Regular readers will know how infuriated I was when David Cameron did his U-turn and conceded to a meeting with the four US senators who have been aggressively calling for the Scottish and UK governments to have an inquiry regarding the release of Al-Megrahi. Since the meeting with Cameron the vociferous senators have touted themselves round the US television studios reiterating Cameron doesn't 'rule out' an inquiry into the Scottish government's handling of the release of Megrahi and the association of BP in the decision.
It's not that I disagree with free speech, but yesterday I found Cameron's denouncement of the Scottish government's decision quite disgraceful from a UK Prime Minister. In all my 64 years I've never heard a UK Prime Minister insult any UK country on the world stage in the manner David Cameron has in his few days of fawning and wooing Obama. It has become more and more embarrassing to watch.
The resurrection of the Al-Megrahi affair has even brought one of my favourite bloggers back to his keyboard after insisting he could no longer contribute and believe me, he's a man who does know Scottish law. Along with others who smell the hypocrisy, Ian Hamilton decries Cameron's behaviour in the US - something which will haunt David Cameron and the Tory party in Scotland for years to come. Cameron knows the Thatcher era resulted in Scotland being bereft of Tory politicians for years and now he's ensured that Scotland will be bereft of tories possibly forever. Even staunch tories here are shocked by his impropriety. We don't take unwarranted or unproven criticism lightly here.
There may be questions about the Magrahi conviction and release to answer, but for Cameron to stand on the world stage and condemn the Scottish government for their decision, when he's not even fully aware of all the details - because the last Westminster government and US governments refused permission for the Scottish government to release all communications -shows the shallowness of the man's knowledge.
Last night there was an excellent interview on Newsnight Scotland with a UN observer at the Lockerbie trial, a Scottish lawyer who is an expert in American politics and Dr Swire, who lost his daughter in the Lockerbie bombing. Dr Swire firmly stated: "Scotland should hold her head up high over all this". You can view the programme here.
Has Cameron bitten off more than he can chew? He'd better believe it. I suggest all Scots interested in ensuring Scotland is treated with respect on the world stage by the British PM should write to their MP saying just that. I intend to do so. I also thought I would write directly to David Cameron, then decided I'd be wasting my time. The new Prime Minister regards Scotland as nothing more than a political punchbag.
Is this the straw that will break the camel's back in Scotland and make us realise we must take control of our own country and not attached ourselves to those politicians in the UK government who wish to destroy us worldwide?
Posts
50 comments:
The calculated wheeze of blurring the significance of the Scottish General Election next May by super-imposing a vote for messing about with alleged UK democracy - will be blown away by Mr Cameron's ill conceived and naive outburst against Scotland's democratically elected current Government! What irony!
Ach well - now we know what 'transparency' really means in Westminster - chasing with the USA hounds (like all good poodles) and running with the unionist hares (like all good 'respect agenda' hypocrites).
"Know your enemy"
The SNP is not Scotland. Criticising them is not a criticism of the country or every Scots person in the world. David Cameron is entitled to his view - and I agree with it. Dr Swire is also entitled to his view but he does not speak for all the families who lost loved ones at Lockerbie. Some of them are outraged at the SNP decision to release Megrahi.
I don't think some people appreciate the scale of that outrage. When President Obama himself is moved to condemn the decision then you should get a sense of how widespread it is. David Cameron is right to distance himself and the UK Government from the decision as it was not theirs. There is no good reason why he should face the ire of US politicans and public because of Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill.
William, folk do "appreciate" the outrage. Particularly when the outrage was pertinent to Scotland.
To many folk in Westmideen and pairts overseas we may well be regarded contemptiously as wee parochial Scotland and we in some respects have earned that contempt by being teathered and subborned to folk in other places.
But remember this, it's our" wee parochial Scotland", it's our justice system and it's our government. Minority administrating thought it may be. We are a proud people and history is full of examples of what happens when we are treated with contempt.
Many folk have deep suspicion that the Lockerbie trial was not the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and why is this so?
because William there were far too many people treating our justice system with contempt. People in foreign parts, including Westmidden who had agendas of their own and used whatever tools that were available to persuade, threaten and be creative in their advancement of whatever to suit their dark purposes.
Cameron like many other politicians is bending in the wind as it blows him to and fro
and he will end up pleasing no master or mistress as those with no back bone gererally do.
It's interesting that Dave has no idea of British history.
The Battle of Britain in 1940 where the RAF held Hitler at bay and Winston made his famous 'Never in the Field..'speech seems to have passed him by.
You would think he would have noticed the annual BoB memorials or the publicity for the 70th Anniversary coming up.
Mind you the Sports Minister, Mr Hunt , had no idea of the outcome of the Hillsborough inquiry and seems to have missed the years of debate over the issue. Still blaming 'drunken thugs' rather than the incompetent policing.
It confirms my view that politicians really do live in a parallel universe or are indeed lizards living in David Ickes mind.
The BBC have mysteriously seized on the Conrad Black story to avoid mentioning Dave so Dave's image isn't being as badly damaged as it might have been by this ignorance.
The legitimacy of the verdict, wisnaeme, wasn't disputed by MacAskill in his speech announcing the release of Megrahi. So it's hardly an issue now.
"The BBC have mysteriously seized on the Conrad Black story to avoid mentioning Dave"
That's correct. That's why Cameron's error is the 4th most popular story on the BBC website.
Subrosa
What this does is show how shallow Cameron is. This shows up his respect agenda for what it really is, empty rhetoric from a second rate politician.
How long will we have to wait until we get a UK prime minister with a backbone? instead of the poodles Blair, Brown and now Cameron.
William
This was a Scottish Government decision by the elected government, following the law that is relevant for this type of decision.
I for one am glad that we have people of the stature of Salmond or Macaskill who would always try to do what is right, rather than the spineless UK shower who will always do what is expedient whether that is right or wrong.
P.S. Just imagine Gray trying to protect Scotland on a world stage, very scary thought.
Dubbieside, let's not kid ourselves here. If Westminster (whichever party) had announced it wanted Megrahi to be released, the SNP would have opposed it at every turn. Westminster opposed the Megrahi release so the SNP jumped headlong into it. They played with fire and now they're finding it a bit hot. Wow.
David Cameron did not call the decision illegal. He said he thought it was wrong in Opposition (which he did) and he thinks it's wrong now (which he does). I really don't understand why David Cameron is expected to defend a decision that wasn't his and which he didn't agree with in the first place. Is this just the Scottish Nationalists and their dreary mischief-making?
William, the legitimacy of the verdict has everything to do with every aspect preceding and post event, and the developments since.
If I had any faith in the truth actually emerging from governmental or political inquiries I'd welcome the demands of the four senators.
Were it to meet the criteria of truth the disclosure could backfire all the way to the White House, Westminster and tarnish the reputations of quite a few 'establishment' figures and their lackeys. And that would include some of the Scottish judiciary.
It is rather ironic Clarinda. 'The best laid schemes of mice and men...'
The legitimacy of the verdict and the decision to release Megrahi are two separate aspects and MacAskill, as a lawyer, would have been well aware of this. MacAskill cannot overturn the verdict of a Scottish court. He certainly cannot release someone on 'compassionate grounds' because he has personal suspicions about the verdict. This would be a gross abuse of power. If he did so, then the decision would be even more discredited, in my eyes.
William did I say the SNP is Scotland? I think not. But of course the SNP is only relevant to Scotland insofar as they don't stand in any other countries in the UK.
Pity you haven't bothered to listen to Dr Jim Swire who was on Newsnicht last night. He knows the outrage and possibly has the most knowledge of all the bereaved families.
He's already proven how spineless he is wisnaeme. Mind you, much better to find it out early in the game.
A parallel universe RM? I'd say a gilded cage. Sadly we pay for the gilding so some could say we deserve what we get.
I don't know Dubbie. Until recently I thought William Hague had what it takes, but since his rise he's shown little of his old combatant self and seems to have had a brain transplant.
William, my grievance is that no British Prime Minister should bad-mouth any of the countries within the UK when they're in a foreign land. It's not done. Would Obama come here and bad-mouth any US states publicly? No.
There's your answer. It's nothing whatsoever to do with party politics.
There is no 'bad mouthing' going on. What did you expect Cameron to say? He was getting it from all sides even from the President himself. And it wasn't even his decision! Is he meant to say nothing? What if he'd said 'it was the decision of the Scottish Executive, ask them'? No doubt he'd have been accused of 'hanging us out to dry'.
I don't see anything wrong in his comments. He simply said he disagreed with the decision, as he has always said.
This increasingly looks like manufactured outrage, tbh. I've not seen anything to support the claim that Cameron has acted outrageously or offended anyone.
No William, that's exactly what he should have said - that the Scottish government took the decision and the matter of Megrahi's release was solely their responsibility.
Instead he launched into his personal view about the Scottish government. Very bad move.
He's offended me William and I take some offending, believe me. He's insulted my country by implying we're unable to make our own decisions. Problem is he's out of his depth in this whole affair but he caused that himself by deciding to meet these senators.
William
I think you are trying to re write history.
Your "Westminster opposed the Megrahi release so the SNP jumped headlong into it" is totally wrong.
Westminster wanted a PTA with Lybia, which specifically included Lybian prisoners in Scotland. There was only one Lybian prisoner in Scotland at that time.
Well, he did make it clear that it was the Scottish Executive (he was even kind enough to award them their phony title) -
"I will say to them (the senators) that I agree that the decision to release al-Megrahi was wrong. I said it was wrong at the time.
"It was the Scottish Government that took that decision. They took it after proper process and what they saw as the right, compassionate reasons. I just happen to think it was profoundly misguided."
There is absolutely nothing offensive in David Cameron stating the release of Megrahi was a Scottish decision, a properly considered decision but one with which he, personally, did not agree. No-one could possibly be offended by that statement or even read into it that Cameron is insulting Scotland as a nation or its legal and political process.
He did not express 'a personal view of the Scottish Government' but his personal view of the Megrahi decision. It was entirely legitimate for him to do so as the UK Prime Minister.
You're quoting from only one of several interviews he gave yesterday William.
What 'phony' title do you mean? Is executive phony?
He did express a view of the Scottish government. He said he disagreed with its decision. He should not comment on other UK governments when he's in foreign lands. That's not the behaviour of PMs.
Actually, Subrosa (@11:42) Obama did exactly that when he apologised directly to China for Arizona's new immigration law. And Shillary was not much better when she told a South American radio station that the Feds were taking Arizona to court over it - which was the first Arizona had heard about it.
So I'm afraid that whatever the rights and wrongs of Cameron saying what he said, the Obama comparison doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
And I think William is saying that "Scottish Government" is phoney and he's saying that Exec is correct - I hope that helps.
The Scottish Executive is not a government. It derives its authority from Westminster and is, therefore, ultimately under the authority of Westminster.
David Cameron as the UK Prime Minister, which includes Scotland, is entitled to express his view. There is nothing in his statement, nor in your points, that justifies your view that Cameron has offended the Scots.
Still, if the Megrahi decision has been met with international acclaim, as Nationalists claim, then Cameron's comments won't even matter, right?
Oh William, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. You just avoid the whole point.
I sit corrected on the Arizona question ASE but was Obama in China when he made the apology? I don't remember him being there. That's my point. If Cameron had been here then fine - let him say what he wants. To do this in another country is wrong.
William thinks Scotland's a county of London ASE. He's quite unprepared to accept we are a nation with a (restricted) national government.
He also ignores the fact that Westminster is a (restricted) UK government as they are partially governed by the EU.
"You just avoid the whole point."
That must be it.
So if PM Cameron of the Big Society thinks it was wrong to have released Mr Megrahi, this is presumably because of Mr Megrahi's guilt.
Maybe PM Cameron can explain why the UK Government has normal international relations with those in the Libyan Government who sent Mr Megrahi to do the Lockerbie bombing?
It's ok to condemn the bomber, but not his accomplices and paymasters back in Libya.
I hope William doesn't mind if I condemn UK PM Cameron for his hypocrisy of criticising perfectly legitimate legal procedures being followed here in Britian under Scots law - whilst at the same time, his British Government are best mates with the international terrorists of the Libyan Government.
Still, if the Megrahi decision has been met with international acclaim, as Nationalists claim, then Cameron's comments won't even matter, right?
- Except to his American audience who, I'm sure, are enjoying the spectacle of a foreign dignitary being publicly humiliated during his first important diplomatic engagement abroad.
Incidentally, much of the acclaim comes from Libya where the plot to blow-up the Lockerbie plane originates, but who are now the best of pals with the British Government.
I'm surprised PM Dave didn't criticise his hosts over Guantanamo, Abu Graibh and other American chambers of horrors over the past decade. Maybe it's because he agrees with them - such is his personal views about truth, justice and being popular with the Yanks in true Tony Blair-style. I can see the continuity in British foreign policy already with the new British tory government.
Am pleased to see the cavelry finaly appear on the media. Swire always talks sense (he was disparaging by the was about MacAskil's decision last year I seem to remember), and it was Hans Kochler who i quoted on a post a couple of weeks ago and said of the original trial "through the conduct of the court, diservice has been done to the importaint cause of international criminal justice".
You'll get my response to all of this soon, im only 1500 words in!
Very good comments joe.
Allan, don't forget to give us the link when you've finished.
It was interesting to hear the verbal kicking Mr C got from folks who had memories of ww2, pre full US involvement, on Radio 2 today. Most folk remembered that the British had an empire at the time and could not be counted as a junior by any book...........however most contributers forgot or did not know what quiet help the US were giving pre Pearl harbour(at a price of course). Anyway, just to ramble for a moment, neither the British nor the Americans "won" the european war, the Russians did - they tore the heart out of the Nazi war machine. Our contributions were highly significant to that effort, but the beast was defeated by Russia. 25 million dead have a voice to be heard.
Meantime Dave, time to stick the beano down the back of your trousers, as Whacko is on his way with the cane - you dope!
Missed that Dram. I usually listen to 4 in the mornings. How often did he mention 'we're a junior partner' yesterday? I counted in 3 interviews.
Stupid man and he shown just how he'll use anyone to keep his new best pal happy. Worrying situation really and maybe even worse than Brown.
Could anyone be worse than him I ask myself...
"Maybe PM Cameron can explain why the UK Government has normal international relations with those in the Libyan Government who sent Mr Megrahi to do the Lockerbie bombing?"
Diplomatic relations were broken off with Libya for many years, as you know, and only restored at the turn of this century. The UK has had a difficult relationship with Libya for a long time and I don't know if I would call it 'normal'. Yes, diplomatic channels are operating and sanctions have been lifted but it is far from 'normal'.
This 'normal' relationship has only been reached, as you well know, after Libya agreed to renounce its support for terrorism and agreed co-operation over a variety of issues including Lockerbie.
"I hope William doesn't mind if I condemn UK PM Cameron for his hypocrisy of criticising perfectly legitimate legal procedures being followed here in Britian under Scots law"
David Cameron did not criticise the procedure. In fact, he referred to it as a 'proper process'. He simply disagrees with the decision that was reached. God bless him.
Just to repeat William's earlier expressed views -
I don't think some people appreciate the scale of that outrage. When President Obama himself is moved to condemn the decision then you should get a sense of how widespread it is. David Cameron is right to distance himself and the UK Government from the decision as it was not theirs. There is no good reason why he should face the ire of US politicans and public because of Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill.
- comment by William 22 July 2010 09:38
William, it seems, is more exercised and outraged at the Scottish Government than he is at the UK Government's approval for the current Libyan regime, and indeed, the Libyan regime itself.
Yes, diplomatic channels are operating and sanctions have been lifted but it is far from 'normal'.
- How abnormal is it, you don't say?
Do you normally go about apologising for the British Government sucking up to terrorist dictatorships, especially when the UK bent over backwards to accommodate the US in its attack against terrorist dictator Saddam and terrorists in Afghanistan?
Libya agreed....co-operation over a variety of issues including Lockerbie.
- This cooperation hasn't included handing over the masterminds behind Lockerbie though. Obviously, the issue of justice in the case doesn't matter because it involves decisions taken by the UK Government rather than the Scottish Government. This seems to be about the only principle I can discern behind PM Cameron's unexplained objections over Mr Megrahi release but approval for Megrahi's boss, Gadaffi.
..Libya agreed to renounce its support for terrorism...
- Again, since when are we supposed to believe anything a dictatorship has to say about its illegal actvities, especially one which masterninded the Lockerbie bombing?
I thought the UK re-established normal relations with Libya because Gadaffi wanted to join the UK in the fight against terrorism -
Blair hails new Libyan relations
BBC
25 Mar 2004
This 'normal' relationship has only been reached, as you well know, after Libya agreed to renounce its support for terrorism and agreed co-operation over a variety of issues including Lockerbie.
- I was under the impression it was because UK PM Blair was in a bit of a sticky patch over his claims regarding Iraqi WMD, and dictator Gadaffi used Blair's embarrassment to his own advantage by renouncing a Libyan WMD programme, which didn't really exist, in order to get sanctions lifted and an end to Libyan international isolation being spearheaded by the US and UK.
He simply disagrees with the decision that was reached. God bless him.
- So nothing was done wrong but PM Cameron disagrees with what wasn't been done wrong.
That clears that up.
Cameron does agree with associating with a terrorist dictatorship behind the Lockerbie bombing, without explaining why this is ok. He simply agrees with this decision.
That clears that up too.
If Megrahi should be in jail, as Cameron claims he should, then so should his paymasters and controllers in Libya.
Maybe PM Dave can clear up why he takes the side of the US and not the side of Scots law on this matter.
“Just to repeat William's earlier expressed views.”
Thanks, Joe. Was that in case I forgot what I said?
”William, it seems, is more exercised and outraged at the Scottish Government than he is at the UK Government's approval for the current Libyan regime, and indeed, the Libyan regime itself.”
The UK Government maintains a working relationship with many countries which are not indicative of a complete endorsement of all their activities past or present.
“This cooperation hasn't included handing over the masterminds behind Lockerbie though.”
Except it does. The Lord Advocate of Scotland issued arrest warrants for two Libyan nationals. Those two nationals were eventually handed over by Libya after a period of some time as part of their desire to end their pariah status. The Lord Advocate of Scotland did not issue warrants for any other Libyan nationals.
It is correct that we cannot ‘believe’ all that is said and we can only judge by actions. If Libya were to return to its old ways, I’m sure the UK and many others would revisit their agreements with Libya and it would risk returning to international isolation.
The attempt to build bridges between Libya and the UK pre-dated the Iraq war. However, I think the sight of Baghdad and Kabul being bombed day and night probably did focus Libyan minds on the WMD issue.
”So nothing was done wrong but PM Cameron disagrees with what wasn't been done wrong.”
I’ve read this several times and it doesn’t make sense.
”Cameron does agree with associating with a terrorist dictatorship behind the Lockerbie bombing, without explaining why this is ok. He simply agrees with this decision.”
The Lord Advocate of Scotland, the Scottish courts, the Scottish legal system and the Scottish Justice Minister are all in agreement that Megrahi is guilty of the crime. Your desire to see nameless individuals additionally punished and the state and peoples of Libya additionally punished is bizarre as it is unrealistic and impractical.
I don’t think David Cameron, or anyone else, has to employ the mental gymnastics you have done when asked a straightforward question about the release of Megrahi by the SNP Executive. There is no good reason why Cameron should not have given the response that he did.
'There is no good reason why Cameron should not have given the response that he did.'
That the point you miss in all this William. No country's leader decrys 'their' country when they're visiting another. It's just not done and extremely bad politics. If Cameron had said this when he was in UK I would have accepted his view, but to do it while in the US is plain wrong.
Then again, with the exception of Catalonia, which is in a different position to Scotland, no other European country is governed by another.
What Cameron should have said in the US is that the matter was for the Scottish government to settle and they did. He didn't have to give a personal opinion but he was desperate to do so. Also changing his mind about seeing the 4 senators has made him a laughing stock in some areas of the American press.
Poodle right enough.
Thanks for that careful analysis Joe.
Again, SR, you refer to Cameron's personal view as somehow 'decrying' Scotland. I don't accept it is. It was as measured, respectful and consistent as could be expected in the circumstances.
The boycottscotland.com website and other anti-Scottish sites came into existence at the time of the Megrahi decision. That's when the real damage to Scotland's image was done, not by David Cameron's comments.
I don't accept that we're now a 'laughing stock' because David Cameron met some US Senators. I think it showed a willingness to engage that would have won him, and the UK, much needed political capital in Washington.
What do you think is more damaging, SR? Agreeing to meet US Senators, as David Cameron has done or telling the US Senate to shove their invite, as Kenny MacAskill has done? I wonder...
Thanks, Joe. Was that in case I forgot what I said?
- You do seem to have forgotten the Scottish Government has no dealings with the terrorist government of Libya, unlike the UK Government.
You're outrage doesn't seem to extend to the Libyan masterminds behind the Lockerbie bombing. You seem to approve of the UK government decisions to have dealings with this terroristic dictatorship, even while the Lockerbie masterminds go unpunished in Libya, and one of its agents of state-sponsored terror wass inside a Scottish jail.
The UK Government isn't distancing itself from a terrorist dictatorship in Libya, but is distancing itself from a democractically elected government in Scotland. A government which has followed all legal procedure, everything is above board and in the public domain. The decision it took regarding Mr Megrahi's release is legally watertight.
After all, Scotland isn't run by a terrorist dictatorship otherwise, I'm sure, it would probably get your own tacit support and approval as Libya does from PM Cameron and the UK Government.
The UK Government maintains a working relationship with many countries which are not indicative of a complete endorsement of all their activities past or present.
- What has this to do with sucking up to a terrorist regime responsible for the biggest mass-murder perpetrated in Scotland, which remains unfinished buisness as far as justice is concerned?
The Lord Advocate of Scotland did not issue warrants for any other Libyan nationals.
- Presumably you do agree with this decision by the Scottish legal system not to pursue Libya's state-sponsored terrorist.
I’ve read this several times and it doesn’t make sense.
- Don't blame me.
You agree everything was done according to proper procedure. It was a perfectly valid rational decision based on the findings from these applied legal procedures.
Presumably PM Dave and yourself have a ratonal explanation for your disagreement with Mr Megrahi's release other than dislike of the SNP and the Scottish Government.
The attempt to build bridges between Libya and the UK pre-dated the Iraq war.
- How do you build bridges with a state that sponsors international terrorism except by a change of regime preferably to one that is democratic?
However, I think the sight of Baghdad and Kabul being bombed day and night probably did focus Libyan minds on the WMD issue.
- Really?
US-UK war crimes against the innocent defenceless people of Iraq and Afghanistan led Blair to rush off to Libya to shake hands with its terrorist dictator!
I'm sure Gadaffi was shaking in his boots.
Bush and Blair's successes in Iraq and Afghanistan sure taught these dictators and terrorists a lesson they won't forget for a long while.
I feel safer already.
Your desire to see nameless individuals additionally punished and the state and peoples of Libya additionally punished is bizarre as it is unrealistic and impractical.
- I thought it wasn't impractiacal?
You just said Bush-Blair taught these dictators a lesson when they illegaly attacked Iraq and Afghanistan?
Anyway, I never said I want anyone punished especially not innocent Libyans who had nothing to do with Lockerbie. Like everyone, except the US and UK governments, I only want to know the circumstances surrounding the bombing of the Lockerbie plane.
There is no good reason why Cameron should not have given the response that he did.
- I am sure there are lots of good reasons why Cameron said what he did regarding Mr Megrahi, it's just that none of them relates to the justice of the case itself hence the reason for his irrational disagreement which explains nothing.
The boycottscotland.com website and other anti-Scottish sites came into existence at the time of the Megrahi decision. That's when the real damage to Scotland's image was done, not by David Cameron's comments.
- Big deal. Anyone can put up a website. If this is all the evidence you have for Scotland being unpopular then there is nothing to worry about.
Maybe PM Dave could join this non-existent Scottish boycott and send home Scottish troops from Afghanistan? I hope he does.
I don't accept that we're now a 'laughing stock' because David Cameron met some US Senators. I think it showed a willingness to engage that would have won him, and the UK, much needed political capital in Washington.
- British troops are fighting and dying in America's wars of foreign conquest - in what way do British people need political capital in Washington when its people are making the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of US foreign Policy?
I look forward to President Obama's next visit to the UK and his being forced to meet four MPs and listen to their ridiculous accusations about oil and American foreign policy.
What do you think is more damaging, SR? Agreeing to meet US Senators, as David Cameron has done or telling the US Senate to shove their invite, as Kenny MacAskill has done? I wonder...
- What is more damaging?
A visiting head of state being forced to meet four political nobodies and listen to their outrageous caluminies - or a politician declining to be bullied into attending an overseas meeting by paranoid McCarthyite American politicians and their hangers-on?
Changing tack a bit.
Lets assume that Megrahi is guilty, after all three learned Scots judges said he was at the trial in the Netherlands.
He was a Lybian intelligence agent, not a very senior one even. So was he acting alone or doing his masters bidding?
Do MI6 agents act alone or do HMG bidding?
So it is probable that IF Megrahi was guilty he was merely a cog in a bigger machine. So he is not a bad or evil man and should not be in jail. For he is no different from US and UK pilots who drop bombs on Afghan and Iraq civilians, killing them. He is no different from the pilots who dropped the nuclear bombs on Japan, killing 100,000 people. He is no different from the crew of the USS Vincennes who shot down the Iranian airline killing 300 civilians five months before Lockerbie.
.....mmm now who did have a motive to blow up that Pan Am flight?
Joe, the legitimacy of the verdict was not challenged by Kenny MacAskill and is entirely separate from the decision to release Megrahi.
The Scottish legal system and the Scottish Executive have never pursued any other individuals for Lockerbie so we can assume that no other individuals are being sought now or will be sought in the future despite your hopes that they will do so. If the Scottish Executive shared your view then one would have imagined action would have been taken by now. They clearly do not. Any complaints about this failure, in your view, should be taken up with Kenny MacAskill.
It is perfectly acceptable to acknowledge that correct process was followed whilst disagreeing with the decision. I don't think it's a good decision to release mass murderers, as a general rule. I freely admit this may make myself, and David Cameron, minorities in an SNP Scotland.
Strathturret, Methylenedioxymethamphetamine is a powerful serotonin-depleting chemical agent. Please be careful.
William: Before the "discovery of the fragment, the police had their own suspects for the bombing. They showed pictures of Mohammed Salem & Abu Taib (two members of the PFLP-GC)to Tony Gauci (clothes found near the bomb were traced back to the shop Mr Gauci owned). Salem was similar but "too young by 20 years" while Taib got a much more positive reaction. Both were also in Malta in the Autumn of 1988 as well.
But that line of enquiry was dropped once the "fragment" was "identified" as a part of a timer only the Lybians used (even though East Germany bought of the same type of timers too). That and the Gulf War was becoming more and more of a reality - Allan you cynic!
Allan, I have a copy of Paul Foot's Private Eye investigation on Lockerbie. For the purpose of the release of Megrahi, it's irrelevant. Megrahi was not released by MacAskill because he doubted the verdict (if he did, as I said above, it would be a gross abuse of power) but because he believed that mass murderers shouldn't die in prison but with their loved ones.
Joe, the legitimacy of the verdict was not challenged by Kenny MacAskill and is entirely separate from the decision to release Megrahi.
- I haven't mentioned anything about any verdict in relation to Mr Megrahi's release. So I've no idea what your actual point is, as usual.
The Scottish legal system and the Scottish Executive have never pursued any other individuals for Lockerbie so we can assume that no other individuals are being sought now or will be sought in the future despite your hopes that they will do so.
- You're concern to see that the victims of Lockerbie get the justice (which means the community as a whole) they deserve is touching.
If the Scottish Executive shared your view then one would have imagined action would have been taken by now. They clearly do not. Any complaints about this failure, in your view, should be taken up with Kenny MacAskill.
- Thanks for that advice which is especially timely given that the US and the UK Governments have been engaged in a self-styled 'war against terrorism' for nearly a decade now.
It is perfectly acceptable to acknowledge that correct process was followed whilst disagreeing with the decision.
- You and PM Cameron can agree or disagree all you like with anything you like. It's only rational explanations that concern me, not personal opinions which are of no moment, except to cause me worry when they come from democratically elected representatives who are publicly accountable for their actions and decisions. When public officials can't explain their behaviour except to say its a personal matter then I'm perfectly entitled to question their fitness to hold public office.
I don't think it's a good decision to release mass murderers, as a general rule. I freely admit this may make myself, and David Cameron, minorities in an SNP Scotland.
- HMG thinks its ok if it involves prisoner transfer deals and the US Government thinks its ok when it comes to issues of compassion.
I don't think it's a good policy to keep terrorist mass-murderers in our jails whilst our governments engage in normal relations with the their paymasters and terrorist bosses abroad. It gives out the wrong signals that its ok for terrorist-states to carry out terrorist attacks against Scotland.
I also don't think its a good idea to stop investigating the causes of the biggest mass-murder in modern Scottish history. Again, this gives out the wrong signals to terrorists that its ok to target Scotland.
Perhaps you can explain how PM Cameron's pro-Libyan, pro-terrorist dictator policy is compatible with keeping Libyan agents of terrorism in Scottish jails - or maybe you can explain the compatibility of HMG policy of agreeing with prisoner transfer deals with Libya but not agreeing to release prisoners on compassionate grounds, especially as Mr Megrahi is/was the only Libyan in any British jail?
Maybe you can explain why the US Government agreed with the Scottish Government to the release of Mr Megrahi on compassionate grounds - and explain why President Obama would critise the decision of his own government along with his poodle PM Cameron, but without seemingly realising it, opting instead to blame the Scottish Government solely for the decision -
US should examine its own conscience
Herald (Glasgow)
24 Jul 2010
Very good post Joe and I thank you.
Just wanted to observe that I haven't been as equally enlightened, frustrated and entertained by a single thread anywhere for ages as I have by this one :-)
Thanks LI. Nearly as good as a night in a smoky/drinky place. I jest of course. :)
"I haven't mentioned anything about any verdict in relation to Mr Megrahi's release."
Why ramble on about other people who haven't been brought to justice, then?
"You're concern to see that the victims of Lockerbie get the justice (which means the community as a whole) they deserve is touching.
Well, I wouldn't have released the guy convicted of the crime, put it that way. Is that justice, SNP-style?
"Thanks for that advice which is especially timely given that the US and the UK Governments have been engaged in a self-styled 'war against terrorism' for nearly a decade now."
Has the Scottish Executive sought to bring anyone else to 'justice' over the Lockerbie bombing?
"You and PM Cameron can agree or disagree all you like with anything you like."
Thank you for finally acknowledging that David Cameron, and every other person on the planet, is free to disagree if they wish.
Ah, sweet, sweet freedom!
"HMG thinks its ok if it involves prisoner transfer deals
Transferring someone to another prison is slightly different from releasing them entirely.
In any case, it wasn't HMG that released Megrahi. It was the SNP Executive.
"I also don't think its a good idea to stop investigating the causes of the biggest mass-murder in modern Scottish history."
Then you should ask Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill why they are not investigating it instead of crying like a baby about David Cameron's personal opinion.
"Perhaps you can explain how PM Cameron's pro-Libyan, pro-terrorist dictator"
Bonkers.
David Cameron says he disagrees with the release of Megrahi and the UK Government, before his time as PM, agrees a series of co-operations and negotiations over a period of some years and this makes David Cameron a 'pro-Libyan, pro-terrorist dictator.'
So presumably releasing a mass murderer means you're definitely not 'pro-Libyan, pro-terrorist dictator'.
Bonkers. Brilliantly bonkers!
"Maybe you can explain why the US Government agreed with the Scottish Government to the release of Mr Megrahi on compassionate grounds."
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Phew.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Now I know you're really joking. Everyone from Clinton to Obama utterly condemned the decision. Utterly condemned.
Those Joe90 reviews in full -
"A brilliant farce." - The Herald
"I haven't laughed so much in years. He has taken the act to new heights." - The Scotsman
"Bravo. A show of oustanding slapstick humour and bumbling incompetence. Brilliant." - The Guardian
Post a Comment