Lockerbie bomber released

[Saaf_laandon_mo]

Don't get me wrong, if he had been found guilty beyound reasonable doubt, then he should have stayed in prison. The fact is that there is a lot of doubt surrounding his conviction.

Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo

Do people here opposing to his release believe he did it?

Originally Posted by Osem

I'd have thought the answer to that is evidently yes. In the eyes of the law he is guilty, of course, but having now abandoned his appeal it's doubtful we'll ever find out whether there was a miscarriage of justice. Some will argue his release was agreed simply in order to save HMG's embarrassment....

Can I rephrase my original question.

Do those opposed to his release genuinely believe that, given all the doubt surrounding his trial and conviction, he should have been convicted of the bombing?

[Osem]

The BBC is reporting that Gordon Brown wrote to Col. Gadaffi reqesting that there be only a low profile reception given to Megrahi on his return to Libya. Unsurprisingly they don't appeared to have listened....

Found this link to a Guardian article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...n-brown-letter

[rogerdraig]

to be fair they closed the airport of to media but some one recorded it from out side

they would have been shouted at if they banned those who supported him meeting him

you would see exactly the same thing here from a family of a released prisoner who was still guilty but where the family / supporters didn't agree with the conviction etc

whether or not he was guilty is not why he was released we don't keep dieing people in prison unless they are still a danger to us ( see ronnie biggs )

the media will hype it as its a story to make them money

i doubt you will see much from America or Britain in sanctions or anything else as the real scandal is both used this conviction to allow them to do trade deals with the country they supposedly believe caused the bombing ( i tend to think Iran is a more likely place the orders came from to make amends for the shooting down of one of their passenger planes by the Americans which of course the deaths there don't count as much as one it was a mistake and two they aren't Americans )

as to being soft on terrorism i think accusing Scotland of that is being silly they were always on a looser with this case as the British government always saw putting this under Scottish law as the get out clause so it couldn't be said we made the decision or acquit or later release him

but any one who thinks the British Minister of what ever party was in power wouldn't have done the same is not being truthful with themselves

Originally Posted by Chris

Sorry ... how about you run along, read up on Scottish devolution and what it means, and then pass comment when you have at least a slender grasp of the subject.

---------- Post added at 23:44 ---------- Previous post was at 23:38 ----------



If they were stupid enough to try, it would have made no difference. Except that it might have given the SNP some valuable political ammunition with which to beat the Labour Party.

Really, you lot south of the border need to go and read up on how devolution works in Scotland. We have a real parliament here that makes real laws and real ministers with real executive responsibilities. Justice issues like these are simply not in the remit of any London-based minister, they are in the hands of Scottish Ministers in Edinburgh who answer to the Holyrood parliament, not Westminster.

No matter what G. Brown and Co. think about the release of Megrahi, it wasn't their decision to make or to influence and attempting to get involved would have been political suicide, in Scotland at least.

i think we "south of the border" are quite familiar with devolution and how it works Chris we get it rammed down our throats every time Scotland wants to play at being a country
in this case G brown should not have left such a huge descision like this to a second rater like kenny macaskill who only speaks for a very small part of the uk
The original "deal"was to make anybody convicted serve their sentence in Scotland it should have been adhered to or a new trial held if their were doubts as to his guilt not this stupid compassionate grounds flimflam.
So Chris you can "run along now" back to your "devoluted"country secure in the knowledge that the Scottish justice system has just let a mass murderer out of jail and probably secured an enormous propaganda coup to one of the worlds most hated men
Interesting to note also that Gaddafi has thanked the british gov aswell as the scottish so now tell me Brown wasn't involved

[Pedro1]

Originally Posted by harmitage

Keep a terminally ill, potentially innocent, man in jail to appease the Americans.

Why would we want to do that?

You are entitled to you opinion but innocent i dont think so.
It takes a lot of evidence to give someone 27 years.

---------- Post added at 06:17 ---------- Previous post was at 06:13 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

i think we "south of the border" are quite familiar with devolution and how it works Chris we get it rammed down our throats every time Scotland wants to play at being a country
in this case G brown should not have left such a huge descision like this to a second rater like kenny macaskill who only speaks for a very small part of the uk
The original "deal"was to make anybody convicted serve their sentence in Scotland it should have been adhered to or a new trial held if their were doubts as to his guilt not this stupid compassionate grounds flimflam.
So Chris you can "run along now" back to your "devoluted"country secure in the knowledge that the Scottish justice system has just let a mass murderer out of jail and probably secured an enormous propaganda coup to one of the worlds most hated men
Interesting to note also that Gaddafi has thanked the british gov aswell as the scottish so now tell me Brown wasn't involved

strongly agree

Screw Kenny and sack Brown

---------- Post added at 06:27 ---------- Previous post was at 06:17 ----------

We have Gary McKinnon being extradited to the us to face jail for life which he will do when there and he never killed 270 people. I think he should be let off on compassionate grounds dont you think? As kenny said we are a compassionate nation.

I am discusted this this country and canny wait till it goes under water...

---------- Post added at 06:42 ---------- Previous post was at 06:27 ----------

Shame on the British government for a treaty set up by the war criminal Tony Blair which has only been ratified by the UK. This means that the British government can send us to America to be tortured and abused but no American has or will be extradited to the UK.

Originally Posted by Pedro1

<snippety snip snip>
We have Gary McKinnon being extradited to the us to face jail for life which he will do when there and he never killed 270 people. I think he should be let off on compassionate grounds dont you think? As kenny said we are a compassionate nation.

I am discusted this this country and canny wait till it goes under water...

---------- Post added at 06:42 ---------- Previous post was at 06:27 ----------

Shame on the British government for a treaty set up by the war criminal Tony Blair which has only been ratified by the UK. This means that the British government can send us to America to be tortured and abused but no American has or will be extradited to the UK.

The treaty was fully ratified by the US in September 2006 (and came into force April 26, 2007), and as at December 2007, there had been 17 US citizens extradited to the UK - linky

Since the Act was introduced in 2004, many more UK citizens have been extradited to the US than have flown the other way. Out of 97 requests by the US, 52 have been granted; the UK has made 26 requests and 17 US citizens have been sent here

btw, I don't think Gary McKinnon should be extradited - I think he should be tried in the UK.

[Osem]

Col. Gadaffi's son has apparently claimed that the subject of Megrahi's release was raised during trade talks with British representatives.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/...nd/8215554.stm

.... claimed the Megrahi issue had been raised repeatedly by Britain's former prime minister Tony Blair. "In all commercial contracts, for oil and gas with Britain, (Megrahi) was always on the negotiating table..."

I wouldn't be at all surprised if this were the case during the Bliar years and ever since. We may never know the truth about this case but, given the nature of politics, to believe that Scotland's justice system and devolved powers could preclude Westminster (or indeed other 'foreign' powers) from ever having any significant influence in matters such as these is naive.

Ps Chris - "you lot south of the border" is a rather sweeping generalisation isn't it?

[Pedro1]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

The treaty was fully ratified by the US in September 2006 (and came into force April 26, 2007), and as at December 2007, there had been 17 US citizens extradited to the UK - linky


btw, I don't think Gary McKinnon should be extradited - I think he should be tried in the UK.

hink
I think they should give him a well paid job. This guy could secure the security of what he invaded or should i say what was not secure in the first place..

Instead of punnishing this guy just employ him it would be to there advantage.. dont u t

Originally Posted by martyh

i think we "south of the border" are quite familiar with devolution and how it works Chris we get it rammed down our throats every time Scotland wants to play at being a country

... and yet the rest of your post only goes to show that in reality, you don't have the first clue about how Scottish devolution works, or even how the Acts of Union work:

in this case G brown should not have left such a huge descision like this to a second rater like kenny macaskill who only speaks for a very small part of the uk

Scotland was guaranteed a distinct system of law right at the start of the Union, in the Acts of Union. It was a Scottish court that tried and convicted Megrahi in the first place; not a 'UK' court. One of the reasons the Acts of Union guaranteed this was precisely to stop people like you demanding that Scotland should have less influence in the Union simply because it has a smaller population. Let's not forget, England has the capital, which is a huge draw attracting both people and resources, so the argument that Scotland is 'small' and (by extension) England is 'big' is a little self-serving, don't you think?

At the time of the original trial, prior to the Scotland Act which brought about devolution, this was overseen by the Scottish Office, which is a department of the UK Government. But now, post the Scotland Act, justice issues are entirely and exclusively decided by Scottish Ministers in Edinburgh.

Gordon Brown had no choice in the matter. For him to have taken the decision away from McAskill would have required an Act of Parliament to be passed at Westminster, partially repealing the Scotland Act. That would have been a political nuke of the kind that could very well trigger massive support for the SNP in Scotland, followed by a legitimate referendum, followed by loud, persistent and probably irresistible demands for the break-up of the UK. That is something that Gordon Brown does not want. Nor do I, for that matter.

The original "deal"was to make anybody convicted serve their sentence in Scotland it should have been adhered to or a new trial held if their were doubts as to his guilt not this stupid compassionate grounds flimflam.

Megrahi did serve his sentence in Scotland. He has not been transferred to Libya as a prisoner, he has been released and then deported.

Compassionate grounds is not unheard of by any means, for prisoners who are at death's door. Ronnie Biggs got out of jail on exactly the same pretext a matter of weeks ago. And that decision was taken by Labour; by Jack Straw to be precise, because he is the justice minister responsible for such matters in England and Wales.

So Chris you can "run along now" back to your "devoluted"country secure in the knowledge that the Scottish justice system has just let a mass murderer out of jail and probably secured an enormous propaganda coup to one of the worlds most hated men
Interesting to note also that Gaddafi has thanked the british gov aswell as the scottish so now tell me Brown wasn't involved

That's 'devolved'. And yes, I am telling you that Brown wasn't involved. After all, if a true Brit like you doesn't have a clue how Scottish devolution works, why should you think Gaddafi has any better idea?

Well some of the comments the libyans are coming out with seem to hint at some sort of deal with gaddafi's son saying it was always discussed at trade talks and gaddafi senior personally thanking GB so if no interference at all why thank GB. This whole thing does have a smell about it almost as much as the original conviction and there is definately something here that were not being told.

Also like the way improved relatiosn meant that when both obama and GB asked for a low key return it was honoured a real smack in the face to both of them.

... because the Libyan government doesn't understand the nature of devolution. Nor do most people, it seems. Gaddafi has been bending the UK Government's ear over this for years, now Megrahi is out, naturally who are they going to say thanks to? Who are they going to assume fixed it, the UK Government or a small-time minister in (as we have already been reminded) a tiny corner of the UK?

Remember, Lybia is effectively an authoritarian state, practically a dictatorship. Everything they understand about how governments work tells them that Gordon Brown must have been behind any decision that was taken. The idea that the Prime Minister is effectively powerless in this is an alien concept to them. The fact that they think he was involved and are giving him big public thanks doesn't tell us anything at all about what, supposedly, 'really went on'.

Well i am not so sure to be honest and i think you have too much faith in devolution and i think you underestimate the understanding of it by libya as i doubt very much that they didn't find out how things work in scotland before this release.

Faith or otherwise in devolution has got nothing to do with it. This has nothing to do with how good or bad devolution is at serving the interests of the Scottish people; it's about the Law. And the Law says the UK Prime Minister is powerless to affect this issue.

Of course there's nothing in the Law to say he couldn't have had a word in Alex Salmond's ear, but there are other equally powerful concerns at work in that case - such as the fact the SNP would be able to dine out on such a suggestion for months ahead, especially with a crucial Glasgow by-election and then a general election in the offing.

[QUOTE=Chris;34858909]... because the Libyan government doesn't understand the nature of devolution. Nor do most people, it seems. Gaddafi has been bending the UK Government's ear over this for years, now Megrahi is out, naturally who are they going to say thanks to? Who are they going to assume fixed it, the UK Government or a small-time minister in (as we have already been reminded) a tiny corner of the UK?

on the contrary Chris ,i think Gaddafi ,his son and any one else in the libyan government fully understand about devolution ,even as disliked as he is, he is known as a very clever politician .I think the appeal was dropped because it would have revealed truths about the bombing that gaddafi doesn't want the british gov (or any other gov for that matter)making public and thus ruining any trade deals that are on the table
i still strongly believe that g brown and his cohorts had a big influence on the final decision even though he's not supposed to get involved in matters of criminal justice in scotland the british gov still have absolute power on foreign policy and in this case they are closely linked
as i have said in a earlier post i don't believe Magrahi should have been released on compassionate grounds ,why should any criminal ,he should have followed through with his appeal ,i think he would have been released anyway because of the doubts over his conviction which the scottish gov admit so to keep him in prison and risk losing important trade deals is i think madness and i do think Gbrown made this clear to Macaskill even if it was under the table

Fine, let's play along with your conspiracy theory for a minute or two.

What did the SNP administration in Edinburgh have to gain by obeying underhand 'requests' from Westminster? Or, what did they stand to lose by ignoring any such requests?