• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US and UK split over prospect of Lockerbie release

While I do not believe the judicial process should be circumvented, though it should be expedited to the maximum extent possible, I do believe that Mr. Megrahi should receive appropriate medical treatment and his family should have full access to visit him.

You are generally well informed, so I do not want to sound patronising, however I wonder if you understand the politics at play here. If Megrahi is transferred based on a UK-Libyan treaty from 2004, he will end up in a Libyan prison where his family will be allowed to visit him. He may of course also be released by the Libyan authorities on his return, despite what thy will say. This is probably what Westminster and, to a lesser extent, Washington want as the terms of this treaty mean Megrahi's ongoing appeal will be dropped. This appeal could cause a lot of embarrassment for the UK government!

What the BBC say the Scottish government, who have jurisdiction here, are planning to do is release Megrahi on "compassionate ground". This would not end the ongoing appeal. The new Scottish government should not really care what the appeal would find, however these announcement lead me to believe they think the appeal will favour Megrahi. The Scottish government do not want to be responsible for forcing a "somewhat" innocent man to die in jail, nor do they have any intention of saving the face of the Westminister government.

The third option is of course that Megrahi will die in jail, in which case the appeal will probably continue after his death and it could lead to embarssment for both governments if it exonerates Megrahi.
 
What evidence?
Did you know? Evidence is a cutting proof.
Do you blame the justice system for ignoring a cutting proof that they're wrong?

The evidence used to convict him was dodgy. Not to mention that people were paid insane amounts of money to testify against him. The whole thing stinks to high heaven.
 
The evidence used to convict him was dodgy. Not to mention that people were paid insane amounts of money to testify against him. The whole thing stinks to high heaven.
Again, an evidence is a cutting proof.
What the heck is a dodgy cutting proof?
It seems to me as if you are looking for a way to claim that he is not guilty and should be released.
This stinks to high heaven.
 
Again, an evidence is a cutting proof.
What the heck is a dodgy cutting proof?
It seems to me as if you are looking for a way to claim that he is not guilty and should be released.
This stinks to high heaven.

1. I have no idea what a cutting proof is.

2. Please read what I actually write and not what your mind weirdly translates it to.

3. Failing that, please point to where I claimed he should be released.
 
1. I have no idea what a cutting proof is.

2. Please read what I actually write and not what your mind weirdly translates it to.

3. Failing that, please point to where I claimed he should be released.
1. I completely agree.

3. Then what exactly do you want?

No. 2 has been ignored.
 
Apocalypse, I have a lot of trouble understanding your prose. What do you mean by cutting proof? Do you mean irrefutable evidence? :confused: Anyway, moving on...

As for what I want, it's very simple. I want people to understand that the outcome of a trial is not set in stone. That's why we have the appeals process. The only way this man should be released, in my opinion, is if through appeal his innocence is established. My beef is with how slowly the wheels of justice move.
 
You are generally well informed, so I do not want to sound patronising, however I wonder if you understand the politics at play here. If Megrahi is transferred based on a UK-Libyan treaty from 2004, he will end up in a Libyan prison where his family will be allowed to visit him. He may of course also be released by the Libyan authorities on his return, despite what thy will say. This is probably what Westminster and, to a lesser extent, Washington want as the terms of this treaty mean Megrahi's ongoing appeal will be dropped. This appeal could cause a lot of embarrassment for the UK government!

What the BBC say the Scottish government, who have jurisdiction here, are planning to do is release Megrahi on "compassionate ground". This would not end the ongoing appeal. The new Scottish government should not really care what the appeal would find, however these announcement lead me to believe they think the appeal will favour Megrahi. The Scottish government do not want to be responsible for forcing a "somewhat" innocent man to die in jail, nor do they have any intention of saving the face of the Westminister government.

The third option is of course that Megrahi will die in jail, in which case the appeal will probably continue after his death and it could lead to embarssment for both governments if it exonerates Megrahi.

The appeal process should end upon the terrorist's death in prison.

There's no existing plaintive once he's dead.
 
It seems you can when you want a politically convenient conviction!

And you have some links to sources that backup your assertion of the trial being politically controled?

Or are you just blowing hot-air?
 
And you have some links to sources that backup your assertion of the trial being politically controled?

Or are you just blowing hot-air?

I simply fail to see how anyone who has the followed the case in reasonable depth can not believe there is a "reasonable doubt" about Megrahi's guilt. The star witness for the prosecution was, according to the head of the prosecution, completely unreliable. Without him there was absolutely nothing concrete against Megrahi. On top of this a further important witness has admitted he lied at the trial, although what he lied about is unclear. Finally there is evidence that large parts of the intelligence community never even suspected Libya in the first place! In fact a very common view in Lockerbie itself was that it was a Palestinian/Iranian plot to avenge the Vincennes, which exploited a horrendous screw up by the CIA. Several experts in Scottish law, as well as UN observers, have raised massive questions over the trial and most people in Lockerbie itself remain utterly unconvinced.

When you view all this in the context of the relationship between the UK and Libya and the strong desire to, firstly, isolate him in the late 80's early 90's and then later reconcile with him after the Iraq war. There was a strong political desire to "drop" the Lockerbie issue and the only way it could be done was for Qaddafi to hand over the suspects, so he did. Once they were in British hands the only way to get closure on the whole issue was to get a conviction. I can not see how any judge, let alone 3, could convict him beyond a reasonable doubt without feeling some kind of pressure, even if indirect. So while there is no hard evidence, and if you thought critically for a second you would realise there is no way there could be, if you ask the simple questions: was a conviction politically convenient? Was there enough evidence to justify a conviction? Was the guy convicted? You get a pretty nasty picture forming!
 
File this under "If I Wasn't Guilty I Wouldn't Give Up" Department

LONDON (AP) -- Lawyers for the Lockerbie bomber say he is abandoning his second appeal against his conviction for the December 1988 attack as Scottish officials consider his request to be sent home to Libya.

British broadcasters this week said without citing sources that Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi would be released early from a Scottish prison on compassionate grounds. He is terminally ill with cancer.

The Scottish government says it has yet to decide on his motion for early release. They are also considering a motion to allow him to serve out his life sentence in Libya.

The former Libyan secret service agent is the sole person convicted for the bombing of Pan Am 103 over the Scottish town of Lockerbie.

Gee, he's giving up on his SECOND appeal.

That must mean his first appeal was rejected.

That must mean the damn terrorist pig turd is guilty.

Anyone besides me actually know anyone on Flight 103?
 
This is an interesting read if the link works Lockerbieindex

Yeah, I watched the BBC Newsnight article where a suggestion that Iran is more likely to have been behind the bombing. Whatever the reasoning, I personally feel Libya was complicit and it's likely (IMO) that the Libyan secret service would thus be involved.

I personally think he should stay in prison.
 
In Scotland there are two grounds on which an appeal may be launched:

a) the existence and significance of evidence which was not heard at the original proceedings
and,
b) the jury's having returned a verdict which no reasonable jury, properly directed, could have returned.

The first appeal by Megrahi was launched on the grounds of their being new evidence, of which there was very little, it was subsequently rejected with little consideration.

The second appeal, which has just been dropped, would have been much more wide ranging and hopefully would have finally provided answers for the long suffering people of Lockerbie.

Megrahi dropping the appeal should pave the way for his release under a prisoner transfer agreement. This is a very disappointing development, now it would require the government to launch an independent inquiry, which they are unlikely to do, in order for the Lockerbie case to be reexamined.
 
Yeah, I watched the BBC Newsnight article where a suggestion that Iran is more likely to have been behind the bombing. Whatever the reasoning, I personally feel Libya was complicit and it's likely (IMO) that the Libyan secret service would thus be involved.

I personally think he should stay in prison.

Do you believe there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt that Megrahi is guilty as charged?

If not, I think it raises serious questions about how our justice system works. Do we respect the rule of law and convict people only of crimes for which there is evidence they were responsible for, or do we just lock up anyone we think might be a bad guy?
 

That man should never see the light of day outside of prison and should die in prison.The fact he is dying is irreverent.Let the cancer/disease take his life that will save the tax payers money. He murdered 270 people he should have gotten the death penalty or and if they gave this man life then he should have been stuck in the worst prison possible.
 
Do you believe there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt that Megrahi is guilty as charged?

Difficult to be 100% certain. The early 1990's investigation by US and UK agents pointed at the two men being complicit.

I haven't seen anything that would say they weren't. They did deny and their lawyers argued at court that the bombing may have been carried out by Palestinians on behalf of Iran - however by my recollection such splinter groups are usually only too keen to claim to be the instigators of any attack - and so far no claim by anyone else stands up.

Do we respect the rule of law and convict people only of crimes for which there is evidence they were responsible for, or do we just lock up anyone we think might be a bad guy?

The answer is obvious but reality shows that what any country has at best is a mixture to some degree of the two opposites you put up.
 
Difficult to be 100% certain. The early 1990's investigation by US and UK agents pointed at the two men being complicit.

I haven't seen anything that would say they weren't.

Firstly, neither man was charged with being "complicit", they were charged with murdering 270 people, Lamin Khalifah Fhimah was further acquitted of all charges.

Those two men are not required to prove they were not responsible, the CPS is required to prove that they are responsible beyond reasonable doubt. If anyone can show me evidence that they are guilty beyond reasonable doubt, please do.

Both men were members of Libyan intelligence and so were likely involved in questionable activities at some point in their lives, that does not mean they killed 270 innocent people.

The answer is obvious but reality shows that what any country has at best is a mixture to some degree of the two opposites you put up.

If a Libyan court were to convict a British secret service agent of a horrific crime based on scant evidence would you be saying the same thing? Or would you be lambasting it as a politically motivated show trial?
 
Back
Top Bottom