BS: Lockerbie bombing fall-guy to go free?

Subject: RE: BS: Lockerbie bombing fall-guy to go free?
From: open mike
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 10:34 PM

the fact that he was cheered as a hero when returning home is
not a good thing for international relations.

Subject: RE: BS: Lockerbie bombing fall-guy to go free?
From: Penny S.
Date: 22 Aug 09 - 05:22 AM

Peter, my point about balance was that I had heard British voices in favour of release, plus one or two against, but the American voices were all against. I think when I posted I had conflated two women. Ms Bernstein did not base her argument on being Jewish. I think I heard someone called Cohen who did. After all the discussion here about Fox News finding the few Canadians against a national health service, I wondered if the BBC had somehow failed to find existing Americans who were not so vehement.

I'm glad that someone has mentioned that compassion is Judeo-Christian, not just Christian. I was thinking that, although churches have not always based teaching or behaviour on it, Jesus' forgiving of his tormentors did not demand compassion to be shown by them, nor repentance, before forgiveness was granted. And he was basing his teaching and behaviour on the teaching of the prophets, especially Hosea.

I have also been thinking about this. Written at a time when compassion did not often temper justice, or what was seen as justice at the time. Justice does seem to be a variable according to time and place.

The quality of mercy is not strained.
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest:
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.
Tis mightiest in the mightiest; it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown.
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings.
But mercy is above this sceptred sway;
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings;
It is an attribute of God himself;

And earthly power doth then show like God's
When mercy seasons justice.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Lockerbie bombing fall-guy to go free?
From: goatfell
Date: 22 Aug 09 - 06:27 AM

what happened to peace

Subject: RE: BS: Lockerbie bombing fall-guy to go free?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 22 Aug 09 - 06:47 AM

Thanks, Penny, for recalling those magnificent words of Portia's.

Open Mike, unlike the American whose ship blew an airliner out of the sky killing 290 innocent people, Megrahi was NOT given a hero's welcome. Most people in Libya (like many people around the world who are not dumb Americans and are not writing headlines for the brainless element of the British news media) believe Megrahi was wrongly convicted. Why wouldn't they want to celebrate his release?

Megrahi surely could have had a hero's welcome, simply by boasting, once he was free and safely back in Libya, that he had in fact done the deed. But far from that, he continued to protest his innocence as he has done from the outset. (The late Paul Foot, who wrote one of the articles linked above, and was greatly involved in exposing misscarriages of justice, came to the conclusion - albeit based on nothing more scientific than a wealth of empirical evidence - that most of those who continue protesting their innocence years after being "banged to rights" very probably ARE innocent.)

In contrast to some of the ranting US voices we have heard of late, I offer this from Megrahi himself:

Many people, including the relatives of those who died in, and over, Lockerbie, are, I know, upset that my appeal has come to an end; that nothing more can be done about the circumstances surrounding the Lockerbie bombing.

I share their frustration. I had most to gain and nothing to lose about the whole truth coming out - until my diagnosis of cancer.

To those victims' relatives who can bear to hear me say this: they continue to have my sincere sympathy for the unimaginable loss that they have suffered.

To those who bear me ill will, I do not return that to you.

Poor USA, put to shame by an evil Libyan! Here's his statement in full.)

Subject: RE: BS: Lockerbie bombing fall-guy to go free?
From: jeddy
Date: 22 Aug 09 - 07:07 AM

i can't help but think that if HE is guilty, then what is to stop him carrying out some other atrocity?
i know what ending i would choose between quick and easy or slow and painful.

i can remember thinking at the time of his conviction that he was a scapegoat and although i am not scotish i am proud of their reasoning, taking the moral high ground and not wanting to come down to the level of, it doesn't matter if he is guilty or not we will keep him here.

although the celebrations of his return were indeed in poor taste, wouldn't we do the same if the boot was on the other foot? ... micheal shields? is that the guy who is accused of attempted murder of the barman?

didn't we all breathe a sigh of relief when he came home even though he is still in prison.

i am worried as to why he was allowed home as long as he dropped his appeal, this does smack of something fishy, but we will never really know.

take care all and remember, there is nothing so important as those we love so never take them for granted.

love
jade x x x x x

Subject: RE: BS: Lockerbie bombing fall-guy to go free?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 22 Aug 09 - 01:37 PM

There's a tendency to see celebrations in our own countries as spontaneous expressions of public opinion, and those in others as state organised. There's a bit of truth sometimes, but the truth is a bit more muddy especially if you think about the workings of our media. Tie a yellow ribbon?

The real tragedy of McGrathy (his name is written in Arabic, so there's no one to one transliteration- I'm sure his ancestors must be Irish) is that his release will put obstacles in the way of a deeper investigation into that tragis day. It's plain that the truth wasn't brought out by the trial; it really was a stitch up. McGrathy was a nasty piece of work, and a secret agent of a murderous state, but did he do THAT crime? And if he didn't who did? Did the Iranians order it in retalitation for the American shooting down of the airliner?

Subject: RE: BS: Lockerbie bombing fall-guy to go free?
From: folk1e
Date: 22 Aug 09 - 02:06 PM

This all goes to show that we are living in an increasingly smaller world. Our actions reverberate louder and further than ever.

If one of the reasons for Megrahi's release is an increase in trade not a price worth paying, his guilt or innocence being irrelevant? If we become more enmeshed in world trade, conflict becomes more unlikely, and the world is a safer place!

For those who doubt that the guilty being released from punishment can be a good thing I suggest you look at the conflict resolution in Ireland and also South Africa! It may be a hard thing to do but the results may just be worth it!

Subject: RE: BS: Lockerbie bombing fall-guy to go free?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 22 Aug 09 - 02:27 PM

Strange no one has mentioned the U. S. air strike on Mo'ammar Gadhafi's residence in Tripoli in which his adopted daughter was killed along with 41 Libyans.
And there is wonder that Libyans cheered his return?

Moreover he was convicted on very slight circumstantial evidence of an article of clothing he supposedly once owned being found aboard the downed plane.

Subject: RE: BS: Lockerbie bombing fall-guy to go free?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 23 Aug 09 - 08:31 AM

Just heard a (former?) FBI agent in Florida interviewed on BBC radio news - appalled by the decision to release Megrahi, but measured, thoughtful and intelligent, in stark contrast with most other American voices I have heard on this issue. From memory his name was Bill Garvey or something like that.

BBC Radio 4 is repeating a play based on the trial, next Saturday, 29 August. Details here. Typically it will be available on the internet for seven days following broadcast, but I am never sure whether that facility is available beyond the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Lockerbie bombing fall-guy to go free?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 23 Aug 09 - 01:35 PM

Thanks, Peter K.
BBC Radio 4 is broadcast on the net, I am listening to it now. (The next program up, the "Archers," will not find me listening; it is a bit beyond American-Canadian comprehension.

The announcement of the trial broadcast mentions the doubts about Megrahi's conviction, and the possible miscarriage of justice.

Scottish judicial system- A verdict not possible in American courts is "not proven." Also not possible is "compassionate release."

Subject: RE: BS: Lockerbie bombing fall-guy to go free?
From: robomatic
Date: 23 Aug 09 - 01:45 PM

I find the discussion here more interesting than the events in Scotland and Libya which have inspired them. There is a much higher level of cynicism on the East side of the pond. The readiness to believe in a fall guy meshes surrealistically with the ready internment of the convicted man in the first place.

As to the 'charming' recitation of Portia from Merchant of Venice, the words were put in the mouth of a gentile as part of a set-up to turn the tables on Shylock over a ludicrous rider on a loan agreement and so ruin him. I prefer his honest and expressive soliloquy to Portia's bland blather:

"Hath not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge! If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge! The villainy you teach me I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction."

In this case, I would find it reasonable to substitute 'bombing victim' for 'Jew'. I'm not aware that anyone on Pan Am Flight 103 had done anything to incite revenge.

Subject: RE: BS: Lockerbie bombing fall-guy to go free?
From: Penny S.
Date: 23 Aug 09 - 03:16 PM

Don't forget that Shakespeare's plays were not divorced from the society they were written in. Look outside the theatre to see how Portia's words might have sounded to those in power. To talk of the mighty, is not to talk of Shylock's position at the time in the trial scene, is it? It sticks out like a sore thumb in its content being so different from its intent. And it doesn't make the content wrong.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Lockerbie bombing fall-guy to go free?
From: Penny S.
Date: 23 Aug 09 - 03:17 PM

And you have not addressed the words of Christ, in the same vein.

Subject: RE: BS: Lockerbie bombing fall-guy to go free?
From: Penny S.
Date: 23 Aug 09 - 03:26 PM

Deuteronomy 32:35 'Vengeance is Mine, and retribution, In due time their foot will slip; For the day of their calamity is near, And the impending things are hastening upon them.'

Proverbs 20:22 Do not say, "I will repay evil"; Wait for the LORD, and He will save you.

Proverbs 24:29 Do not say, "Thus I shall do to him as he has done to me; I will render to the man according to his work."

Romans 12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. (And Paul was trained in Pharisaical study of Torah.)

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Lockerbie bombing fall-guy to go free?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Aug 09 - 04:44 PM

"There is a much higher level of cynicism on the East side of the pond."

So how come the conspiracy theories concerning what actually happened on 9/11?

Subject: RE: BS: Lockerbie bombing fall-guy to go free?
From: robomatic
Date: 23 Aug 09 - 04:54 PM

Penny:

You make a good point, but it's not countering the point I'm making. My first statement was regarding the European contingent by-and-large going with a supposition that the freed man was a fall-guy, notwithstanding his ten years internment for the crime. It reeks of turn-around. "We've got the guy in jail. We're letting him out? Oh, well he was a fall-guy anyway!" There should either be outrage over false imprisonment, or outrage over the release of the perpetrater of a horrendous crime. Instead there's a kind of pall of 'what does one expect'. That's the difference I perceive between the Eastern side and the Wester side.

You didn't start out quoting the Bible. You quoted Shakespeare minus the context. I added more Shakespeare PLUS context.

I don't find that the NT corrects or eliminates the OT and one can find references to vengeance within, although it is quite true that on more than one occasion, we are told that "vengeance is MINE" saith the Lord, indicating 'MINE and not YOURS' and this is wisdom.

On the other hand, there is more than vengeance at stake here. The Good Book also tells us that "blood cries out".

I also think if we go back to the idea that the man was convicted and is guilty, releasing him enables him to harm again, to give aid and comfort to our collective enemies, to give aid comfort and INFORMATION to others who would harm us. So if there is vengeance involved, it is not the thing entirely.

Returning to Portia's mercy solo, I find it hypocritical, considering what is about to happen to Shylock. This is no fault with Shakespeare, it is exactly what Shakespeare is master of, sweet words and foul deeds.

The play is about vengeance, racism, and Jew-baiting. Fun for the whole family, and popular among the entire range of watchers. I saw it in London with Lawrence Olivier playing the title role. At the end a violin played "Kaddish". For Shylock the abandonment of his religion was death.

Subject: RE: BS: Lockerbie bombing fall-guy to go free?
From: Penny S.
Date: 23 Aug 09 - 05:22 PM

robomatic, do look back at my original post. I did not quote the bible, but I did refer to Christ's words on the cross, and his Jewish context.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Lockerbie bombing fall-guy to go free?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 23 Aug 09 - 05:30 PM

robomatic, the guy who decided to release Megrahi did not do so because he thought Megrahi might be innocent. In fact he stated explicitly that he accepted the court verdict. Maybe that's what he believes, or maybe he just thought that questioning the verdict (and thereby impuning the US intelligence agencies) was a step too far even for the independently minded Scottish Nationalist Party.

The more intelligent relatives of victims, seemingly all British (sheer coincidence I'm sure), do regard the evidence against Megrahi as wafer thin, as you are bound to do yourself robomatic, simply because it is. But that's a separate issue. Megrahi's release was purely an act of compassion - an option that is available in Scotland as Q pointed out (also available in England and Wales), but apparently not in the US.

And by the way, doubts about the conviction do not rest on one of those bizarre conspiracy theories to which gullible Americans seem to be addicted. Megrahi's appeal, now aborted, was recommended by Scotland's Criminal Cases Review Commission after an intensive four-year re-examination of the case. Like its England-Wales counterpart, that commission does not lightly question court verdicts, as any UK lawyer would tell you.

Subject: RE: BS: Lockerbie bombing fall-guy to go free?
From: Penny S.
Date: 23 Aug 09 - 05:33 PM

And I don't deny the nastiness, and the difficulties of performance of "Merchant" (as of "Shrew"), but like Richard II being performed at the time of Essex's rebellion, Shakespeare's plays are not without context in their time. Someone who is a controlled daughter of a dead father does a dramatic, stick in your mind, speech about those in power using mercy - that's an interesting image for the time, and a time used to reading symbols. There's quite a bit about daughters and fathers in all that nastiness.

I guess there are people who would rather live in a society where justice is equated with retribution, and others who would rather justice is tempered with mercy, and both will find justification in whatever scripture they follow.

By a curious link, a friend's father died in agony of prostate cancer in the same ward treating Ronnie Biggs. Palliative care, as I also saw with my mother, is not necessarily very effective. It's a small mercy to let the man see his family.


Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Lockerbie bombing fall-guy to go free?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 23 Aug 09 - 06:14 PM

Anyone interested in the Lockerbie trial should read this summary: "The Lockerbie Trial Verdict," Michael P. Sharf, printed in ASIL (American Society of International Law).

The verdict was a near thing; connections were unclear and key witnesses had lied.

Trial

Subject: RE: BS: Lockerbie bombing fall-guy to go free?
From: ard mhacha
Date: 24 Aug 09 - 10:21 AM

I remember reading of a song written in honour of mass murderer and war criminal Lieutenant William Calley in which there was over half a million orders for a single by country singer Tony Nelson. Calley after serving a short time in jail for being in charge of a US Company found guilty of wiping out the Vietnamese village of My Lai resulting in the deaths of over 500, was pardoned by US President Nixon.
Helicopter pilot Hugh Thompson who observed from the air what was taking place landed his helicopter and saved 16 of the villagers.
Thompson`s reward for this humanitarian act was to be smeared as a liar by Chairman F Edward Hebert at a House Armed Services meeting.

This is not a million miles away from the rumpus over Meghrahi`s release, that a US President can release a mass murderer and the good people of the US hardly raised a whimper.

Subject: RE: BS: Lockerbie bombing fall-guy to go free?
From: GUEST,Mr Red
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 09:20 AM

If the guy was innocent then a lot of people spent a lot of money trying to put a name on the perpertraitor. Don't forget the other accused was found not guilty. Cynics would cite lack of evidence.

In Scottish law the "not proven" verdict is still possible. It was not used by name.

Releasing him was an act of compassion, which the Lybian leader didn't seem to regard as needing any reciprocal understanding of etiquette. Just like the time he chose to sit beside Tony Blair and appear to western eyes as the picture of dimplomacy, only to have the soles of his shoes facing Tony Blair. The equivalent of the western insult of turning and presenting ones back.

Subject: RE: BS: Lockerbie bombing fall-guy to go free?
From: robomatic
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 10:42 PM

In the time since my last post I read the book "Siege of Mecca" wherein a hundred or more armed Sunni Jihadis siezed the shrine at Mecca in 1979 and proclaimed one among them the 'Mahdi'. They were rooted out after two weeks of battle with various armed forces. The Saudis finally evicted them with poison gas, and took over 68 prisoners. They were distributed among the cities of Saudi Arabia and beheaded via swords.

Subject: RE: BS: Lockerbie bombing fall-guy to go free?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 26 Aug 09 - 01:04 PM

Two points: 1) Scotland has a Not Proven verdict. If they weren't sure, they didn't have to acquit, so I think they were sure.
2) Scotland certainly has the high moral ground here - other people's bad behavior is no excuse for your own. I am reminded of a song... something about you take the high ground?

Also, I don't hear a lot of outrage from other people who, like me, have lost close family to terrorists. It's mostly the less-affected who are so up in arms, it seems to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Lockerbie bombing fall-guy to go free?
From: GUEST,Philippa
Date: 26 Aug 09 - 01:49 PM

link to Eamonn McCann's article in this Tuesday's Derry Journal (though PeterK/Fionn has given much of same info in 20/22 Aug messages). The two items were published together:
alMegrahi1
alMegrahi2

I watched BBC newsnight discussion the night after release. Someone else will have to tell you the name and former position of the American who very offensively said something like "people are going to be very angry if he's still alive three months from now"
Compassionate release can only be granted if the prisoner is given a medical prognosis of three months life expectancy, but we all know that medical prediction is inexact and that the emotion lift of being home might improve life expectancy. I don't imagine this man has seen much of his family during the years of imprisonment and if he had to wait much longer he may not have been fit for the journey.

Subject: RE: BS: Lockerbie bombing fall-guy to go free?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Aug 09 - 05:06 AM

There is new evidence, and also evidence that was witheld.
E.g. that the shopkeeper who id'd him had already seen photos of him, and received a large reward.
E.g. a break in at Heathrow airport.

Had a scond appeal been heard it is highly probable that his conviction would be declared unsafe, leading to release and compensation.
Uk and Scots govts. hugely relieved to have avoided that scenario.
Very convenient.

Subject: RE: BS: Lockerbie bombing fall-guy to go free?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 27 Aug 09 - 06:25 PM

But not as convenient as for the US government Keith. It may be justice US-style to "reward" key witnesses with millions for their dubious evidence, but to the rest of the civilised world such behaviour stinks. (Thirty pieces of silver)

No wonder Scotland's pre-eminent law academic, Prof Robert Black, who devised the trial formula of a Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands, regarded the case against Megrahi as not only entirely circumstantial but also "very weak" - as well as being "further undermined" by the prosecution's admission that it could not establish how the bomb got on to flight 103. (Robert Black's commentary on the trial.)

Philippa: the guy on Newsnight was the former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton (who else? LOL). That discussion – illustrative of the gulf in values east and west of the pond – can be viewed HERE - but I don't know for how long. Incidentally, Bolton quoted a poll showing 82 per cent of ALL Americans were hostile to Megrahi's release. So much for Sinsull's accusation of BBC bias, which sounded gratuitous even without that poll evidence.

Thanks Philippa for linking the Eamonn McCann article. A first-class piece of work, as always from him. It's a pity that some of those who have shot from the hip in this thread will not bother to read it.

Subject: RE: BS: Lockerbie bombing fall-guy to go free?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 07:47 AM

Very interesting discussion this morning on BBC1's 'The Big Questions' about the meaning of 'compassion' and 'forgiveness', and their place in situations like this.

The parents of two young people who had been murdered gave their diametrically opposed views on forgiveness/compassion. THe couple who forgave came across as still very sad, but calm and 'at peace'. The father who refused to forgive appeared to be consumed by rage and personal feelings of guilt over what happened to his daughter.

A lesson there, IMHO. Compassion and forgiveness do not remove the responsibility for the crime from the perpetrator, he/she will always have that to live with. But, much more importantly, it does give those who grieve a means of moving on and coping with their loss.

I know which place I'd rather be in.

Subject: RE: BS: Lockerbie bombing fall-guy to go free?
From: robomatic
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 02:56 PM

I think there's a place for compassion and forgiveness, and there's a place for vengeance. The two are not mutually exclusive.

As I've already said, there's a place for perception of continuing danger presented by letting someone give aid, comfort, and information to those who wish to do us harm.

The self-satisfaction of those who are convinced that compassion was a creditable, legitimate, and appropriate action in this case balances poorly with their lack of compassion for victims of the crime who are very vocal in their non-acceptance of this action and the cavalier manner in which it has been determined and prosecuted. They are making judgements on the feelings of others, which are real nevertheless.

What if I were to balance the 'good' feeling on the part of the convicted felon and his Libyan compatriots versus the 'bad' feelings of the families of the murdered? Has more 'good' than 'harm' come out of this?

Subject: RE: BS: Lockerbie bombing fall-guy to go free?
From: Rumncoke
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 04:11 PM

News reports tonight showed Mr al Megrahi in hospital - I doubt he is going to last much longer.

Anne Croucher

Subject: RE: BS: Lockerbie bombing fall-guy to go free?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 05:07 PM

I've watched this thread develop, without comment, because I have had a great deal of difficulty in deciding what my REAL feelings are about this case.

Since he HAS been convicted (on however weak a case), I am ignoring the question of possible innocence, and dealing with my reaction on the assumption that the verdict was correct.

I am also ignoring the (possibly underhand) reasons why the Scottish authorities released him, and dealing with MY opinion as to whether it was right for them to do so.

My initial knee jerk reaction was that he should rot in jail, and die there, for his cold, premeditated, murder of 270 people who were not, by any stretch of the imagination, legitimate targets even if the attack had been carried out during a declared war.

I thought about that quite a lot, and realised that I couldn't be sure that my conclusion was based on a logical assessment, rather than a need for vengeance. I COULD, of course RATIONALISE it as the result of reasoned analysis, but that's not how I work.....well, not consciously at least!

So the next train of thought was fairly obvious. What is the basis for exercising compassion?

The immediate, and superficial, response is of course "Do I want to show humanity, mercy and compassion to one who has himself shown none to his victims, or would I rather sink to his level, and be just as cold hearted and merciless as he was?"

At this point, I was feeling very glad that the decision to release was NOT mine to make.

The clincher was the one single point which nobody has recognised or addressed. There were innocent victims ON BOTH SIDES of this story.

Megrahi is irrelevant. Whether he dies in jail, or in his bed, HE WILL DIE very soon.

But Megrahi has a family. They committed no crime. They killed nobody. They are INNOCENT.

It was right to send him home, not for his sake, but for the sake of that innocent group of people who still love him, in spite of his actions.

All the rest of the argument is irrelevant.

IN MY OPINION!
Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Lockerbie bombing fall-guy to go free?
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 05:15 PM

Innocent or Guilty, the guy is dying and quickly, and represents no danger to any human being.

The fact that he is dying means, he is in no position to press ahead with any further legal challenge to a conviction, which might very well be overturned if he were well enough to do so.

The truth of the matter may never now be known. The least we can do is send a potentially innocent man, who will neither be in any position to do any other any person harm - nor equally be free to prove his innocence, home to die.

Subject: RE: BS: Lockerbie bombing fall-guy to go free?
From: robomatic
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 05:49 PM

Don: What if the convicted man's family shares his values and believe he's a jihadi who will go to a post-death reward for his actions. From that point of view it's win-win.

Subject: RE: BS: Lockerbie bombing fall-guy to go free?
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 06:13 PM

"What if the convicted man's family shares his values"

We don't (officially) convict the family, of an individuals crime. If we did, we'd be convicting all family members of whatever crime their relations commit. Be a bummer for lots of people (including the nice family members of all kinds of wealthy and well connected people) if they were to be tarred with the same brush as those who have done terrible things. Of course, so many well connected people, get away with it in the first place, so maybe that wouldn't be such a big problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Lockerbie bombing fall-guy to go free?
From: robomatic
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 07:18 PM

Crow Sister writted:
"We don't (officially) convict the family, of an individuals crime. If we did, we'd be convicting all family members of whatever crime their relations commit. Be a bummer for lots of people (including the nice family members of all kinds of wealthy and well connected people) if they were to be tarred with the same brush as those who have done terrible things. Of course, so many well connected people, get away with it in the first place, so maybe that wouldn't be such a big problem."

That was an illogical ramble that seemed to give up any pretense of searching for a moral structure, it feels good so do it.

I was addressing Don's attempt to break down his thoughts on the events of the pardon. I went through something similar (before coming to a different conclusion) only I don't have the eloquence in expressing myself that Don has. Nevertheless I addressed a point he raised- He maintained that there was compassion to be felt for the convicted man's 'innocent' family members. I raised the question that maybe they aren't so innocent. If you pay attention to the nature of jihad and both homicidal and suicidal bombers you would know there is an entire organized culture of glorification of same. It is an institution with its own economy and its own media nets.

This had nothing to do with the conviction, it had everything to do with the vaunted notion of 'compassion' which I am maintaining has been perverted out of all recognition of the actual meaning. Your little note is evidence of just that.

Subject: RE: BS: Lockerbie bombing fall-guy to go free?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 10:39 PM

You're right you don't have the eloquence, robomatic, so it's perhaps not so smart to accuse someone else of rambling.

I have to say I'm amazed to see anyone advocating, or at least defending, vengeance. For me it is one of the most alarming and sickening failings of the human condition. No doubt we have all thirsted for it in a red-mist moment, on account of some crime against us, great or small. But surely the laws of justice in any civilised state should rise above such base instincts. And to underscore Backwoodsman's point, those who lust for revenge often finish up destroying their own lives.

Getting back to Megrahi, I agree with Anne Croucher that he surely can't last much longer. Which will at least prove that God is on John Bolton's side. (I put a link to his obscene comment on the matter in my previous post.) Megrahi, incidentally, says he is going to give all his defence papers to Jim Swire who will use them to continue pressing for a public enquiry into Lockerbie.

If I had committed a crime myself, and was protesting my innocence, I'm not sure that I would be as agitated as Megrahi seems to be about having the case crawled over again in every detail. This brings me to one of robomatic's most idiotic arguments: his concern that Megrahi's family may share his jihadist mentality. It's idiotic because (sorry, but I have to spell this out for robomatic)... It's idiotic because Megrahi continues vehemently to deny involvement in the atrocity. Clearly he intends to die protesting his innocence rather than claiming jihadist status. That's rather unusual for a jihadist.

The BBC's radio reconstruction of the trial can now be heard on their website until Sataurday. Again I put a link in my previous post. No-one hearing it could be sanguine about the verdict, but for me it highlighted a point I'd forgotten and which no-one else has mentioned: Megrahi's guilt was decided not by a jury but by three judges, who would certainly have been more aware than a jury of realpolitik pressures.

On that question of realpolitik. the (London) Sunday Times published correspondence today which showed a senior UK government minister seeking to appease Libya, at the time of a major oil deal, by ensuring that Megrahi was not excluded from the terms of a prisoner transfer agreement between the two ocuntries. That stinks, but it's no worse than we would expect from a government that sold Saudi Arabia an airforce. It doesn't alter the fact, now widely acknowledged by constitutionalists, that the matter was outside the UK government's gift. And it doesn't alter the fact that the decision in Scotland (which Don chose casually and uncharacteristically to smear) was on compassionate grounds.

Subject: RE: BS: Lockerbie bombing fall-guy to go free?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 03:54 AM

Just got back to this one - nicely put Peter.

Robo - you seem to have fallen into the usual mistake made by vengeance-freaks, in making the assumption that forgiveness trumps justice, and somehow removes responsibility from the perpetrator.

Completely wrong!

Forgiveness is not perpetrator-focussed, it confers nothing on the perpetrator (except possibly, and perversely in the case of a 'jihadist' as you call al-Megrahi, the knowledge that his crime failed to make its intended mark). Justice still prevails, forgiveness does not seek to remove responsibility from the perpetrator, nor to replace due process of law, indeed it relies on that process to support the forgiving and healing process - "do the crime, do the time" - it still prevails.

Forgiveness is victim-focussed, it provides a means for the release of the victim from the constant destructive cycle of rage and lust for vengeance which boils up in him/her over and over and over again - for ever, unless they come to the realisation that there is a route out of their misery.

Forgiveness isn't a betrayal, it's an awakening. It doesn't seek to deny the crime, it faces and accepts it. It doesn't remove the responsibility from the perpetrator, it doesn't release him from prison - he stays there and faces due process - but it does release the victims from their own prison of rage and vengefulness, and gives them a means to live at peace. Most importantly, it doesn't seek to minimise the enormity of the crime, nor wipe out the memory of those who died, nor blot out the pain of loss - but it allows those who still live to go on through their lives without the burden of rage, self-guilt and vengefulness which, on top of everything else they have suffered, often makes life intolerable.

I don't know whether al-Megrahi is innocent or as guilty as sin, and I'm not sure whether I support his release or not - it was within the law of Scotland and therefore it's their right to do it. But I do know that I care far more for the victims than I do for the perpetrator(s), whoever the perpetrator(s) may be, and I'd bet my lifetime-earnings plus my pension that those victims who forgave are having a much better life than those who are still filled with rage, bay like hounds for blood, and refuse forgiveness.

Subject: RE: BS: Lockerbie bombing fall-guy to go free?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 10:09 AM

""Don: What if the convicted man's family shares his values and believe he's a jihadi who will go to a post-death reward for his actions. From that point of view it's win-win.""

Robo, you can fabricate all the hypothetical possibilities you choose, but there is no evidence to suggest that any member of his family shared or even knew about his terrorist activities, and it is unlikely that he will shortly meet with aliens who can cure his cancer.

So while conspiracy theorists look around for another, more viable, target, why not let the family have the chance to say goodbye. It looks as though the nay sayers won't have long to wait for their little payback. Much good may it do them!

I feel much better for knowing that I managed to avoid becoming a part of the lynch mob, who are smarting from losing the last ounce from their pound of flesh.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Lockerbie bombing fall-guy to go free?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 10:21 AM

""And it doesn't alter the fact that the decision in Scotland (which Don chose casually and uncharacteristically to smear) was on compassionate grounds.""

I did not attempt, casually or otherwise, to smear the Scottish Government, or its position on releasing Megrahi.

The suspicion of an economic motive for this action was not MY invention, but an oft expressed opinion of a number of objectors.

I mentioned it only to make the point that I had SPECIFICALLY excluded it from my deliberations, in exactly the same way that I excluded his possible innocence, the latter not having alerted your radar to a possible slur against the Scottish judicial process.

Please refrain from interpreting my motives, until you can prove your abilities as a mind reader. Thus far you are well off base.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Lockerbie bombing fall-guy to go free?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 02:47 PM

The bit that I had in mind, Don, was your gratuitous aside in brackets:

I am also ignoring the (possibly underhand) reasons why the Scottish authorities released him...

Subject: RE: BS: Lockerbie bombing fall-guy to go free?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 05:16 PM

The jury is still out on this decision.

How Libya Was Framed
for the Lockerbie
Bombing
By Alexander Cockburn
T
here were howls of fury when
the Scottish justice minister re-
leased from his Scottish prison
Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, the Libyan
Arab Airlines official convicted of
planting the bomb on board Pan Am
Flight 103 that killed 281 people on the
plane and in the village of Lockerbie on
December 21, 1988. Megrahi's colleague,
Lamen Khalifa Fhimah, was acquitted
of charges in the terrorist attack. Across
Limbaugh-land vitriol was sprayed in the
general direction of both Scotland and
Libya. FBI Director Robert Mueller, who
in 1991 was assistant attorney general in
charge of the investigation of al-Megrahi,
wrote that he was "outraged at the deci-
sion, blithely defended on the grounds of
'compassion.'" (Megrahi is suffering from
terminal prostate cancer.)The Scottish
government hit back, saying that while
"compassionate release" might not be
part of the U.S. justice system, it was a
proper part of Scotland's.
Actually, the "compassionate" release
may have been prompted by rather more
mercenary or self-interested calculations.
There have been allegations in the U.K.
of Megrahi's release being part of a larger
British deal with Libya involving trade
agreements and arms sales. It is certain
that the release aborted Megrahi's appeal,
which would have thrown a lurid and un-
flattering light on the kangaroo trial in
2000. This was a particularly dark day for
the reputation of Scottish justice since it
showed clearly that the Scottish bench
clicked its heels to commands from
Westminster that no matter how thread-
bare the case against Megrahi was, he
had to be convicted. But now the thou-
sands of pages of Mehrahi's appeal go
into the trash bin and Megrahi will, in the
complacent words of a Scottish govern-
ment spokesman, "die a convicted man."
There's a famous passage in Memorials
of His Time, my great-great grandfa-
ther, Lord Cockburn's memoirs, where
the renowned Scotch judge and leading
Whig stigmatizes some of his Tory pre-
decessors on the bench, including the
terrible Lord Braxfield, who presided
over what Cockburn called "the indel-
ible iniquity" of the sedition trials of
1793 and 1794. "Let them bring me pris-
oners, and I'll find them law," Cockburn
quotes Braxfield as saying privately, also
whispering from the bench to a juror he
knew, "Come awa, Maister Horner, come
awa, and help us to hang ane o' thae da-
amned scoondrels."
Braxfield most certainly has his politi-
cal disciples on the Scottish bench in the
Lockerbie trial in 2000, in the persons
of the three judges who traveled to the
Netherlands to preside over the trial of
the two Libyans charged with planting
the device that prompted the crash of
Pan Am Flight 103. In a trenchant early
criticism of the verdict, Hans Koechler, a
distinguished Austrian philosopher ap-
pointed as one of five international ob-
servers at the trial in Zeist, Holland, by
U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, is-
sued a well-merited denunciation of the
judges' bizarre conclusion. "In my opin-
ion," Koechler said, "there seemed to be
considerable political influence on the
judges and the verdict."
Koechler pointed out that the judges
found Megrahi guilty even though they
themselves admitted that his identifi-
cation by a Maltese shop owner (sum-
moned by the prosecution to testify that
Megrahi bought clothes, later deemed to
have been packed in the lethal suitcase
bomb) was "not absolute" and that there
was a "mass of conflicting evidence."
Furthermore, Koechler queried the
active involvement of senior U.S. Justice
Department officials as part of the Scotch a similar vein, the Harvard researcher
Byron Good writes, "Where such ill-
ness is considered inevitably chronic,
an essential part of the self that cannot
be altered … the illness is more likely to
be chronic." By contrast, as a prodigious
amount of ethnographic literature has
shown, mental illness is far less func-
tionally debilitating in societies where it
is understood as ephemeral rather than
congenital, and invested with philosophi-
cal meaning through rich cultural idioms
like spirit possession and trance.
Such findings throw into serious doubt
the Hippocratic alibis of the drug barons
and their proxies. It is not my intent to
either romanticize the world's have-nots
or impugn the philanthropic impulse of
doctors who, forced to make therapeu-
tic decisions in severely constrained cir-
cumstances, may have no choice but to
salve their patients' psychic wounds with
chemical prostheses and make diagno-
ses that they themselves find suspect. It
is, however, incumbent upon us to ask
whose interests are served when unruly
citizenries are chemically pacified, par-
ticularly in a global polity marked by
such ruthless asymmetries of wealth and
health. Like any other industry, the psy-
chopharmaceutical sector is profit-based
and cannot be expected to promote
views of illness that are unfavorable to
their economic interests; indeed, they are
obliged to actively discredit such views.
Meeting Wall Street growth expectations
has become an increasingly daunting task
as pharmaceuticals companies' patents
on their blockbuster molecules sequen-
tially expire, opening the international
market to a flood of generics. In order
to keep pace with investors' hopes, the
multinationals must usher three to five
new compounds into domestic markets
per year, or, as we have seen, compensate
for fiscal shortfalls by growing markets
abroad. If an unintended outcome of
this strategy is the excision of historical
depth and geographic breadth from local
understandings of oppression, that is just
a happy coincidence for ruling elites. CP
in the suitcase that contained the bomb,
had been bought by the accused Megrahi
from a shop in Malta; and (c) that a "se-
cret witness," Abdulmajid Gialka, a for-
mer colleague of the accused pair in the
Libyan Airlines office in Malta, would
testify that he had observed them either
constructing the bomb or at least seen
them loading on the plane in Frankfurt.
The prosecution was unable to pro-
duce evidence to substantiate any of
these points or to encourage any confi-
dence in Gialka's reliability as a witness.
The Swiss manufacturer of the timer,
Edwin Bollier, testified he had sold timers
of a similar type to the East Germans and
conceded, under cross-examination by
defense lawyers, that he had connections
to many intelligence agencies, including
not only the Libyans but also the CIA.
By the time of the trial, Gialka had
been living under witness protection
in the U.S.A. He had received $320,000
from his American hosts and, in the
event of conviction of the accused, stood
to collect up to $4 million in reward
money. He had CIA connections, so the
defense lawyers learned, before 1988.
The prosecution's case absolutely de-
pended on proving beyond a reasonable
doubt that Megrahi was the man who
bought the clothes, traced by police to a
Maltese clothes shop. In nineteen sepa-
rate statements to police prior to the
trial the shopkeeper, Tony Gauci, had
failed to make a positive identification of
Megrahi. In the witness box, Gauci was
asked five times if he recognized anyone
in the courtroom. No answer. Finally, the
exasperated prosecutor pointed to the
dock and asked if the man sitting on the
left was the customer in question. Even
so, the best that Gauci could do was to
mumble that "he resembles him."
Gauci had also told the police that the
man who bought the clothes was 6 feet
tall and over 50 years of age. Megrahi is
5 feet 8 inches tall, and in late 1988 he
was 36. The clothes were bought either
on November 23 or December 7, 1988.

More at CounterPunch
September 1-15, 2009    Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair vol. 16, no. 15

Subject: RE: BS: Lockerbie bombing fall-guy to go free?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 05:23 PM

""The bit that I had in mind, Don, was your gratuitous aside in brackets:

I am also ignoring the (possibly underhand) reasons why the Scottish authorities released him...""


You really don't pay attention do you.

That comment had been made further up this thread (NOT BY ME!), and in several media comments. I reproduced it to point up the FACT that it was playing no part in my decisions as to my response.

Why do you find that so difficult to grasp? Or are you just trying to detract from my rationale generally? If so, WHY?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Lockerbie bombing fall-guy to go free?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 08:20 PM

Well I looked at your post again Don, and it still reads to me as though that qualification in brackets was yours. But I do accept, belatedly, that it wasn't so my aplogies for misunderstanding. And for the record, I'm completely on board with your general rationale.

Subject: RE: BS: Lockerbie bombing fall-guy to go free?
From: robomatic
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 10:20 PM

I think my points have been sideswiped under a blanket assertion that it should be "vengeance first".

1) When in fact there were judicial proceedings and findings.
2) When the insistence of compassion toward the convicted seems to trump compassion toward the relatives of the victims (victims themselves), and their feelings are linked to vengeance and therefore denigraed.
3) The courts are instituted as a solution to the vengeance issue. When the courts don't do their job, or are perceived not to be doing their job, the vengeance issue comes right back.
4) A valid point was made that jihadis would be out front at being publicized as such, but this is not necessarily the case. State sponsored terrorism might be conducted with a desire to be deniable.

In brief, there are basic assumptions rampant through this thread, that vengeance is de facto wrong, that the convicted person was wrongfully convicted, that the hurt feelings of the relatives of the victim are less important than the feelings of the relatives of the convicted.

On the other hand, this thread has been worthwhile to me, most of those disagreeing with me have made me think, which is no small achievement.

Subject: RE: BS: Lockerbie bombing fall-guy to go free?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 07:52 PM

Peter, that is generous of you, and much appreciated. Perhaps I wasn't quite as clear as I intended to be, but I am glad that we are, in principle, agreeing as to the outcome.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Lockerbie bombing fall-guy to go free?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 08:03 PM

""that the hurt feelings of the relatives of the victim are less important than the feelings of the relatives of the convicted.""

No Robo! Never LESS important, but perhaps the feelings of Megrahi's family are still of SOME importance, when their family member has such a short time left, and would it not be better for the souls of those who suffered, if they showed the mercy that their loved ones did not receive.

Is it ever a good thing to set oneself down to the level of him who has no moral compass, and if one does so, just what IS the difference between US and THEM?

That, for me, is the argument against the desire for vengeance.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Lockerbie bombing fall-guy to go free?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 08:59 PM

Or see what you think about this, robomatic....

If my daughter was ever on the receiving end of criminal violence, I would want the perpetrators to be dealt with rationally, in the cold light of day, and NOT according to whatever crazy, churned up emotions I would be feeling after such an event. I know that if I were ever in that state I would be unfit to take an objective view. For the same reason I am relieved that the Lockerbie victim-relatives are not making the decisions about Megrahi, whether his conviction is sound or not. But that should not be read as meaning I am dismissive of their losses.

It's easy enough to say this stuff,of course, and no doubt I might regret having said it if I were ever put to a Lockerbie-type test. But for me that is the difference between justice and the lynch mob. What is remarkable about the British victim-relatives (all the ones we have heard from anyway) is that they took a measured view of the criminal enquiry and Megrahi's fate at the very time they might reasonably have been having to cope with all manner of crazy, churned up emotions. But as has been stated here several times, they will have a better chance of finding some kind of peace than those who remain consumed by bitterness, and for whom no amount of revenge will ever be enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Lockerbie bombing fall-guy to go free?
From: robomatic
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 11:44 PM

I think if I felt that the real killer of a loved one due to some one-on-one brutal crime was in stir, I'd want him or her to stay that way. If that person was fatally ill, and I was convinced of same, I'd want a say in compassionate leave for that person and if I had a personal knowledge of his/her family, it is possible that I would be in favor of it. If I felt that a mass killer such as the one in this case, and I had enough personal knowledge to believe him guilty, no way would I want him out under any conditions for any amount of time.

And even if I did, I'd want to know that other victims felt the same, and didn't suffer because of the release.

One of the most fascinating things about crime and punishment is that we as participants and even as onlookers can have vastly different reactions to similar actions based on motive. A man drives over another man because he doesn't see him provokes a different response from us from a man who deliberately drives over someone. Same means, same people, same death. But motive is all important. Because we see ourselves and how we'd feel both as victim and perpetrator.

With something like putting a bomb on an aircraft, I can only see myself on that plane.

Subject: RE: BS: Lockerbie bombing fall-guy to go free?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 Sep 09 - 07:41 AM

Try seeing yourself as al-Megrahi's wife, or one of his children, or grand-children. They are victims too. They've not committed any offence, yet you would punish them exactly as you would punish him. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Subject: RE: BS: Lockerbie bombing fall-guy to go free?
From: Rumncoke
Date: 02 Sep 09 - 02:09 PM

I hear a woman on the radio today - a parent of one of the Americans who died.

Well - I write woman for want of a better noun.

The poor creature was nothing but hatred and vilification, nothing humane left. Everything gone from her.

I hear that al Magrahi is deteriorating quite quickly now - he can't have much time left.

Apparently even when he was told that he was being released he was protesting his innocence.

I think that this is a situation in which there can never be a winner - I suspect that it might be difficult, in time to come, to name more than one person who has done anything to maintain the dignity of the Human race in this affaire.

Anne Croucher