Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ok, so according to this story, by the Times of London, the British government, not the Scottish government, made the decision to set the Lockerbie bomber home to Libya...How have heads not rolled down Downing Street?!? Especially since this was done for an oil deal. Maybe I am overreacting or clinging to that old-fashioned notion of the rule of law, but if I was a subject of the Crown I would be fethin' pissed and demanding for Gordon Brown's resignation. What do you Brits think of all this? I know how most Americans feel about it...
Here is the story btw:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6814939.ece

done for oil?!?!?

Bush is behind this somehow... eveyone knows only he makes deals for oil.

JEB_Stuart wrote:Ok, so according to this story, by the Times of London, the British government, not the Scottish government, made the decision to set the Lockerbie bomber home to Libya...How have heads not rolled down Downing Street?!?

Because the rest of the world understands that international politics are best practiced without ideological commitment.

dogma wrote:Because the rest of the world understands that international politics are best practiced without ideological commitment.

As a citizen of the rest of the world, I can assure that we don't understand that.

sebster wrote:
As a citizen of the rest of the world, I can assure that we don't understand that.

Oz hardly counts as part of the world, let's get real here.

On a more serious note, please expand. I'm a fairly ardent realist (in the observational sense) with respect to I-poli, so I tend to lose the nuance when it comes to idealism.

edit: I understand what you said, I'm just curious as to how your experience casts the realism/idealism debate.

If you read the whole story, it says not that Megrahi was released to get oil but that he was not specifically excluded from a general prisoner release agreement.

Yeah, that's why I'm confuzzled.

The BBC world service tonight was saying that the British Government was putting pressure on the Scots so that the deal with the Libyans would go through.

Remember there are always multiple agendas in this kind of issue.

Brown is the Labour PM, and The Times is a right wing newspaper. It's in their interests to make the Labour Government look bad.

OTOH, Labour and the Scottish National Party (who are in power in Scotland) are enemies, so perhaps a leak has been sneakily done to make the SNP look bad.

According to a recent poll, 2/3rds of the Scottish electorate disapprove of the decision to release Megrahi. However, that decision was in accordance with established legal procedures on compassionate release, whatever the behind the scenes pressures being applied.

The electorate will be able to express their disapproval forcefully at the next election.

As a general rule I believe the existing law should be allowed to take effect before we all clamour for exclusions in special cases. What's the saying about bad laws being made in a hurry?

The whole case is a mess, really.

The reason it happened was because our government is so spineless I'm surprised they can stand up.

The OC-D

Don't forget boys and girls, Gordon Brown is Scottish!

I'm starting to feel the urge to join in the boycott of haggis....

theocd wrote:The reason it happened was because our government is so spineless I'm surprised they can stand up.

The OC-D

Rubbish.

The reason it happened is that the man was 3 months away from death and was allowed free on compassionate grounds. Simple as that.

The desperation of the press to make tenuous links to oil deals and their desperate and ludicrous attempts to tie the PM to a decision made by the Scottish justice system would be laughable if so many people weren't actually falling for it.

Kilkrazy wrote:Remember there are always multiple agendas in this kind of issue.

Brown is the Labour PM, and The Times is a right wing newspaper. It's in their interests to make the Labour Government look bad.

Very much so.

However, there's no way in hell that 'compassionate grounds' were the only reason for releasing a man who served a fortnight per person, after killing 270 people, and ruining uncountable more lives.

This isn't scaremongering, or conspiracy theory, it's just the way it is.

sA

smiling Assassin wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Remember there are always multiple agendas in this kind of issue.

Brown is the Labour PM, and The Times is a right wing newspaper. It's in their interests to make the Labour Government look bad.

Very much so.

However, there's no way in hell that 'compassionate grounds' were the only reason for releasing a man who served a fortnight per person, after killing 270 people, and ruining uncountable more lives.

This isn't scaremongering, or conspiracy theory, it's just the way it is.

sA

One has to ask what if someone killed 100 people, or 50 people, or 10 people. One decides that the limit is 15, then someone kills 16 people and gets terminal cancer.

Perhaps compassionate release should never be allowed in any circumstances. However, at the moment, it is.

Changes in the law should not be made in a hurry or on a case by case basis.

I will merely keep my fingers crossed that if he was guilty, that he dies in agony. Further that all those he condemned will be waiting to hold him accountable, shortly before he does not collect 72 vestal virgins, do not pass go and go straight to hell.

If he was guilty.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
If he was guilty.

This would be my main concern, when you look at the conviction, and in particular the Identification that linked him to the case, and the fact the description Gauci gave of the man he sold the case to was much older than Megrahi, well it seems dodgy. I'm all for justice, but nailing the first sap to the wall who comes along, is not something I can agree with.

Of course they may have got lucky, but I'm not so certain.

dogma wrote:

JEB_Stuart wrote:Ok, so according to this story, by the Times of London, the British government, not the Scottish government, made the decision to set the Lockerbie bomber home to Libya...How have heads not rolled down Downing Street?!?

Because the rest of the world understands that international politics are best practiced without ideological commitment.

Explain, please. Your Focus of Effort should be upon how the "rest of the world" came to this claimed unilateral (indeed, by your statement, unanimous) understanding.

LuciusAR wrote:

theocd wrote:The reason it happened was because our government is so spineless I'm surprised they can stand up.

The OC-D

Rubbish.

The reason it happened is that the man was 3 months away from death and was allowed free on compassionate grounds. Simple as that.

The desperation of the press to make tenuous links to oil deals and their desperate and ludicrous attempts to tie the PM to a decision made by the Scottish justice system would be laughable if so many people weren't actually falling for it.

So prisoners with terminal illnesses are routinely released on compassionate grounds? I would LOVE to see that backed up. Specify: how this case was handled in the same manner as the majority of other similar cases. This will make for interesting reading.

grizgrin wrote:So prisoners with terminal illnesses are routinely released on compassionate grounds? I would LOVE to see that backed up. Specify: how this case was handled in the same manner as the majority of other similar cases. This will make for interesting reading.

As far as I am aware the law in Scotland is that prisoners, no matter their crime, as long as represent no risk to the public, are eligible for release on compassionate grounds if they have a terminal illness which will likely kill them within three months. If there are any experts here who know differently then please feel free to correct me. That it why he was freed.

LuciusAR wrote:

grizgrin wrote:So prisoners with terminal illnesses are routinely released on compassionate grounds? I would LOVE to see that backed up. Specify: how this case was handled in the same manner as the majority of other similar cases. This will make for interesting reading.

As far as I am aware the law in Scotland is that prisoners, no matter their crime, as long as represent no risk to the public, are eligible for release on compassionate grounds if they have a terminal illness which will likely kill them within three months. If there are any experts here who know differently then please feel free to correct me. That it why he was freed.

An interesting point, and if true I will concede. No use railing about it from my POV. My attitude earlier springs from the cultural/legal differance from you statement here in the US; we'll let them rot until the rot kills them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But I am still waiting on dogma.

grizgrin wrote:Explain, please. Your Focus of Effort should be upon how the "rest of the world" came to this claimed unilateral (indeed, by your statement, unanimous) understanding.

Explanation: The United States is historically bound to idealism in a way which has hamstrung its diplomatic faculties. The 'rest of the world', which here references European nations, is a far less idealistic agent. Hence the comment was made on relative grounds, not absolute ones (because those don't exist).

Explanation 2: It was an off-the-cuff remark which shouldn't be taken as being possessed of logical value.

As far as I am aware the law in Scotland is that prisoners, no matter their crime, as long as represent no risk to the public, are eligible for release on compassionate grounds if they have a terminal illness which will likely kill them within three months. If there are any experts here who know differently then please feel free to correct me.

so, after killing 270 people he is no longer a threat to anyone?
to be honest, we shouldnt waste money keeping him locked up, a single bullet is alot cheaper and by far more effective.

He is no longer a threat because he is dying of cancer and in no fit state to operate as an international terrorist.

We're not wasting money keeping him locked up because we've sent him back to Libya so they are paying.

Still though killkrazy, dont forget he is a man with nothing to lose, he cannot really be punished for anything he does from now on (due to being dead soon)
What could be worse than letting a man free after such an act and him having nothing to lose?
im willing to bet he does something, lets face it, whats the worsed that can happen to him now?

I bet you a pint he does not embark on a life of crime.

You work in Soho like me so it will be easy to collect.

dogma wrote:

grizgrin wrote:Explain, please. Your Focus of Effort should be upon how the "rest of the world" came to this claimed unilateral (indeed, by your statement, unanimous) understanding.

Explanation: The United States is historically bound to idealism in a way which has hamstrung its diplomatic faculties. The 'rest of the world', which here references European nations, is a far less idealistic agent. Hence the comment was made on relative grounds, not absolute ones (because those don't exist).

UK figures out you are including them in Europe and some might get offended. Not sayin they should be, just sayin a lot of Brits I know get touchie on that one. Nice opinion, OT.

dogma wrote:Explanation 2: It was an off-the-cuff remark which shouldn't be taken as being possessed of logical value.

Well, I didn't expect that one.

Kilkrazy wrote:He is no longer a threat because he is dying of cancer and in no fit state to operate as an international terrorist.

We're not wasting money keeping him locked up because we've sent him back to Libya so they are paying.

He's a greater threat now that he is dying. 1 year ago nobody was hearing about this guy because he was old news. Now, his hero's welcome has made him a symbol, different from the one he already was, and encouraging more of the same. What's more dangerous, the one man; or more fanatics that he is inspiring?

Funny how the British Government (Who still controlled Scotland at the time of the Bombing) let Megrahi (ya know, the guy who killed close to THREE HUNDRED PEOPLE) walk away to get their mitts on oil without so much as a single word, but Ronnie Biggs had his application for release on compassionate grounds fought tooth and nail by the Home Office. His Crime? A Robbery.

Glad to see the UK Government being as effective as ever.

grizgrin wrote: He's a greater threat now that he is dying. 1 year ago nobody was hearing about this guy because he was old news. Now, his hero's welcome has made him a symbol, different from the one he already was, and encouraging more of the same. What's more dangerous, the one man; or more fanatics that he is inspiring?

He was already a symbol, though I wouldn't call him an extremist. The Lockerbie bombing was just one event in a long history of asymmetric Libyan foreign policy. More an act of war than an instance of random terrorism. Though few people consider it in that light because the consequences of doing so are rather unappealing. Who wants to invade Libya after all.

dogma wrote:

JEB_Stuart wrote:Ok, so according to this story, by the Times of London, the British government, not the Scottish government, made the decision to set the Lockerbie bomber home to Libya...How have heads not rolled down Downing Street?!?

Because the rest of the world understands that international politics are best practiced without ideological commitment.

So you are saying that this justifies his release? I fail to see how just because Americans, specifically, are idealist, that their views are inherently invalid. All politics is practiced with a sense of idealism, even if it isn't noble or grand. Selfish realism is still an idealism because it seeks to create an environment where your interests are put first. Please clarify your point Dogma? Are you truly as cynical as this post sounds?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:Funny how the British Government (Who still controlled Scotland at the time of the Bombing) let Megrahi (ya know, the guy who killed close to THREE HUNDRED PEOPLE) walk away to get their mitts on oil without so much as a single word, but Ronnie Biggs had his application for release on compassionate grounds fought tooth and nail by the Home Office. His Crime? A Robbery.

Glad to see the UK Government being as effective as ever.

Idiocy much? I think this law for release on compassionate grounds is a load of horse schmit. Why does the criminal receive more compassion than their victims? This is especially true in the case of murder or rape. How do you Brits justify this?

JEB_Stuart wrote:
So you are saying that this justifies his release?

Yes. An action is just if it is in accordance with accepted standards of practice.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
I fail to see how just because Americans, specifically, are idealist, that their views are inherently invalid.

When did I say they were invalid at all, let alone inherently so?

JEB_Stuart wrote:
All politics is practiced with a sense of idealism, even if it isn't noble or grand.

Did you intend to use the word ideology? Because idealism is always grand, and usually noble.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Selfish realism is still an idealism because it seeks to create an environment where your interests are put first. Please clarify your point Dogma?

Realism is an ideological position that is normally used as a foil for idealism. It is not idealism itself as it makes no necessary claim to creative vision, or intent.

A well governed state will adhere to a set of ideals when those ideals serve the interests of the state. When they don't, the ideals will be ignored. They should never be considered to possess necessary causal force, and must always be subordinate to practical concerns. In international politics this is a position called rationalism.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Are you truly as cynical as this post sounds?

My favorite President is Richard Nixon.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Idiocy much? I think this law for release on compassionate grounds is a load of horse schmit. Why does the criminal receive more compassion than their victims? This is especially true in the case of murder or rape. How do you Brits justify this?

Why are the victims at all relevant to the treatment of the criminal?

dogma wrote:Why are the victims at all relevant to the treatment of the criminal?

Unlike the US where you execute 16 year olds, in the UK it seems that Murderers get better treatment by the government than the families of the victims. This is what is causing most of the outrage, and people are getting sick of it.