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

  • Thread starter Thread starter arildno
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the controversial release of Lockerbie bomber Al Megrahi, who was initially thought to have only weeks to live due to terminal illness. Dr. Karol Sikora, who assessed Megrahi, now admits he could live for many more years, calling the situation "embarrassing." The release has sparked outrage, with arguments about the ethics of compassionate release for a mass murderer and allegations that financial interests influenced the decision. Critics argue that allowing Megrahi to live freely contradicts the severity of his crimes and undermines justice. The debate raises broader questions about the moral implications of compassionate release laws and their application to high-profile cases.
  • #61


Cyrus said:
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.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62


madness said:
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
 
  • #63


Cyrus said:
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.
 
  • #64


madness said:
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.
 
  • #65


Cyrus said:
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.
 
  • #66
  • #67


Unbelievable:

Today's NYT said:
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.
 
  • #68


Distasteful as it may be, I can't imagine that lobbying the government for a prisoner exchange is illegal.
 
  • #69


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.
 
  • #70


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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #71


russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #72


j93 said:
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.
 
  • #73


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.
 
  • #75


rootX said:
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
 
  • #76


NeoDevin said:
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"
 
  • #77


j93 said:
Pick up illegal amount of heroin"

As opposed to the legal amount of heroin :smile:

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
 
  • #78


rootX said:
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.
NYT said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #79


rootX said:
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.

edward said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #80


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
 
  • #81


Office_Shredder said:
As opposed to the legal amount of heroin :smile:
The amount for a intent to sell charge.
 
  • #82


rootX said:
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.
 
  • #83


edward said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #84


mheslep said:
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!
 
  • #85


russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #86


russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #87


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".
 
  • #88


edward said:
My point was that the admitted lobbying itself was not an honorable thing to do.
What is dishonorable about it?
 
  • #89


russ_watters said:
What is dishonorable about it?

Seriously?
 
  • #90


Russ: What Cyrus said... if that isn't dishonorable, what IS?!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

News Did Gaddafi's Threats Lead to Lockerbie Bomber's Release?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K