RE: Lockerbie bomber is let out to die at home

RE: Lockerbie bomber is let out to die at home (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

FullCircle -> RE: Lockerbie bomber is let out to die at home (8/31/2009 7:23:16 AM)
No this has been going on since 2006 so why didn't Blair and Bush do that? If it is this oil at all costs approach? The simple fact is regardless of who talks to who and who offers what deal the British Government has no authority over the devolved power of Scotland and the Scottish Parliament has no outlook on Britain’s energy needs.

Sanity -> RE: Lockerbie bomber is let out to die at home (8/31/2009 7:31:32 AM)
Bush and Blair never approved of this. At some point the current administration is going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into some form of accountability for its own actions.

FullCircle -> RE: Lockerbie bomber is let out to die at home (8/31/2009 7:37:03 AM)
It's a bit offensive that you can't hold meetings with people without others (not there) jumping to conclusions as to what was said in such meetings. If a promise is made it would have been indirect at best and could have been a promise of cooperation in relation to many other things rather than simply that of one single prisoner or an oil deal. You are just filling in the blanks in terms of what was implied in a way that is convenient to your argument and creating the no smoke without fire myth that will create a story where there is none. Furthermore Britain has prisoner exchange programmes with many countries the idea being that if a thirty year sentence is passed on a British citizen abroad they can come home and serve that whole sentence here or similarly it means a foreign citizen serving a sentence in Britain can serve the remainder of that sentence in their home nation. It doesn’t mean the person being exchanged can then have a thirty year sentence reduced to the terms set by their own country. So if he was part of that exchange programme he would have been expected to serve his full sentence in Libya and the failure of the Libyans to enforce that sentence would have resulted in the breakdown of that deal for all other Libyan nationals in British custody (present and future). The fact is he was released on compassionate grounds not as part of the exchange programme being discussed. I really don't think Libya cares about one man so much that it would allow this issue to dictate all negotiations it has with other nations.

Sanity -> RE: Lockerbie bomber is let out to die at home (8/31/2009 10:34:42 AM)
You evidently missed a key part of my earlier post. Here's another article, further underscoring some of the points I was trying to make: quote: Lockerbie bomber 'set free for oil' The British government decided it was “in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom” to make Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, eligible for return to Libya, leaked ministerial letters reveal. Gordon Brown’s government made the decision after discussions between Libya and BP over a multi-million-pound oil exploration deal had hit difficulties. These were resolved soon afterwards. The letters were sent two years ago by Jack Straw, the justice secretary, to Kenny MacAskill, his counterpart in Scotland, who has been widely criticised for taking the formal decision to permit Megrahi’s release. The correspondence makes it plain that the key decision to include Megrahi in a deal with Libya to allow prisoners to return home was, in fact, taken in London for British national interests. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6814939.ece

Politesub53 -> RE: Lockerbie bomber is let out to die at home (8/31/2009 1:02:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Do you think Brown would ever do anything (like the Lockerbie deal) without Obama's permission? Yes he would. Sorry to burst your bubble but we dont rely on America for our own foreign policy.

FirmButFair1969 -> RE: Lockerbie bomber is let out to die at home (8/31/2009 1:33:01 PM)
I doubt Brown is really that concerned about Obama's opinion when there is 15 billion GBP on the table. The US has had to sell a lot of its British debt to pay off its own debt, Gordon Brown is more likely to call Beijing to ask permission than Washington. :)

Grofast -> RE: Lockerbie bomber is let out to die at home (8/31/2009 1:41:05 PM)
locking a terrorist up is not a deterrant to terrorism, the only thing animals of the kind is the sword. If he had been put to death for his crime this debate would not be happening. Treating terrorists as common criminals is wrong they need to be treated as forgien combanants not wearing uniforms that under the geneva coventions allows for the penality of death

Politesub53 -> RE: Lockerbie bomber is let out to die at home (8/31/2009 1:43:27 PM)
The hypocricy of some republicans on this issue is staggering, as is the claim Bush and Blair didnt have a hand in any of this. Trying to link Obama to the release of Magrahi was shameful, in my opinion. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/04/libya.oil/index.html

Politesub53 -> RE: Lockerbie bomber is let out to die at home (8/31/2009 1:50:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Grofast locking a terrorist up is not a deterrant to terrorism, the only thing animals of the kind is the sword. If he had been put to death for his crime this debate would not be happening. Treating terrorists as common criminals is wrong they need to be treated as forgien combanants not wearing uniforms that under the geneva coventions allows for the penality of death More uninformed ignorance, as has been pointed out many times, some of those that ended up at Gitmo were there only because others had given names for rewards. Even your own intelligence agencies have said they were innocent. If we took your view though, they would all be dead. Magrahis defence lawyers had obtained a report that one US intelligence agency ( Cant recall which ) were certain that Syria and Iran were behind the Lockerbie bombing.

Sanity -> RE: Lockerbie bomber is let out to die at home (8/31/2009 4:26:21 PM)
You're not trying to claim that that CNN article "proves" that Bush and Blair freed the Lockerbie terrorist? Are you?

Politesub53 -> RE: Lockerbie bomber is let out to die at home (8/31/2009 4:41:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity You're not trying to claim that that CNN article "proves" that Bush and Blair freed the Lockerbie terrorist? Are you? They paved the way for it yes. Blair was behind the deal for prisoner repatriation. I still dont see you condeming the republicans who put oil and not people first. I still dont see any evidence from you that Obama is behind the deal to free Magrahi. You are quite content to clutch at straws to bring Obama into the argument. Yet you are happy to give Bush and Rice etcetera a free pass, says it all really.

Sanity -> RE: Lockerbie bomber is let out to die at home (8/31/2009 5:42:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 They paved the way for it yes. Blair was behind the deal for prisoner repatriation. But this Lockerbie terrorist was never a part of it, obviously, this is totally new. An entirely different subject. Your trying to claim that Bush and Blair had anything to do with this is disingenuous. quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 I still dont see you condeming the republicans who put oil and not people first. What are you referring to? quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 I still dont see any evidence from you that Obama is behind the deal to free Magrahi. You are quite content to clutch at straws to bring Obama into the argument. Yet you are happy to give Bush and Rice etcetera a free pass, says it all really. What I asked was what did Obama know and when did he know it, which is the same that would be asked of Bush if he were in power. Only I am asking in a much more pleasant tone than anything was ever asked of Bush. I seriously doubt that Obama was blindsided by this, and he must have given his okay - after all, hundreds of Americans died in the Lockerbie bombing. I would hope that your government isn't so cold and self-serving that Obama wasn't consulted. As far as whatever point you're trying to make about Bush and Rice etc.? What are you referring to. Am I supposed to be a mindreader?

servantforuse -> RE: Lockerbie bomber is let out to die at home (8/31/2009 7:31:16 PM)
The truth might be known as early as tomorrow. The UK is releasing all correspondence between them, Scotland, Lybia and the good old USA regarding this matter.

Politesub53 -> RE: Lockerbie bomber is let out to die at home (9/1/2009 1:57:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity What I asked was what did Obama know and when did he know it, which is the same that would be asked of Bush if he were in power. Only I am asking in a much more pleasant tone than anything was ever asked of Bush. I seriously doubt that Obama was blindsided by this, and he must have given his okay - after all, hundreds of Americans died in the Lockerbie bombing. I would hope that your government isn't so cold and self-serving that Obama wasn't consulted. As far as whatever point you're trying to make about Bush and Rice etc.? What are you referring to. Am I supposed to be a mindreader? It was known before he was released that it was being considered. I would guess the Scottish Executive infromed Downing Street who in turn informed Obama. Under Scottish law neither Downing Street or the US could alter any decision made on compassionate grounds. Your question about "Am i supposed to be a mindreader" leads me to think you didnt fully read the CNN link you you quoted and I posted. My point is the Blair and Bush administration were happy do do deals with Libya. Here are two quotes from the CNN link. quote: The Bush administration wants to give Libya a waiver on a law that allows terror victims to sue the country as well as the U.S. companies that are eager to do business with Libya. quote: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates have told congressional leaders that the waiver would benefit U.S. national security, economy and foreign policy interests. The administration says it sympathizes with the families, but Rice contends that U.S. interests could be hurt if the government doesn't fulfill rewards it promised to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi for giving up weapons of mass destruction. My point was clear, why do you give this a free pass yet try and drag Obama into it ? As servant said, todays publication of the letters should clarify things.

Sanity -> RE: Lockerbie bomber is let out to die at home (9/1/2009 3:33:27 AM)
One of Bush's most universally celebrated victories was the dismantling of Libya's WMD program, so no, the fact that you might be trying to spin it into some kind of a negative would never have occurred to me. Terrorism was thwarted in that case, and welcoming Gadhafi back into the community of nations was a highlight of his presidency. We didn't need his oil, we were dong him a favor - to quote your article, "The administration says it sympathizes with the families, but Rice contends that U.S. interests could be hurt if the government doesn't fulfill rewards it promised to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi for giving up weapons of mass destruction." Did you think we should have bombed Libya, or invaded it? I thought this was the kind of outcome that Liberals and Conservatives could both fully support. Trading a terrorist who had killed hundreds, many of them children, for oil though? That's a totally different story, and I don't see any comparison. Libya's positive outcome was the same that Saddam Hussein and the Taliban could have expected, by the way, had they chosen to be reasonable.

FullCircle -> RE: Lockerbie bomber is let out to die at home (9/1/2009 5:42:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity You evidently missed a key part of my earlier post. Here's another article, further underscoring some of the points I was trying to make: quote: Lockerbie bomber 'set free for oil' The British government decided it was “in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom” to make Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, eligible for return to Libya, leaked ministerial letters reveal. Gordon Brown’s government made the decision after discussions between Libya and BP over a multi-million-pound oil exploration deal had hit difficulties. These were resolved soon afterwards. The letters were sent two years ago by Jack Straw, the justice secretary, to Kenny MacAskill, his counterpart in Scotland, who has been widely criticised for taking the formal decision to permit Megrahi’s release. The correspondence makes it plain that the key decision to include Megrahi in a deal with Libya to allow prisoners to return home was, in fact, taken in London for British national interests. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6814939.ece No you are missing the point: quote: The spokesman claimed the deal was ultimately “academic” because Megrahi had been released on compassionate grounds: “The negotiations on the [transfer agreement] were part of wider negotiations aimed at the normalisation of relations with Libya, which included a range of areas, including trade. “The exclusion or inclusion of Megrahi would not serve any practical purpose because the Scottish executive always had a veto on whether to transfer him.” As I previously stated the transfer agreement is not the same as an effective release from a sentence, it is instead a mechanism allowing a foreign national to serve the remainder of their sentence at home. Thus even if this transfer deal was a sweetener to get an oil deal Libya would have still have been expected to keep the man in custody for the remainder of his sentence. Also I have underlined that which I have always pointed out, the ultimate decision rests with the Scottish Parliament and they are external to any deals being done between Libya and Britain.

Politesub53 -> RE: Lockerbie bomber is let out to die at home (9/1/2009 12:46:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity One of Bush's most universally celebrated victories was the dismantling of Libya's WMD program, so no, the fact that you might be trying to spin it into some kind of a negative would never have occurred to me. Terrorism was thwarted in that case, and welcoming Gadhafi back into the community of nations was a highlight of his presidency. We didn't need his oil, we were dong him a favor - to quote your article, "The administration says it sympathizes with the families, but Rice contends that U.S. interests could be hurt if the government doesn't fulfill rewards it promised to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi for giving up weapons of mass destruction." Did you think we should have bombed Libya, or invaded it? I thought this was the kind of outcome that Liberals and Conservatives could both fully support. Trading a terrorist who had killed hundreds, many of them children, for oil though? That's a totally different story, and I don't see any comparison. Libya's positive outcome was the same that Saddam Hussein and the Taliban could have expected, by the way, had they chosen to be reasonable. I will answer each of your paragraphs in turn. Firstly there is no argument from me that Libya were trying to develop WMDs, there is plenty of evidence that they hadnt actually got very far though. Secondly there is plenty of evidence Libya has still been supporting terrorism, a search on the net will show this. Thirdly, well Reagan did bomb Libya, after a series of incidents between the two countries. You may not see the link between Bush and Blairs actions and the release of Magrahi ( Which I have still stated was for compassionate grounds, a decision i dont agree with and taken in Scotland ) Consider this for a moment if you will, Magrahi was a Libyan intelligence officer, If he carried out the Lockerbie bombing, which is considered unlikely here, then Gaddafi would have given the go ahead. So why dont you think there is a link in letting the Magrahi go free and dealing with his boss ? The shame in all this is the relatives wont ever know the full truth as to who carried out the bombing. Finally, your kidding yourself if you think Saddam could have avoided war with the US. Regime change was always on the agenda. The Taliban also made an offer to hand over Bin Laden, as I recall. Just a thought from todays release of documents, Its clear to many UK observers that the deal to bring Libya back into the fold also included a deal to free Magrahi at some point. Maybe the Scots released him on compassionate grounds to avoid sending him back under the prisoner transfer agreement, ( which Dowwning Street had previously signed up to ) somehow i doubt it as Mr Magaskill had already defied Blairs request to return him to serve his time in Libya. Why would he deny downing Street once but not twice ? Sorry for the lengthy reply but i wanted to address all your points and a few other issues.

sinik -> RE: Lockerbie bomber is let out to die at home (9/1/2009 1:33:36 PM)
On the assumption that he was actually guilty of the offence then he should never have been released. He gave up a right to appeal so maybe something was coming into the public domain that might have indicated that he was not guilty. Who really knows ?

rightwinghippie -> RE: Lockerbie bomber is let out to die at home (9/1/2009 4:14:06 PM)
"The Taliban also made an offer to hand over Bin Laden, as I recall." Sorry for the hijack, but I simply can not let this nonsense pass unchallenged. The Taliban agreed to turn him over after a set of unreasonable demands were met. It was not even close to a serious offer.

Politesub53 -> RE: Lockerbie bomber is let out to die at home (9/2/2009 12:40:47 AM)
I dont wish to hijack this thread either. Hippie you have mail.

Page: << < prev 5 6 7 8 [9]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875