Al-Megrahi was a "Right Royal" Stitch Up says Wiki

[Patrick]

Oh dear - all hell's going to break loose now....

I seem to remember a few in depth threads on this - not necessarily here, but some mention of it anyway.....

A Foreign Office minister sent Libyan officials detailed legal advice on how to use Abdelbaset al-Megrahi’s cancer diagnosis to ensure he was released from a Scottish prison on compassionate grounds.

The Duke of York is also said to have played a behind-the-scenes role in encouraging the terrorist’s release.

The Libyans closely followed the advice which led to the controversial release of Megrahi – who was convicted of the murder of 270 passengers on Pan Am Flight 103 – within months of the Foreign Office’s secret intervention.

The disclosure seriously undermines British Government claims that is was not complicit in the release of al-Megrahi, and that the decision to free the convicted terrorist was taken by the Scottish Executive alone.

[swl]

Not dead yet I see.

And if he's not pushing up the daisies by April, I reckon the SNP are screwed in the Holyrood elections. Labour will probably bring him over to do some campaigning.

[Patrick]

Surely, this let's The SNP off the hook doesn't it? (If they play the victim card correctly).

The disclosure seriously undermines British Government claims that is was not complicit in the release of al-Megrahi, and that the decision to free the convicted terrorist was taken by the Scottish Executive alone.

It will also lead to renewed pressure from senior American politicians on David Cameron to release all internal documents detailing Britain’s role in the scandal. Last summer, the Prime Minister pledged to release the relevant information – but the publication has yet to occur sparking fears that a cover-up may have been ordered.

[everso]

Jan 31, 2011 23:26:05 GMT Patrick said:

Oh dear - all hell's going to break loose now....

I seem to remember a few in depth threads on this - not necessarily here, but some mention of it anyway.....

A Foreign Office minister sent Libyan officials detailed legal advice on how to use Abdelbaset al-Megrahi’s cancer diagnosis to ensure he was released from a Scottish prison on compassionate grounds.

The Duke of York is also said to have played a behind-the-scenes role in encouraging the terrorist’s release.

The Libyans closely followed the advice which led to the controversial release of Megrahi – who was convicted of the murder of 270 passengers on Pan Am Flight 103 – within months of the Foreign Office’s secret intervention.

The disclosure seriously undermines British Government claims that is was not complicit in the release of al-Megrahi, and that the decision to free the convicted terrorist was taken by the Scottish Executive alone.

If the Duke of York was involved, then I suppose it's all down to trade.

Yet another reason for the Yanks to hate us.

[housesparrow]

What we don't know,of course,is why that letter was written. Could it be that it was Libya which asked to know the law and procedure, and this was just a reply to a request for information?

[jean]

Al-Megrahi almost certainly wasn't involved, of course.

But neither the British nor the American government are ever going to admit that.

[trubble]

Feb 1, 2011 7:47:18 GMT housesparrow said:

What we don't know,of course,is why that letter was written. Could it be that it was Libya which asked to know the law and procedure, and this was just a reply to a request for information?

My thoughts exactly.

_{The Telegraph is getting more ''Daily Mail'' every day... that word 'complicit', for example...conjuring up a crime and denial of crime....}

[trubble]

Jan 31, 2011 23:41:07 GMT swl said:

Not dead yet I see.

And if he's not pushing up the daisies by April, I reckon the SNP are screwed in the Holyrood elections. Labour will probably bring him over to do some campaigning.

Do you truly think the electorate feel that strongly on this one issue? I'd be surprised. Maybe I am missing something.

I know nothing of their feelings, of course, but didn't Blair get back in after his dodgy Iraq war? Don't people tend to vote with their wallets in mind rather than high principles?

Did you read the document in question, by the way?

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wikileaks-files/libya-wikileaks/8294871/PAN-AM-103-BOMBER-HAS-INCURABLE-CANCER-LIBYANS-SEEK-HIS-RELEASE.html

It's not very shocking.

[trubble]

Feb 1, 2011 2:01:33 GMT everso said:

Jan 31, 2011 23:26:05 GMT Patrick said:

Oh dear - all hell's going to break loose now....

I seem to remember a few in depth threads on this - not necessarily here, but some mention of it anyway.....

A Foreign Office minister sent Libyan officials detailed legal advice on how to use Abdelbaset al-Megrahi’s cancer diagnosis to ensure he was released from a Scottish prison on compassionate grounds.

The Duke of York is also said to have played a behind-the-scenes role in encouraging the terrorist’s release.

The Libyans closely followed the advice which led to the controversial release of Megrahi – who was convicted of the murder of 270 passengers on Pan Am Flight 103 – within months of the Foreign Office’s secret intervention.

The disclosure seriously undermines British Government claims that is was not complicit in the release of al-Megrahi, and that the decision to free the convicted terrorist was taken by the Scottish Executive alone.

If the Duke of York was involved, then I suppose it's all down to trade.

Yet another reason for the Yanks to hate us.

They have a bit of a point this time, though. Even without all this wikileaking, the decision was controversial by any standard. You can understand the US not being happy with the British over it.

[trubble]

Consider this: the Duke of York, Jack Straw, and Alex Salmond all knew - beyond a shadow of a doubt - that Al Megrahi did not do it; so they released him in exchange for vital and lucrative trade deals. Isn't that pragmatic and a little bit clever? Just putting forward the positives...

[swl]

Megrahi was in it up to his neck, but so were many others. His "defence" seems to be "I couldn't have done this bit or that bit".

His release was political. The SNP (some would say rightly) take every opportunity to announce on the world stage that Scotland is a seperate country from England. This was a heaven sent opportunity for Scotland to be seen to be acting independently and contrary to Westminster. Justice and humanity had nothing to do with it.

And there are many people unhappy that the SNP are seen to be soft on crime generally, without bringing up the fact that they released the worst mass murderer since Edward I to a hero's welcome in Libya.

[riotgrrl]

What evidence put Megrahi in it up to his neck? Specifically?

And yeah, telling the Libyans what the process is is hardly life-shattering secret-busting. The relevant legislation is available online. It's not secret.

[trubble]

It's a pity -- for history's sake, for clarity's sake, perhaps for Megrahi's sake, definitely for the sake of the victims -- that he did not proceed with his appeal.

Christine Grahame in 2009 writes in the Independent about her experience of the case. She believes he is guilty of other things but not of the Lockerbie bombing.




What is a sake?

[jean]

Feb 2, 2011 10:52:15 GMT trubble said:

It's a pity -- for history's sake, for clarity's sake, perhaps for Megrahi's sake, definitely for the sake of the victims -- that he did not proceed with his appeal.

I agree.

I don't see how anyone who's looked closely at the evidence can seriously conclude that he's guilty. Jim Swire doesn't believe it, and he's got more reason than most to want to see someone convicted of his daughter's murder.

If any deal was done, it was to stop the appeal going any further.

[swl]

Feb 2, 2011 11:31:37 GMT jean said:

I don't see how anyone who's looked closely at the evidence can seriously conclude that he's guilty.

How many judges, experts in their fields with years of experience, examined the evidence in detail before finding him guilty?

He is a convicted mass-murderer who has presented no evidence to convince a court of his innocence. Anybody can say anything they like outside of a courtroom and insist it's true until they're blue in the face but our justice system demands "facts" be tested in a court of law.

His first appeal failed when examined by judges.

His second appeal was being thrown out line by line by judges until he dropped it. All this conspiracy nonsense defies Occams Razor - the most likely reason for him to drop his appeal was he was losing.

[riotgrrl]

Scottish Criminal Cases Review people might beg to differ.

The Maltese shopkeeper who swore blind that he remembered Meghrai and that it was definitely him who'd purchased the garments was later found to have been pre-paid by the Americans, to have seen photographs of Megrahi prior to id-ing him, etc.

[Weyland]

Feb 2, 2011 18:50:27 GMT swl said:

All this conspiracy nonsense defies Occams Razor - the most likely reason for him to drop his appeal was he was losing.

I can think of a reason that better passes the Occam's Razor test: if he hadn't dropped the appeal the rules said that he could not have been released. At least that's what was said at the time.

As for judges knowing best, if only. Having seen so many absolutely shambolic judgements, at least in the English judicial system, I'm hardly likely to trust a judge's opinion much more than I'd trust a politician.

[riotgrrl]

Of course, sadly, Christine is as mad as a box of frogs.

[Weyland]

Feb 2, 2011 19:06:24 GMT @riotgrrl said:

Of course, sadly, Christine is as mad as a box of frogs.

[swl]

Aye right, let's abandon the justice system, sack all the judges, send the juries home and have trial by internet conspiracy theorists instead. That'll work.