US Government Preferred Compassionate Release of Lockerbie Bomber

[TomCat84]

Maybe stinks of subterfuge from the off, no wonder there is a conspiracy theory.

He was duly charged, tried, and convicted. I'm assuming he used all avenues of appeal. Keep him in prison to let him rot- the victims of the bombing never even had THAT chance.

EDIT: he would most likely have been executed here in the states.

 

[mitchymo]

He was duly charged, tried, and convicted. I'm assuming he used all avenues of appeal. Keep him in prison to let him rot- the victims of the bombing never even had THAT chance.

EDIT: he would most likely have been executed here in the states.

For a man who consistently denies guilt?

What if he IS innocent?

 

[TomCat84]

For a man who consistently denies guilt?

What if he IS innocent?

I don't see why this guy denying any guilt has anything to do with his actual guilt/innocence. As the saying goes..."That's what they all say."

 

[TomCat84]

Please note- I'm not advocating for the death penalty- I have serious reservations about how it is often applied in this country. In some instances however, it is extremely difficult to adovcate against it. Brutally raping, then killing, teenagers (and any people for that matter) should, IMHO, earn you the death penalty.

 

[mitchymo]

Please note- I'm not advocating for the death penalty- I have serious reservations about how it is often applied in this country. In some instances however, it is extremely difficult to adovcate against it. Brutally raping, then killing, teenagers (and any people for that matter) should, IMHO, earn you the death penalty.

Conflicting statements?

Death penalties are bad for a number of reasons, however much they deserve it. I quite agree, no probs, that some offenders carry out crimes of such an evil magnitude that even the death penalty seems too lenient where death penalties are of humane variants.

But there is always the chance of a wronged man, always the ability of a government to abuse a penalty with corruption, the lack of compassion (tho frankly i'd only apply it to the offenders family) and lastly, i think it is a much greater hell to have them live locked up until death with nothing to do but think about what they've done, death penalty is ironically too freeing.

 

[Jason]

There is no such thing as UK law. There are two legal systems within the UK - English law which applies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and Scots law which applies in Scotland. The systems are completely different both in the law they apply and in the court system which operates. There is no sense of the Scottish courts being junior to the English courts.

The death of the victims of the Lockerbie bomber took place in Scotland, which is why the case was tried under Scots law. The intention was that he should have served his full sentence in prison in Scotland. However Tony Blair's "deal in the desert" with Libya made this impossible. His deal was agreed as a treaty with the authority of the UK parliament and therefore applied in both Scots and English law. Under this agreement Megrahi should have been sent back to Libya to finish his sentence in a Libyan prison.

The compassionate release idea applied to Megrahi is difficult. The concept certainly exists in the Scottish legal system and ultimately derives from concepts that the justice system should aim to reform not to punish. There seems to be an issue where the courts decided to look at a possible compassionate release in preference to sending him to a Libyan gaol, which is odd.

The US requested compassionate release within Scotland, ie that he should not have been allowed to leave Scotland. This sounds fine in words but is unworkable. The EU has open borders. While the UK does maintain some checks on entry (the UK is extra-Schengen) there are not checks on leaving. There would have been no difficulty in Megrahi travelling to the south of Italy and taking a yacht to Libya - or even easier Greece and a boat to Turkey.

Issues that are odd include:
* Why did Tony Blair agree the deal in the desert prison exchange? Is Megrahi the only beneficiary?
* Is Megrahi really guilty as charged?
* Why was he released rather than being sent to a Libyan gaol?
* Why was Obama so keen on compassionate release rather than the alternative of a Libyan gaol?
* Why has the USA come up with this idea that BP had anything to do with his release? This one is not credible. BP didn't have to lobby for something that was happening anyway.

 

[TomCat84]

There is no such thing as UK law. There are two legal systems within the UK - English law which applies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and Scots law which applies in Scotland. The systems are completely different both in the law they apply and in the court system which operates. There is no sense of the Scottish courts being junior to the English courts.

The death of the victims of the Lockerbie bomber took place in Scotland, which is why the case was tried under Scots law. The intention was that he should have served his full sentence in prison in Scotland. However Tony Blair's "deal in the desert" with Libya made this impossible. His deal was agreed as a treaty with the authority of the UK parliament and therefore applied in both Scots and English law. Under this agreement Megrahi should have been sent back to Libya to finish his sentence in a Libyan prison.

The compassionate release idea applied to Megrahi is difficult. The concept certainly exists in the Scottish legal system and ultimately derives from concepts that the justice system should aim to reform not to punish. There seems to be an issue where the courts decided to look at a possible compassionate release in preference to sending him to a Libyan gaol, which is odd.

The US requested compassionate release within Scotland, ie that he should not have been allowed to leave Scotland. This sounds fine in words but is unworkable. The EU has open borders. While the UK does maintain some checks on entry (the UK is extra-Schengen) there are not checks on leaving. There would have been no difficulty in Megrahi travelling to the south of Italy and taking a yacht to Libya - or even easier Greece and a boat to Turkey.

Issues that are odd include:
* Why did Tony Blair agree the deal in the desert prison exchange? Is Megrahi the only beneficiary?
* Is Megrahi really guilty as charged?
* Why was he released rather than being sent to a Libyan gaol?
* Why was Obama so keen on compassionate release rather than the alternative of a Libyan gaol?
* Why has the USA come up with this idea that BP had anything to do with his release? This one is not credible. BP didn't have to lobby for something that was happening anyway.

Just curious- what about crimes that cross borders? There's no national court system to handle complex cases involving different citizens, or perhaps treason?

 

[Jason]

Just curious- what about crimes that cross borders? There's no national court system to handle complex cases involving different citizens, or perhaps treason?

They have to be tried in one country or another. In legal terms England and Scotland are completely different nations. There is no UK national legal system. There is a "Supreme Court of the UK", but it operates within three different legal systems depending on the case it is looking at: England, Scotland and Northern Ireland (Wales goes with England). For that matter the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man do their own thing, and are outside the UK.

Scotland has its own legal system, own parliament (with limited powers), own currency (the pound Scots is on parity with the pound sterling), own national church. It shares a head of state with England (Queen Elizabeth) though her titles are independent. And the UK parliament handles most financial and all foreign matters.

 

[Viking_UK]

Yes.

This bothers me. There are all sorts of issues which might suggest that he really is not guilty. Part of his release on compassionate grounds is that he has signed away all rights to challenge the conviction (rights which in theory the Libyan government might have take up even after his death). From a UK point of view this is tidy. Imagine the scenario where the Libyan government managed to produce something which really proved him innocent.

Perhaps that's why his release on compassionate grounds was preferable to transfer to a Libyan prison to serve the remainder of his sentence. It drew a line under the case, preventing the release of any exonerating evidence by him or on his behalf. That certainly wouldn't surprise me, given the fact that the case against him was so flawed that his conviction in the first place beggars belief.

 

[Bbucko]

Like so many other cases where a position of Obama or his administration have been shown to be distortions and fabrications, this entire issue seems to now officially be a hoax.

The big question now is who perpetrated it and to serve what end?

 

[Jason]

Viking - Yes. The "conspiracy" theory is that the experts realised that his conviction was unsound (or even that he was innocent) and that he - or Libya on his behalf - could launch an appeal. This had to be avoided.

The new information that has come to light is that Obama (while wishing he might remain in a Scottish gaol or at least in Scotland) expressed a preference for one of the two options on the table, ie that there should be compassionate release. This goes some way to support the "conspiracy" theory. I suppose it hasn't really bothered the UK that Obama has spoken against the compassionate release as those connected with it knew that this publicly expressed view was not his real view (and there have been no adverse consequencies for the UK from Obama's rhetoric). Rather it is a US issue.

In the Scottish justice system, compassionate release can certainly be requested for a terminally ill prisoner. But it is a step from the request being made to granting it. No substantial case against his release was advanced (most of the records are public). The people who could have objected pretty much sat on their hands.

Cameron is saying that he feels the release was wrong. If the man really is the Lockerbie bomber then it probably is wrong - though there is an argument that a lot of good has come from his release. If he is not the Lockerbie bomber then either Cameron is misinformed or he is posturing.

This whole issue appears tied up in PR. It suits both Obama and Cameron to say that they are all against it, Obama for US home consumption and Cameron because it satisfies his core "Middle England" vote and undermines the authority of the SNP-led government in Scotland (which may be requesting an independence referendum very soon, threatening the break-up of the UK). Cameron didn't have anything to do with the release and may genuinely believe it was wrong. Obama is in a different position however.

 

[Bbucko]

Viking - Yes. The "conspiracy" theory is that the experts realised that his conviction was unsound (or even that he was innocent) and that he - or Libya on his behalf - could launch an appeal. This had to be avoided.

The new information that has come to light is that Obama (while wishing he might remain in a Scottish gaol or at least in Scotland) expressed a preference for one of the two options on the table, ie that there should be compassionate release. This goes some way to support the "conspiracy" theory. I suppose it hasn't really bothered the UK that Obama has spoken against the compassionate release as those connected with it knew that this publicly expressed view was not his real view (and there have been no adverse consequencies for the UK from Obama's rhetoric). Rather it is a US issue.

In the Scottish justice system, compassionate release can certainly be requested for a terminally ill prisoner. But it is a step from the request being made to granting it. No substantial case against his release was advanced (most of the records are public). The people who could have objected pretty much sat on their hands.

Cameron is saying that he feels the release was wrong. If the man really is the Lockerbie bomber then it probably is wrong - though there is an argument that a lot of good has come from his release. If he is not the Lockerbie bomber then either Cameron is misinformed or he is posturing.

This whole issue appears tied up in PR. It suits both Obama and Cameron to say that they are all against it, Obama for US home consumption and Cameron because it satisfies his core "Middle England" vote and undermines the authority of the SNP-led government in Scotland (which may be requesting an independence referendum very soon, threatening the break-up of the UK). Cameron didn't have anything to do with the release and may genuinely believe it was wrong. Obama is in a different position however.

I'm not sure if you have me on ignore, Jason, or whether you just don't believe it's true, but this whole tie-the-release-to-Obama is a hoax: a falsehood: a lie.

There are enough bad things about Barack Obama, so we don’t need to make them up. And in making them up, I mean the claim, over the weekend by an Australian newspaper quoting the Sunday Times of London & AFP (and a Drudge headline)–and the conservative seizing on it like red meat–that Barack Obama recommended the release of Libyan terrorist, Abdel Baset Ali Megrahi, who was convicted for his part in the explosion of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. Michelle Fraudkin, Matt Drudge, and virtually every other right-of-center source picked up and ran the complete lie. Now that it’s been shown to be a total fraud, per their usual fakery, no apology, no correction, no nothin’.

...

But The Australian newspaper story, over the weekend, alleging that the Obama administration urged Megrahi’s release to Libya on humanitarian grounds in a letter, was seized upon by many prominent conservatives. And many conservative readers–who’ve never made a peep, unlike me, about Bush’s deal with Qadaffi–were suddenly blaming Obama with zero proof. And it turns out it’s a false story. Obama opposed the release all along.

Yesterday, the Obama administration released the letter in question. And, in fact, it says exactly the opposite of what the reports claim.

 

[Jason]

I'm not sure if you have me on ignore, Jason, or whether you just don't believe it's true, but this whole tie-the-release-to-Obama is a hoax: a falsehood: a lie.

The memo or letter was published in The Sunday Times (behind a pay wall) and extracts from it have been widely circulated by other papers and web sites.

It is a leak rather than an official release. The USA has stated that their policy is not to discuss inter-governmental documents until both sides have agreed to their release, which means the USA has not commented on it. For that matter neither has the UK. But I don't think anyone is suggesting that the document is anything other than genuine. Of course it probably needs to be read within a wider context. But as it stands it makes it crystal clear that the USA/White House/Obama, while in a perfect world preferring that Megrahi remained in gaol in Scotland, of the two options on the table favoured compassionate release over prison in Libya. I do not see that the information now in the public domain permits of any other interpretation.

The viewpoint expressed in the leaked memo is not a reason to criticise Obama. Indeed the release has had some positive outcomes for the UK and perhaps for the western world. And perhaps our new century should be looking at more compassion in the justice system. Obama may well have taken the right decision and should be praised for this. If there is criticism it is that Obama has done one thing as a policy decision while for PR purposes has claimed that he has done the opposite. This really doesn't affect the UK - it is a US issue.