Clinton urges no Megrahi release

[Alonzo-ny]

lineupguy, the post you quoted way back was a response to Lofter1, not you. I wasn't correcting you in first place.

[lineupguy]

No, you specifically said that I thought that Macaskill was a British minister. You had read my post incorrectly. You then asked me to explain the discrepancy.

You then launch an assault of pms at me on this very point. Again unecessary and incorrect.

Slow down, settle down, and perhaps before you start debating this point, study constitutional law and politics for 6 years, and learn to accept that sometimes, you can be wrong.

OR keep digging an intellectual hole for yourself.

In short, enough of the HU HA please. And the lashing out in an attempt to correct me. It spells FAIL.

The Drudge Report linked story was breaking news when I posted it and relevant, and now everywhere in the mainstream press.

[Alonzo-ny]

You say:

M c C a s k i l l is a government minister who exercised a discretion to allow the release - which has nothing to do with a judge or the different legal systems.

It has everything to do with different legal systems because there is a Scottish and British Justice minister.

[lineupguy]

It was not a judicial discretion.

It was a ministerial ie executive discretion.

Ministerial discretions, exercised by a secretary of one nation (as opposed to another) do not arise by reason of differing "legal systems". They arise by reason of executive sovereignty of a nation state and the fact that at the time the decision is made, the secretary was the relevant minister or discretion holder ie office holder in that state.

Keep digging.

[Alonzo-ny]

If Scotland did not have a separate legal system it would not have a Justice minister. Look at Wales, it has a similar, less powerful devolved parliament. It does not and did not have a separate legal system and hence, no justice minister of its own. The only reason Scotland could make this executive decision is a result of having a separate legal system.

[lofter1]

The question at hand seems to be: Did Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill act independently or did officials of other nations / governments steer him to the decision to release Megrahi.

Seems that some in the upper ranks in Scotland, when MacAskill's act, are terming it "a quasi-judicial decision"

That little "quasi" leaves lots of legal wiggle room.

[Alonzo-ny]

Megrahi trade deal untrue - Straw


Megrahi in hospital

Megrahi was filmed in a Tripoli hospital by a British TV crew

Justice Secretary Jack Straw has said reports the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi was released over an oil deal are "wholly untrue".

He denied a "back door deal" was done to transfer Megrahi because of UK trade talks with the Libyan government.

Letters leaked to a newspaper show UK ministers agreed to include him in a prisoner transfer deal in 2007 because of "overwhelming national interests".

Terminally ill Megrahi was recently released on compassionate grounds.

Pictures of Megrahi being treated in a Libyan hospital were shown on UK TV for the first time on Sunday.

A team from Channel 4 News were invited into his room, but he was reportedly too sick to answer any questions about claims his release was linked to a trade deal.

Oil contract

Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill released Megrahi on 20 August, eight years into his 27-year sentence for murdering 270 people in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103.

Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond said the convicted bomber was released from a Scottish jail with no London involvement.

He was not released under a prisoner transfer agreement.

Jack Straw denied Megrahi's release was part of a covert deal

The British government has always maintained the decision to release Megrahi rested with Scotland, but revelations in the Sunday Times will fuel suspicions about the motivations behind his release, BBC correspondent Norman Smith says.

Opposition parties are calling for an inquiry.

Leaked ministerial letters reveal UK Justice Secretary Jack Straw's change of stance over Megrahi's inclusion in a prisoner transfer agreement (PTA).

According to the Sunday Times, Mr Straw wrote to his Scottish counterpart Kenny MacAskill on 19 December 2007, six weeks before an oil exploration contract for BP in Libya was ratified.

The letter said: "I had previously accepted the importance of the al-Megrahi issue to Scotland and said I would try to get an exclusion for him on the face of the agreement. I have not been able to secure an explicit exclusion.

"The wider negotiations with the Libyans are reaching a critical stage and, in view of the overwhelming interests for the UK, I have agreed that in this instance the [PTA] should be in the standard form and not mention any individual."

Responding to the report, Mr Straw said on Sunday that the "normalisation of relations with Libya" was in the UK's interests.

He said this was because they had uncovered "a huge nuclear weapons programme of the Libyans, which they had been conducting wholly in secret".

"As a result of painstaking, secret negotiations over months, an agreement was struck with them in December 2003 that they would allow the international atomic energy inspectors in to supervise the whole dismantling of their nuclear weapons programme.

"And yes, as part of that there would be gradual normalisation of relations with Libya, with the West as whole, not just with the United Kingdom.

Mr Straw said a prisoner transfer agreement was part of that agreement.

"But was there a deal? A covert, secret deal ever struck with the Libyans to release Megrahi in return for oil? No, there was not and there is no evidence whatsoever because it is untrue."

Normalisation of relations

He said the Scottish government had sought a "carve-out" in any treaty, which he had supported, but in the event the Libyans had said they would not find that acceptable.

"And they said that for two reasons. One that it wasn't necessary. And they were correct about that, because a veto was in the hands of the Scottish government anyway, but secondly, they said, if you are after the normalisation of relations what we want is simply a stand, normal prisoner transfer agreement.

If the government fails to provide a full account of its conduct it will simply add to speculation
Sir Menzies Campbell
Lib Dems

Mandela supports Lockerbie release

"Not one that carves out in respect of any one prisoner."

He also emphasised the Megrahi had not been released under a PTA, but quite separately under the jurisdiction of the Scottish government.

Liberal Democrat MP Sir Menzies Campbell, a member of the Commons foreign affairs select committee, said: "Jack Straw's intervention has simply muddied the waters.

"We need a full and frank comprehensive statement about the extent to which Mr Megrahi's fate may have featured in any trade negotiations between the United Kingdom and Libya.

"If the government fails to provide a full account of its conduct it will simply add to speculation.

"This is a matter which the foreign affairs select committee may well consider justifies investigation."

David Lidington, the Conservatives' foreign affairs spokesman, said leaks and "secrecy" around the case were damaging to international relations and public trust.

He called for an independent inquiry by a parliamentary select committee to examine all the documents involved and determine "what did and did not happen".

The BBC's political correspondent Norman Smith said the story would fuel the suspicions of those who felt the "bottom line" was oil.

The letters, he added, also suggested the British government was a good deal more involved in the release, and they were prepared to see him released under the transfer accord.

Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond said it was a matter of record that his administration had opposed the prisoner transfer agreement between Westminster and Tripoli.

"We didn't think that the Lockerbie decision should be linked to trade or oil decisions by anyone who looked at the coincidence that the prisoner transfer agreement was being negotiated at the same time as commercial contracts," he told the BBC.

Despite opposition on both sides of the Atlantic, the SNP leader added there was "huge international support" for the Scottish government's decision.

[Alonzo-ny]

Mandela backs Lockerbie decision

Nelson Mandela
Mr Mandela expressed his support through a letter to the government

Nelson Mandela has backed the Scottish Government's controversial decision to free the Lockerbie bomber.

The former South African president has expressed appreciation for the decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds.

US President Barack Obama is among those who have criticised the decision to free Megrahi, who is terminally ill.

But Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond said there was huge support internationally for the move.

Megrahi, who has prostate cancer, was released eight years into his 27-year sentence for the murder of 270 people in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103.

Hundreds of people were waiting in Libya to welcome Megrahi home as his plane landed in Tripoli, some of them waving Saltire flags.

Mr Mandela's support came in a letter to the Scottish Government from Prof Jake Gerwel, chairman of the Mandela Foundation.

"Mr Mandela sincerely appreciates the decision to release Mr al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds," it stated.

'Humanitarian concern'

The letter went on: "Mr Mandela played a central role in facilitating the handover of Mr al-Megrahi and his fellow accused to the United Nations in order for them to stand trial under Scottish law in the Netherlands.

"His interest and involvement continued after the trial after visiting Mr al-Megrahi in prison.

"The decision to release him now, and allow him to return to Libya, is one which is therefore in line with his wishes."

Responding to the letter, Mr Salmond told the BBC News Channel: "We have seen today that Nelson Mandela has come out firmly in support, not just as the towering figure of humanitarian concern across the world in the last generation, but of course somebody who brokered the agreement that led to the Lockerbie trial in the first place.

"Many people believe that you will achieve more in this world through acts of mercy than you will through acts of retribution."

Mr Mandela visited Megrahi in Glasgow's Barlinnie Prison in 2002.

[lineupguy]

The Times alleges that it is all about oil:

DURING the past year a small ship bristling with computers and seismic equipment has been crisscrossing the Gulf of Sidra, in the Mediterranean off the Libyan coast. Its mission: to help to find BP’s next offshore oilfields.
The company’s search for oil off Libya and in a 20,000-mile area in the west of the country potentially offers as much as £15 billion in new revenue. But less than two years ago it was feared that the deal could founder — and the reason was wrangling over Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the jailed Lockerbie bomber.
BP was finally given the go-ahead six weeks after a volte-face by the British government to include Megrahi in a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya under which prisoners could serve out sentences in their home countries. Jack Straw, the justice secretary, revealed this decision in a letter to his Scottish counterpart. He cited “wider negotiations” and the “overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom”.
Sources in the UK and Tripoli said last week that those wider interests included BP’s hoped-for share of Libya’s untapped oil and gas reserves. The decision to include Megrahi in the prisoner transfer arrangement was seen by Libyan officials as paving the way for his release — and BP’s much-coveted deal was finally ratified.

Getting back to the point made earlier, Scotland and England have separate legal systems but that is not relevant to Megrahi's release because a judge did not release Megrahi, the executive government of Scotland did. The fact that Scotland has a separate almost fully autonomous executive (ie executive sovereignty) albeit granted by the UK Parliament), means that this could happen as a decision of Scotland. Of course in such a decision, it would be appropriate to consider relations that Scotland has not only with Libya but with the UK and England.

Scotland and England have separate governments, ie executives. This decision had nothing to do with their respective legal systems.

[Alonzo-ny]

What is the mood on this in the US at the moment? Has the initial hysteria died down?

[lineupguy]

Take a look.

And here

If The Times' allegations posted in my previous post are true, why is that hysteria?

It is the normal reaction to what could be described as an underhanded deal.

Honestly, I dont think that most Americans care. They just cant understand why Scotland continues to kow tow to Whitehall.

Once the fish and the oil runs out, what exactly will you do? Its too late - Whitehall will have gotten what it wanted.

[Alonzo-ny]

In my opinion to punish a country's people for a decision the government made is hysteria. Its irrational and illogical. Im sure I posted an article which says that 2/3rds of the country didn't support it. But yeah its normal to boycott our products and punish those 2/3rds who wouldn't have wanted him released.

Its the same as the flag burning you see around the world. It is pointless. It isn't right to tar an entire country with the same brush as one or a few people just because they are from there. It is over the top.

[lofter1]

Any ill will isn't towards the Scottish people per se, but rather aimed towards those in power who constructed the deed. Given the structure of societies it's nearly impossible to protest against those in charge (politically & economically) in any quasi-meaningful way without those on the lower rungs being affected. The fact that those up top in the US apparently were fully aware of the release plan only confirms that politicians are alike everywhere, and will try to weasel out of unpopular things after the fact.

For those Americans who want to go to Scotland or have a snort of Lagavulin (if one can even find it) this whole affair is unlikely to change their minds.

[lineupguy]

11,5 days per victim was not enough time served.

One of two things happened here

1. Scotland screwed up the trial procedure/appeals process

or

2. The trial and appeals process were both satisfactory, and they got the right guy, but Scotland screwed up the early release of this guy

Take your pick.

Either way, its a funny way to describe "compassion".

Either way, Washington isn't pleased.

[lofter1]

Now that we know "Washington" knew all about the plan for release from way back the only thing "Washington" doesn't like is that many Americans were disgusted and upset by Scotland's decision (apparently made with the full OK from US authorities).