beyond what I say, Ivan. I didn't say I support the action - I certainly at least fnd it uncouth - I just find the term "dishonorable" to be a very odd word choice.

 

[russ_watters]

It should be fairly self evident that the act of lobbying to have a known mass-murdering terrorist released to secure an oil deal , thereby undermining the judicial process which is to remain fair and balanced, leaves much to be desired.

I agree. But "dishonorable" seems an odd choice of words.

 

[Cyrus]

I agree. But "dishonorable" seems an odd choice of words.

I would probably replace that word (which would better represent a person, not a company) with 'lack of integrity,' or, maybe, unscrupulous.