Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi (the Lockerbie bomber) freed after only 8 years.
So...It seems this story is kicking up a shit storm and polarizing opinions here in the UK and from what our media says, also in the US.
Personally I don't even believe he committed the crime in the 1st place and that he was a scapegoat so that the US, UK and Libya could forge better relations. Because of this I couldn't give a monkeys whether he got released or not.
But it would seem that people do so I thought i'd start a thread.
Anyone on here even old enough to remember or give a shit about the Lockerbie bombing?
I'm not even going to presume that everyone knows about it so i'll give a little bit of info.
On the 21st of December 1988, Pan-am flight 103 was blown up in the skies over the south of Scotland as the result of a terrorist attack. Supposedly the bomb was timed to go off over the Atlantic but the plane was delayed and so it exploded over Scotland. The wreckage crashed (in part) into the town of Lockerbie as well as spreading bodies and wreckage over a 100 mile strip from the North Sea to the Irish Sea, resulting in the deaths of all 243 passengers, 16 crew and 11 people in their houses on the ground.
It is the single worst terrorist attack in the UK's history
Perhaps this is the most pertinent part to remember when considering how you feel about the alleged Lockerbie bomber being freed (particularly if you believe he did it)
god, I lost all the audiobooks I had d/led on my old comp, so I forget which one it was (I'm thinking "looming tower", but it could be one of so many), but after 9-11, tones of terrorism stuff was released, and I totally gobbled it up.
I remember one of them talking about the Lockerbie incident, and ya, iirc, it was a total sham. I think the American agencies (or, the terrorism experts within those agencies who had no sway prior to 9-11) were pissed that a deal was made, because it prevented them access to the real dangerous networks...
Re: Re: Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi (the Lockerbie bomber) freed after only 8 years.
I wouldn't be surprised if he did. Odd that they let out a man who is supposed to have killed 270 in the worst act of mass murder in the UK's history while he's still able to walk, talk and function yet they wouldn't let out the getaway driver from the great train robbery (Ronnie Biggs) until he was effectively house bound and comatose under the same "compassionate grounds" excuse.
I say good old Scotland for not bowing down to the American government, and I think the American and the British governments have a cheek in telling the people of Libya how to welcome back the man into THEIR own country.
If that indeed was the case for keeping an innocent man locked up for 8 years, who now has 3 months to live, then it's a bit too late in telling the US to **** off, just saying.
It's not really about bowing to the American government as opposed to the notion of justice being served (if he's actually guilty)
8 years for the murder of 270 people...That's under 11 days for each victim.
Do you consider that fair justice?
Even if he dies in 3 months it would still matter because it's not just about justice being done but being seen to be done. (him dying in jail would "feel" more like justice to the victims families)
Considerably less than 11 days for each victim if you factor in the jail time he spent for property damage, as I imagine millions of dollars in damage would equate to some hefty 'pound-me-in-the-ass' prison time alone.
Good point. Maybe his release and the conditions which came with it (dropping his appeal) were simply to avoid his being released on appeal and to head-off any problems that would arrive from his subsequent "not guilty" verdict.
Can you imagine the can of worms that would then open up? The Scottish police simply don't have the resources to reopen a case of this magnitude and so the real people responsible would most likely never be caught which would cause even more outrage than his release on compassionate grounds.
Actually, I think it's not quite that. I think his innocence is going to be pretty much established over time whether he dies or not, and everyone knows it- so they don't want the embarrassment of him being shown innocent after having died in jail.
It's not specifically a deal done to drop his appeal- early release is simply legally impossible whilst an appeal is in progress.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
"You've never had any TINY bit of sex, have you?"
BtVS
Last edited by Ushgarak on Aug 22nd, 2009 at 12:49 PM
I would think that him dying from horrible cancer in a few months time would be more than enough, he will no longer be in the world soon. They should look to that. Be glad he is not out free and having a whole healthy life left to live.
Knowing he is dying and will soon gradually get worse and be no more is punishment enough I would think. Also, if innocent, he is dying knowing most of the world hates him for something he didn't do.
I though this was a decent read on the subject, for those interested in the story:
Lockerbie part of a bigger story
In Khadaffy's world, what goes around comes around
By ERIC MARGOLIS
Last Updated: 30th August 2009, 3:55am
Libya's Moammar Khadaffy, once branded "the mad dog of the Middle East" by Ronald Reagan, is celebrating 40 years in power in spite of a score of attempts by western powers and his Arab "brothers" to kill him.
In 1987, I was invited to interview Khadaffy. We spent an evening together in his Bedouin tent. He led me by the hand through the ruins of his personal quarters, bombed a year earlier by the U.S. in an attempt to assassinate him. Khadaffy showed me where his two-year old daughter had been killed by a 1,000-pound bomb.
"Why are the Americans trying to kill me, Mister Eric?" he asked, genuinely puzzled.
I told him because Libya was harbouring all sorts of anti-western revolutionary groups, from Palestinian firebrands to IRA bombers and Nelson Mandela's ANC. To the naive Libyans, they were all legitimate "freedom fighters."
Last week, a furor erupted over the release of a dying Libyan agent, Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, convicted of the destruction of an American airliner over Scotland in 1988.
Hypocrisy on all sides abounded. Washington and London blasted Libya and Scotland's justice minister while denying claims al-Megrahi was released in exchange new oil deals with Libya. The Pan Am 103 crime was part of a bigger, even more sordid story. What goes around comes around.
1986: Libya is accused of bombing a Berlin disco, killing two U.S. servicemen. A defector from Israel's intelligence agency, Mossad, claims it framed Libya. Khadaffy demands Arabs increase oil prices.
1987: The U.S. tries to kill Khadaffy but fails. Eighty-eight Libyan civilians die.
1988: France wages a secret desert war with Libya over mineral-rich Chad. France's secret service, SDECE, is ordered to kill Khadaffy. A bomb is put on Khadaffy's private jet but, after Franco-Libyan relations abruptly improve, the bomb is removed before it explodes. 1988: The U.S. intervenes on Iraq's side in its eight-year war against Iran. A U.S. navy Aegis cruiser, Vincennes, violates Iranian waters and "mistakenly" shoots down an Iranian civilian Airbus airliner in Iran's air space. All 288 civilians aboard die. Then vice-president George H.W. Bush vows, "I'll never apologize ... I don't care what the facts are." The Vincennes' trigger-happy captain is decorated with the Legion of Merit medal for this crime by Bush after he becomes president. Washington quietly pays Iran $131.8 million US in damages. Five months later, Pan Am 103 with 270 aboard is destroyed by a bomb over Lockerbie, Scotland. The U.S. and Britain pressure Scotland to convict al-Megrahi, who insists he is innocent. Serious questions are raised about the trial, with claims CIA faked evidence to blame Libya.
Some intelligence experts believe the attack was revenge for the downing of the Iranian airliner, carried out by Mideast contract killers paid by Iran. Serious doubts about al-Megrahi's guilt were voiced by Scotland's legal authorities. An appeal was underway. Libyans believed he was a sacrificial lamb handed over to save Libya from a crushing U.S. and British-led oil export boycott.
1989: A French UTA airliner with 180 aboard is blown up over Chad. A Congolese and a Libyan agent are accused. French investigators indict Khadaffy's brother-in-law, Abdullah Senoussi, head of Libyan intelligence, with whom I dined in Tripoli. Libya blames the attack on rogue mid-level agents but pays French families $170 million US.
I believe al-Megrahi was probably innocent and framed. Scotland was right to release him. But Libya was guilty as hell of the UTA crime, which likely was revenge for France's attempt to kill Khadaffy. Pan Am 103 probably was revenge for America's destruction of the Iranian Airbus. In 1998, Britain's MI6 spy agency tried to kill Khadaffy with a car bomb. In the end, the West badly wanted Libya's high grade oil. So Libya bought its way out of sanctions with $2.7 billion US total in damages. The U.S., Britain, France and Italy then invested $8 billion US in Libya's oil industry and proclaimed Khadaffy an ally and new best friend.
KMC Community Forums
Aug 21st, 2009 09:49 PM
