August 22, 200915 yr It's my understanding that under Scots Law any prisoner (regardless of the crime) can apply for release on compassionate grounds if doctors confirm they are terminally ill (3 months or less to live I believe). The Justice Minister then takes expert advice from various sources and makes the final decision as to whether the person should be allowed home to die. As far as I know this isn't anything new in Scots Law. Not sure if there's an equivalent in English Law (or indeed US Law). :unsure: Interesting... if so then of course it is a perfectly normal, legal action.
August 23, 200915 yr Author In an unprecedented attack, FBI director Robert Mueller told the Scottish Justice Secretary he was "outraged" at the release of Abdelbaset Ali Al Megrahi, saying it made a mockery of the law and gave comfort to terrorists. This is what he said..... The letter sent by FBI director Robert Mueller to Scotland's Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill Dear Mr Secretary Over the years I have been a prosecutor, and recently as the Director of the FBI, I have made it a practice not to comment on the actions of other prosecutors, since only the prosecutor handling the case has all the facts and the law before him in reaching the appropriate decision. Your decision to release Megrahi causes me to abandon that practice in this case. I do so because I am familiar with the facts, and the law, having been the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the investigation and indictment of Megrahi in 1991. And I do so because I am outraged at your decision, blithely defended on the grounds of "compassion". Your action in releasing Megrahi is as inexplicable as it is detrimental to the cause of justice. Indeed your action makes a mockery of the rule of law. Your action gives comfort to terrorists around the world who now believe that regardless of the quality of the investigation, the conviction by jury after the defendant is given all due process, and sentence appropriate to the crime, the terrorist will be freed by one man's exercise of "compassion". Your action rewards a terrorist even though he never admitted to his role in this act of mass murder and even though neither he nor the government of Libya ever disclosed the names and roles of others who were responsible. Your action makes a mockery of the emotions, passions and pathos of all those affected by the Lockerbie tragedy: the medical personnel who first faced the horror of 270 bodies strewn in the fields around Lockerbie, and in the town of Lockerbie itself; the hundreds of volunteers who walked the fields of Lockerbie to retrieve any piece of debris related to the break-up of the plane; the hundreds of FBI agents and Scottish police who undertook an unprecedented global investigation to identify those responsible; the prosecutors who worked for years - in some cases a full career - to see justice done. But most importantly, your action makes a mockery of the grief of the families who lost their own on December 21, 1988. You could not have spent much time with the families, certainly not as much time as others involved in the investigation and prosecution. You could not have visited the small wooden warehouse where the personal items of those who perished were gathered for identification - the single sneaker belonging to a teenager; the Syracuse sweatshirt never again to be worn by a college student returning home for the holidays; the toys in a suitcase of a businessman looking forward to spending Christmas with his wife and children. You apparently made this decision without regard to the views of your partners in the investigation and prosecution of those responsible for the Lockerbie tragedy. Although the FBI and Scottish police, and prosecutors in both countries, worked exceptionally closely to hold those responsible accountable, you never once sought our opinion, preferring to keep your own counsel and hiding behind opaque references to "the need for compassion". You have given the family members of those who died continued grief and frustration. You have given those who sought to assure that the persons responsible would be held accountable the back of your hand. You have given Megrahi a "jubilant welcome" in Tripoli, according to the reporting. Where, I ask, is the justice? Sincerely yours, Robert S. Mueller, III Director What amazes me is who the hell does he think he is. An American critisizing another Country's judicial system, there's a shocker. Sorry, but I don't think the USA are a role model for their judicial system, I mean Guantanamo Bay anyone? Also for someone who says he knows all about the case, how come he says " the conviction by jury", if I recall correctly is was overseen by 3 Scottish judges, no jury whatsoever. The more you dig into this story the more I think it was a political decision, but not made in Scotland. Something tells me the UK Government are behind this, Blair,Brown,Mandelson have all been in touch with Gadaffi & his son in the last few weeks and years. No doubt trade has played a part in this as well. But Labour cannot be seen publicly to have orchestrated it, as it would destroy relations with the US, and stupid Scottish politicians are the fall guys. I wonder if they have been bought of with some kind of subsidy for taking the heat. I have no idea whether this guy bombed the plane or not, however Scotland's legal system does allow compassion to release people who are diagnosed with a terminal illness, unlike the US system which says rot in jail whether you did it or not, or whether you are dying or not. No doubt if he had been tried in a US court he would have already been executed. There is a rumour here that leading Americans are telling US citizens to boycot everything Scottish, if this is correct then it seems very harsh, as the Scottish people didn't make this decision.
August 23, 200915 yr Libya's bizarre and unwarranted bombing of a German nightclub. Libya also hijacked an American jumbo jet in Pakistan in the 80s. Wasn't that the IRA....? :unsure: As for the hijacking, well, yeah, it may have been LIBYANS that did that, what does that fukkin' prove...? And does it justify indiscriminately killing a six year old girl just because Colonel Ghaddafi happened to be her adopted father, or indeed killing other innocent Libyans indiscriminately in TOTALLY ILLEGAL BOMBING RAIDS...? Or do you subscribe to this ridiculous notion that two wrongs somehow make a right....? Reagan and Thatcher were fukkin' fascists, simple as.... As bad as Ghadaffi... And I'm pretty damn sure both killed vastly more civilians and committed more war crimes than Ghadaffi ever did.... <_< Reagan, the CIA, etc were neck deep in sh!t to do with Grenada, El Salvador, Honduras, Panama, Nicaragua, etc, training up Bin Laden and the bloody Mujahadeen (who later became the fukkin' TALIBAN) in Afganistan... Thatcher was busy killing Argentine conscripts in the Falklands and getting us involved in the FIRST bloody Gulf Oil War in Kuwait which led us into the situation we now have with Bin Laden/Al Qaeda... Great move, and we've got these two utter C/UNTS to thank for a war on two fronts, the Twin Towers and July 7th, arseholes....... <_< Oh, but that's okay for Prime Ministers and Presidents to murder people innit, cos they're "Democratically Elected", but obviously not okay for a leader of a Military Junta to do it.... They're all fukkin scum mate, all looking to fukk us over, whether elected, or if they simply take power.... At least dictators are actually a bit more honest about it.... :rolleyes:
August 23, 200915 yr What amazes me is who the hell does he think he is. An American critisizing another Country's judicial system, there's a shocker. Sorry, but I don't think the USA are a role model for their judicial system, I mean Guantanamo Bay anyone? Also for someone who says he knows all about the case, how come he says " the conviction by jury", if I recall correctly is was overseen by 3 Scottish judges, no jury whatsoever. The more you dig into this story the more I think it was a political decision, but not made in Scotland. Something tells me the UK Government are behind this, Blair,Brown,Mandelson have all been in touch with Gadaffi & his son in the last few weeks and years. No doubt trade has played a part in this as well. But Labour cannot be seen publicly to have orchestrated it, as it would destroy relations with the US, and stupid Scottish politicians are the fall guys. I wonder if they have been bought of with some kind of subsidy for taking the heat. I have no idea whether this guy bombed the plane or not, however Scotland's legal system does allow compassion to release people who are diagnosed with a terminal illness, unlike the US system which says rot in jail whether you did it or not, or whether you are dying or not. No doubt if he had been tried in a US court he would have already been executed. There is a rumour here that leading Americans are telling US citizens to boycot everything Scottish, if this is correct then it seems very harsh, as the Scottish people didn't make this decision. Spot on Brian.. Just who the fukk do the Americans think they are...? Where the fukk do they get off on criticising anyone????? Not only GITMO, but, er, hello, THE PATRIOT ACT????? These fukkers have no regards for their own bloody Constitution and Bill of Rights, and they think they can DARE to criticise a system of law that has existed when their bloody ancestors were going around murdering Native Americans, and owning SLAVES..... America - FUKK OFF!!!!!! <_< <_<
August 23, 200915 yr Here's my take on this for what it's worth -_- I said in an earlier post (prior to the decision being made) that on balance I'd have kept Megrahi in jail. Not because I had any great desire for retribution but because I feared exactly what has happened would happen and I didn't think the aggro would be worth it politically. But by God, whilst I may not agree 100% with Kenny McAskill's decision, I sure as hell defend his right to make sure a decision. I am absolutely livid at all the hypocritical, sanctimonious claptrap being spouted forth over the last couple of days. I feel McAskill was put in a no-win situation and has basically been shafted big time. I would say this: To the UK government - yip, lobby for Megrahi's release for several years. Have secret deals in the desert, make nice wee cosy arrangements with the Libyans, send letters to McAskill making it clear you had no objection to a release(and indeed hoped this would go ahead). Then sit on the sidelines when he makes the decision you supported all along and refuse to say a word when the $h!t hits the fan. So he gets hung out to dry by the press. You get all the lucrative oil deals with Libya. Lets hear from you Gordon. Do you agree it was right to release him or not? You have no opinion on the matter? Or did you think it was a great idea until the Yanks told you otherwise? To the Scottish opposition parties- my my, such a 'grave error of judgement' and yet not one of you yellow bellied bast*rds spoke out before the event. If you held such strong opinions why weren't you up in arms last week? Lets be honest, none of you would ever have been in McAskill's position. None of you would ever have been allowed to make such a decision. You'd have needed to wait and see what your London Masters told you to do. Instead of worrying what the Americans think, you should be defending the Scottish legal system and the right of the Scottish Government to follow the rules of that system. To the Americans- where to start? Have you got an intrinsic need to butt into other countries' legal processes? Is your system so perfect? You agreed that Megrahi should get tried under Scottish law. But when that same law includes parts that you don't like, it's all hell to pay. I think it's an absolute disgrace that an FBI type has the f***ing gall to sound off to the democratically elected Minister of another country. As a country (and I mean all the UK, not just Scotland) we should be telling him to GTF. :angry: This is bullying. Nothing less. And I'm so proud that McAskill didn't give in to it. Still, when all those Libyan oil contracts start to flood in I'm certain the Good Ole US of A won't sign up to any of them. Right? As for McAskill himself. I think he genuinely thought he was doing the right thing by releasing a dying man. He turned down Megrahi for release last year because he did not meet the criteria (ie less than 3 months to live). This time he did meet the criteria. Maybe he was naiive. I don't know. Or maybe like many of us McAskill (as a lawyer) holds serious doubts about the man's guilt. McAskill and the SNP certainly had nothing to gain politically from releasing Megrahi. Unfortunately any 'payback' by way of oil contracts won't go to the Scottish Government but to the UK Government (and no doubt the American Government). It seems a Win-Win for Westminster, a Lose-Lose for Holyrood. I want a full public enquiry into Lockerbie with all the evidence re-examined. But I'm damn certain the UK and US governments won't be pushing for one of those. I wonder why????? <_< <_< <_<
August 23, 200915 yr Author Here's my take on this for what it's worth -_- I said in an earlier post (prior to the decision being made) that on balance I'd have kept Megrahi in jail. Not because I had any great desire for retribution but because I feared exactly what has happened would happen and I didn't think the aggro would be worth it politically. But by God, whilst I may not agree 100% with Kenny McAskill's decision, I sure as hell defend his right to make sure a decision. I am absolutely livid at all the hypocritical, sanctimonious claptrap being spouted forth over the last couple of days. I feel McAskill was put in a no-win situation and has basically been shafted big time. I would say this: To the UK government - yip, lobby for Megrahi's release for several years. Have secret deals in the desert, make nice wee cosy arrangements with the Libyans, send letters to McAskill making it clear you had no objection to a release(and indeed hoped this would go ahead). Then sit on the sidelines when he makes the decision you supported all along and refuse to say a word when the $h!t hits the fan. So he gets hung out to dry by the press. You get all the lucrative oil deals with Libya. Lets hear from you Gordon. Do you agree it was right to release him or not? You have no opinion on the matter? Or did you think it was a great idea until the Yanks told you otherwise? To the Scottish opposition parties- my my, such a 'grave error of judgement' and yet not one of you yellow bellied bast*rds spoke out before the event. If you held such strong opinions why weren't you up in arms last week? Lets be honest, none of you would ever have been in McAskill's position. None of you would ever have been allowed to make such a decision. You'd have needed to wait and see what your London Masters told you to do. Instead of worrying what the Americans think, you should be defending the Scottish legal system and the right of the Scottish Government to follow the rules of that system. To the Americans- where to start? Have you got an intrinsic need to butt into other countries' legal processes? Is your system so perfect? You agreed that Megrahi should get tried under Scottish law. But when that same law includes parts that you don't like, it's all hell to pay. I think it's an absolute disgrace that an FBI type has the f***ing gall to sound off to the democratically elected Minister of another country. As a country (and I mean all the UK, not just Scotland) we should be telling him to GTF. :angry: This is bullying. Nothing less. And I'm so proud that McAskill didn't give in to it. Still, when all those Libyan oil contracts start to flood in I'm certain the Good Ole US of A won't sign up to any of them. Right? As for McAskill himself. I think he genuinely thought he was doing the right thing by releasing a dying man. He turned down Megrahi for release last year because he did not meet the criteria (ie less than 3 months to live). This time he did meet the criteria. Maybe he was naiive. I don't know. Or maybe like many of us McAskill (as a lawyer) holds serious doubts about the man's guilt. McAskill and the SNP certainly had nothing to gain politically from releasing Megrahi. Unfortunately any 'payback' by way of oil contracts won't go to the Scottish Government but to the UK Government (and no doubt the American Government). It seems a Win-Win for Westminster, a Lose-Lose for Holyrood. I want a full public enquiry into Lockerbie with all the evidence re-examined. But I'm damn certain the UK and US governments won't be pushing for one of those. I wonder why????? <_< <_< <_< I am in total agreement with you on this.
August 23, 200915 yr And another thing. Maybe the public enquiry can establish where the Libyan welcoming committee managed to obtain all those Scottish flags at such short notice. Tripoli airport must have an amazingly well stocked gift shop..... <_<
August 23, 200915 yr Mueller's comments are completely unacceptable. As a Government official he should not be criticising a sovereign state like this. Even if he had a right to say anything then as a legal officer he should acquaint himself with the facts and the details of Scottish law before mouthing off. He has completely ignored the legislation under which Megrahi has been released. He says that he was in charge of the indictment. No he wasn't. As an American he couldn't be in charge of an indictment under Scottish law. Relatives of the victims have a right as private citizens to comment on the case. Mueller, as a Government official, should keep his trap shut.
August 23, 200915 yr Author Read this on another site, made me laugh.... Suppose we should thank ourselves lucky that Bush still isn't in charge - after all Scotland has oil, WMDs and has helped terrorists :kink:
August 23, 200915 yr Did you see this today Brian? I soooooo wish the truth would come out on this one! http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/scottish-...78057-21618329/
August 23, 200915 yr Here's my take on this for what it's worth -_- I said in an earlier post (prior to the decision being made) that on balance I'd have kept Megrahi in jail. Not because I had any great desire for retribution but because I feared exactly what has happened would happen and I didn't think the aggro would be worth it politically. But by God, whilst I may not agree 100% with Kenny McAskill's decision, I sure as hell defend his right to make sure a decision. I am absolutely livid at all the hypocritical, sanctimonious claptrap being spouted forth over the last couple of days. I feel McAskill was put in a no-win situation and has basically been shafted big time. I would say this: To the UK government - yip, lobby for Megrahi's release for several years. Have secret deals in the desert, make nice wee cosy arrangements with the Libyans, send letters to McAskill making it clear you had no objection to a release(and indeed hoped this would go ahead). Then sit on the sidelines when he makes the decision you supported all along and refuse to say a word when the $h!t hits the fan. So he gets hung out to dry by the press. You get all the lucrative oil deals with Libya. Lets hear from you Gordon. Do you agree it was right to release him or not? You have no opinion on the matter? Or did you think it was a great idea until the Yanks told you otherwise? To the Scottish opposition parties- my my, such a 'grave error of judgement' and yet not one of you yellow bellied bast*rds spoke out before the event. If you held such strong opinions why weren't you up in arms last week? Lets be honest, none of you would ever have been in McAskill's position. None of you would ever have been allowed to make such a decision. You'd have needed to wait and see what your London Masters told you to do. Instead of worrying what the Americans think, you should be defending the Scottish legal system and the right of the Scottish Government to follow the rules of that system. To the Americans- where to start? Have you got an intrinsic need to butt into other countries' legal processes? Is your system so perfect? You agreed that Megrahi should get tried under Scottish law. But when that same law includes parts that you don't like, it's all hell to pay. I think it's an absolute disgrace that an FBI type has the f***ing gall to sound off to the democratically elected Minister of another country. As a country (and I mean all the UK, not just Scotland) we should be telling him to GTF. :angry: This is bullying. Nothing less. And I'm so proud that McAskill didn't give in to it. Still, when all those Libyan oil contracts start to flood in I'm certain the Good Ole US of A won't sign up to any of them. Right? As for McAskill himself. I think he genuinely thought he was doing the right thing by releasing a dying man. He turned down Megrahi for release last year because he did not meet the criteria (ie less than 3 months to live). This time he did meet the criteria. Maybe he was naiive. I don't know. Or maybe like many of us McAskill (as a lawyer) holds serious doubts about the man's guilt. McAskill and the SNP certainly had nothing to gain politically from releasing Megrahi. Unfortunately any 'payback' by way of oil contracts won't go to the Scottish Government but to the UK Government (and no doubt the American Government). It seems a Win-Win for Westminster, a Lose-Lose for Holyrood. I want a full public enquiry into Lockerbie with all the evidence re-examined. But I'm damn certain the UK and US governments won't be pushing for one of those. I wonder why????? <_< <_< <_< A brilliant post that I totally agree with.
August 23, 200915 yr Wasn't that the IRA....? :unsure: It was Libya, the Libyan embassy in Germany was involved in the attack. As for the rest of your post, I don't disagree in the least bit. Here's my point: Libya started the altercation by bombing a West German nightclub frequented by Americans, in the end if I recall it was a Turkish woman and a German who were killed. The US (using UK air bases and resources) took retribution by indiscriminately, illegally and shamefully bombing Tripoli and killing far more civilians than soldiers. It was reprehensible and yet it does NOT justify blowing up a Pan Am jumbo jet. Just as the American retribution was shameful and illegal and utterly wrong, so was Ghaddafi's revenge. You can't say they it was a justified act of revenge, but the American bombing of Tripoli wasn't. They were the same mistake, the same crime.
August 23, 200915 yr There is a rumour here that leading Americans are telling US citizens to boycot everything Scottish, if this is correct then it seems very harsh, as the Scottish people didn't make this decision. Just an FYI - that rumor is utter nonsense, the news has not been met with great protest in the US. Not even the fringe, right wing media has given the topic much attention. The US doesn't agree with the decision, but no one's sovereignty is being challenged and no one is suggesting Scotland doesn't have the right to act within its own law. As for "butting in," let's wait for the sanctions and the invasion (which of course won't happen). Do I think Americans have the right to comment as private citizens on the matter due to the fact that 180 Americans died in the bombing? Yes. But it's just commentary at this point (as it should be). Edited August 23, 200915 yr by Consie
August 24, 200915 yr Here's my take on this for what it's worth -_- I said in an earlier post (prior to the decision being made) that on balance I'd have kept Megrahi in jail. Not because I had any great desire for retribution but because I feared exactly what has happened would happen and I didn't think the aggro would be worth it politically. But by God, whilst I may not agree 100% with Kenny McAskill's decision, I sure as hell defend his right to make sure a decision. I am absolutely livid at all the hypocritical, sanctimonious claptrap being spouted forth over the last couple of days. I feel McAskill was put in a no-win situation and has basically been shafted big time. I would say this: To the UK government - yip, lobby for Megrahi's release for several years. Have secret deals in the desert, make nice wee cosy arrangements with the Libyans, send letters to McAskill making it clear you had no objection to a release(and indeed hoped this would go ahead). Then sit on the sidelines when he makes the decision you supported all along and refuse to say a word when the $h!t hits the fan. So he gets hung out to dry by the press. You get all the lucrative oil deals with Libya. Lets hear from you Gordon. Do you agree it was right to release him or not? You have no opinion on the matter? Or did you think it was a great idea until the Yanks told you otherwise? To the Scottish opposition parties- my my, such a 'grave error of judgement' and yet not one of you yellow bellied bast*rds spoke out before the event. If you held such strong opinions why weren't you up in arms last week? Lets be honest, none of you would ever have been in McAskill's position. None of you would ever have been allowed to make such a decision. You'd have needed to wait and see what your London Masters told you to do. Instead of worrying what the Americans think, you should be defending the Scottish legal system and the right of the Scottish Government to follow the rules of that system. To the Americans- where to start? Have you got an intrinsic need to butt into other countries' legal processes? Is your system so perfect? You agreed that Megrahi should get tried under Scottish law. But when that same law includes parts that you don't like, it's all hell to pay. I think it's an absolute disgrace that an FBI type has the f***ing gall to sound off to the democratically elected Minister of another country. As a country (and I mean all the UK, not just Scotland) we should be telling him to GTF. :angry: This is bullying. Nothing less. And I'm so proud that McAskill didn't give in to it. Still, when all those Libyan oil contracts start to flood in I'm certain the Good Ole US of A won't sign up to any of them. Right? As for McAskill himself. I think he genuinely thought he was doing the right thing by releasing a dying man. He turned down Megrahi for release last year because he did not meet the criteria (ie less than 3 months to live). This time he did meet the criteria. Maybe he was naiive. I don't know. Or maybe like many of us McAskill (as a lawyer) holds serious doubts about the man's guilt. McAskill and the SNP certainly had nothing to gain politically from releasing Megrahi. Unfortunately any 'payback' by way of oil contracts won't go to the Scottish Government but to the UK Government (and no doubt the American Government). It seems a Win-Win for Westminster, a Lose-Lose for Holyrood. I want a full public enquiry into Lockerbie with all the evidence re-examined. But I'm damn certain the UK and US governments won't be pushing for one of those. I wonder why????? <_< <_< <_< yep, you get a from me too!
August 24, 200915 yr I would say Jupiter's post is pretty spot on the mark tbh... Although, I personally doubt the guy's actual guilt tbh... The evidence always seemed pretty shaky to me... All things being fair under the rule of Scots LAW, this case should have been "Not Proven"....
Create an account or sign in to comment