The release of Abdel Al-Megrhai, convicted of the bombing of Pan Am 103, has been getting more attention now then it did at the time of his release a year ago, mostly because of a group of Democratic senators and the press who decided that since it was open season on BP it might be politically advantageous to try and pin the release of Abdel Al- Megrahi on them also.
Blaming BP became so ludicrous that Contessa Brewer, one of the group of anchors on MSNBC daytime who do the news like they should have a sock puppet on their hand, asked two family members of victims of the Pam Am bombing how they felt "knowing" that BP was responsible for Megrhai's release. Brewer who is not known for letting facts get in the way of what she wants to emote, caused these people needless grief by telling them something as fact that was not true.
But she conveniently swept under the rug what was true -- that president Obama, after being given a heads up a year ago that the bomber would be released on "compassionate" grounds, did nothing to try and prevent his release. He lodged a tepid "protest" and then said and did nothing. But Brewer didn't ask the families how they felt about that. Which is more evidence that every day MSNBC tries to be to Democrats what Fox News is to Republicans when what people really want is the truth.
It's become increasing clear that it was the Scottish government alone, and not BP who were responsible for Megrahi's release. And what has been lost in the outrage over his release and the narrow minded questioning of media types like Brewer, was the inaction of Barack Obama a year earlier when he knew Megrhai would be released.
Now that the issue is being looked at again, Obama's role, or lack of one is being either ignored or swept under the rug depending on your point of view.
Obama knew in advance that the Scottish government was going to release Megrhai on "compassionate" grounds. The Obama Administration sent a letter Aug 9, 2009, 11 days before Megrahi was released protesting the release but saying that if Megrhai was released they would "prefer" that he be forced to serve a house arrest in Scotland.
Blaming BP became so ludicrous that Contessa Brewer, one of the group of anchors on MSNBC daytime who do the news like they should have a sock puppet on their hand, asked two family members of victims of the Pam Am bombing how they felt "knowing" that BP was responsible for Megrhai's release. Brewer who is not known for letting facts get in the way of what she wants to emote, caused these people needless grief by telling them something as fact that was not true.
But she conveniently swept under the rug what was true -- that president Obama, after being given a heads up a year ago that the bomber would be released on "compassionate" grounds, did nothing to try and prevent his release. He lodged a tepid "protest" and then said and did nothing. But Brewer didn't ask the families how they felt about that. Which is more evidence that every day MSNBC tries to be to Democrats what Fox News is to Republicans when what people really want is the truth.
It's become increasing clear that it was the Scottish government alone, and not BP who were responsible for Megrahi's release. And what has been lost in the outrage over his release and the narrow minded questioning of media types like Brewer, was the inaction of Barack Obama a year earlier when he knew Megrhai would be released.
Now that the issue is being looked at again, Obama's role, or lack of one is being either ignored or swept under the rug depending on your point of view.
Obama knew in advance that the Scottish government was going to release Megrhai on "compassionate" grounds. The Obama Administration sent a letter Aug 9, 2009, 11 days before Megrahi was released protesting the release but saying that if Megrhai was released they would "prefer" that he be forced to serve a house arrest in Scotland.
Obama could have made a very loud and public protest over Megrahi's impending release buthe didn't. He could have rallied other countries, like Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy against Megrhai's release. He might have even been able to prevent it had he been forceful enough or threatend consequences. But, unfortunately, as we've seen with everything else Obama does or doesn't do, asking him to take the initiative on something and follow a sense of passion, truth and conviction to ge it done, whether its a public option on healthcare, or real financial reform, or a government commitment to ease unemployment, is just not in his repertoire.
Instead on August 20th, 2009 Obama issued his official public response to the release of Megrhai, that it was "a mistake". That's it. "A mistake". That was the degree of Obama's outrage, anger, and protest over the release on "compassionate grounds" of a man who murdered 270 people by blowing up an airliner.
Obama was well aware of the impending release before it occurred. In a letter to the Scottish government dated August 12, 2009, 8 days before Megrahi's release, the State Department sent an official letter to the Scottish government which enclosed and made reference to, the August 9, 2009 letter from the Obama Administration making a clear, but tepid protest.
There were many things Obama could have done or at least tried to do, given the powers of the presidency, to prevent Megrhai's release. Aside from rallying world opinion, he could have rallied congress behind him and threatened a variety of consequences, like huge tariffs and duties on goods from Scotland or made by Scottish companies. There could have been the threat of a trade embargo or sanctions or the threat that tourist travel could be banned, or some attempt to explore consequences if Megrhai was released. Any initiatives Obama wanted to take to threaten consquences to the Scottish government if they released Megrhai would have been backed unanimously by the congress.
He could have made a loud noise, explored trade and diplomatic penalties and made a very easy case why there should be no compassion for a mass murderer.
Obama did none of it. And he didn't for a very simple reason. He wasn't moved to. It wasn't a political issue that would affect him at the time, and like with Ahmadinejad and the Iran election protests, he preferred not to meddle. A sentiment echoed to a great extent by the leader of Scotland's Roman Catholic Church, who seemingly oblivous to the fact that the Church has enough problems dealing with serial child sexual molestations around the world, supported the "merciful" release of Megrhai and wrote in a Scottish newspaper with regards to American protests to re-open the case that "we ( the Scottish government) shouldnt be crawling to the United States".
The whole issue of Megrahi's release could open a new can of worms for the Obama Administration. It was only the press and some politicians thinking it was safe to go into the water to kick BP a few more times that brought the issue up again. Now that it is an issue and we know that BP had nothing to do with it, it still remains to be seen if the news media will highlight Obama's role in Megrahi's release. Or lack of it.
'It's becoming increasing clear that it was the Scottish government alone, and not BP who were responsible for Megrahi's release.'
ReplyDelete1. For nearly a year now the fact that the responsibility for the release of Megrahi rested with the Scottish government has been reiterated ad nauseam.
2. Perhaps in another 20 years or so it will dawn on the people of the United States that there was something very 'fishy' about that conviction.
3. To be precise it was in fact Kenny MacAskill MSP, Secretary for Justice in the Scottish government, who made the decision.
'Obama knew in advance that the Scottish government was going to release Megrahi on "compassionate" grounds.'
No he did not. He was probably aware that Megrahi might be released on compassionate grounds but he definitely did not know that.
'He could have rallied other countries, like Great Britain...and other countries against what the Scottish government was going to do.'
Here you show a complete ignorance about the constitutional status of Scotland. Scotland is currently an integral part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
'Scotland cannot break away like Ireland as it was 'one of the basic building blocks of "the United Kingdom of Great Britain"' (Lane 1991: 146). Without Scotland there is no 'Great Britain' and without Great Britain there is no 'United Kingdom'.'
SOURCE: 'SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE - A Practical Guide', page 109, ISBN 0-7486-1699-3.
'Scots law and legal system
76. ...Nevertheless the two systems remain separate, and - a unique constitutional phenomenon within a unitary state - stand to this day in the same juridical relationship to one another as they do individually to the system of any foreign country.
SOURCE: 'ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE CONSTITUTION 1969-1973', VOLUME I, Cmnd. 5460.
'But Obama...preferred not to meddle.'
It's just as well he didn't.
As far as Senator Menendez and his 'kangaroo court' is concerned the newspaper 'Scotland on Sunday' (www.scotlandonsunday.com) in its issue of August 1, 2010 published the results of an online poll to the following question -
'Should Kenny MacAskill have agreed to appear before the US Senate investigation on Lockerbie?'
YES: 8%, NO: 92%
"Just remember, especially in politics, that people who make statements as fact without knowing what they're talking about are just opening their mouth and letting their belly rumble.'
'Obama knew in advance that the Scottish government was going to release Megrahi on "compassionate" grounds.'
ReplyDeleteNo he did not. He was probably aware that Megrahi might be released on compassionate grounds but he definitely did not know that."
Well at least you signed your name so for that you have my respect. Unfortunatley your total ignorance of what you're writing about is another story. The Obama Administration trying to get itself off the hook, released a letter just last week that it had written to the Scottish government BEFORE Megrahi's release, making a tepid protest. Obama did in fact know in advance about the release and yes there was much he could have done, or at least tried to do to try and prevent it.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/242497/what-s-letter-obama-s-al-megrahi-culpability-kathryn-jean-lopez
"'Obama knew in advance that the Scottish government was going to release Megrahi on "compassionate" grounds.'
ReplyDeleteNo he did not. He was probably aware that Megrahi might be released on compassionate grounds but he definitely did not know that."
Just to educate you and show you just how little you actually know, in spite of using bold type for "he definintely did not know"
here is the link to the letter sent by the State Department to the Scottish government sent on August 9,2009 two weeks before Megrhai was released proving that Obama did know and preferred that if Megrahi was released he be made to stay at home in Scotland and not be allowed to return to Libya.
This is the link to the State Department letter to the Scottish government proving Obama knew two weeks in advance of Megrhai's impending release.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/07/145142.htm
Obama obviously knew of Megrahi's release well in advance. He was told by the British government, and his "tepid" response was to cover his own arse, and he allowed the Beyond Petroleum bashing for the same reason. Megrahi's cancer was a blessing for all three governments, allowing the Scots to release him on compassionate grounds, thus avoiding his appeal documents being made public which would have been acutely embarrassing to the Scottish government, the UK and the US.
ReplyDeleteMost British people think that Merahi was wrongly convicted and that the US meddled to bring about that conviction. The British government just wants it to go away - and it will.
Sophie McPherson, UK
If there's a can of worms that you in the US don't want to open here, it contains the well-documented evidence that the CIA acted to disappear and falsify evidence on the ground around Lockerbie and tamper with and bribe witnesses leading to Megrahi's conviction - a conviction which was about to be challenged in a second appeal, shelved when Megrahi was released.
ReplyDeleteIn the circumstances, if obama was less than ridiculously hysterical in his reaction - and it appears such hysteria would have pleased you - then that reflects well on him and his administration.
It would reflect even better if the US was to agree to a full accounting of events around the Lockerbie atrocity and the role of its CIA in the affair. Until that happens, I suggest that you Americans butt out of Scottish politics and legal affairs, since you seem to know next to nothing about the events in question.
If you care to keep abreast of what's actually happening with this case, then Professor Robert Black (who set up the terms of the original trial, though he was unhappy with strictures the US placed on it) has a blog here: http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/
I'll start with the article by Kathryn Jean Lopez - 'What's in a Letter: Obama's al-Megrahi Culpability', she writes -
ReplyDelete'The cold, hard, and shameful truth is that the Obama administration was in on discussions regarding Megrahi's release and failed to forcefully oppose it.'
What that infers is that a decision to release Megrahi had already been taken and that there were discussions as to how that decision should be implemented. That is a blatant lie. No such discussions ever took place. A lie if repeated often enough can come to be regarded as being the truth.
From the statement on the decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill MSP -
'It was clear that both the United States Government and the American families objected to a prisoner transfer.
The United States Attorney General, Eric Holder,...was adamant that assurances had been given to the United States Government that any person convicted would serve his sentence in Scotland...That clear understanding was reiterated to me, by the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
I sought the views of the United Kingdom Government. I offered them the right to make representations or provide information. They declined to do so. They simply informed me that they saw no legal barrier to transfer and that they gave no assurances to the US Government at the time. They have declined to offer a full explanation as to what was discussed during this time, or to provide any information to substantiate their view. I find that highly regrettable.
I therefore do not know what the exact nature of those discussions was, nor what may have been agreed between Governments. However, I am certain of the clear understanding of the American families and the American Government.
Therefore it appears to me that the American families and Government either had an expectation, or were led to believe, that there would be no prisoner transfer and the sentence would be served in Scotland.
It is for that reason that the Libyan Government's application for prisoner transfer for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi I accordingly reject'
Kathryn Jean Lopez further writes -
'...why did he not pick up the phone, call Gordon Brown, and inform him that the release of the murderer Megrahi is unacceptable to the United States? Had he done that, Megrahi would be in jail in Scotland...'
No British/UK Prime Minister has any authority whatsoever to interfere in Scots law or the Scottish legal system and neither does any President of the United States - irrespective of whatever political party he/she may or may not belong.
'74. ...By the time of the Union a well-defined and independent system of Scottish law had been established. This was recognised in the Union settlement, which provided for the preservation of the separate code of Scots law and the Scottish judiciary and legal system. Under Article XIX the two highest Scottish courts - the Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary - were to continue, and were not to be subject to the jurisdiction of the English courts. These bodies have remained respectively the supreme civil and criminal courts in Scotland, while beneath them there is a completely separate Scottish system of jurisdiction and law courts, with a judiciary, advocates and solicitors, none of whom are interchangeable with their English counterparts.
SOURCE: 'ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE CONSTITUTION 1969-1973', VOLUME I, Cmnd. 5460.
To sum up the article is nothing less than downright lies, misinformation and assumptions, especially with regard to Scotland. If you believe that sort of crap it just shows how gullible you are.
"What that infers is that a decision to release Megrahi had already been taken and that there were discussions as to how that decision should be implemented. That is a blatant lie. No such discussions ever took place."
ReplyDeleteSince you werent there and since no one involved in any way confided anything to you regarding any of this you have to prove what you say, not just say it. Prove it that its a lie. I read the letter of August 9, from our own state department to the Scottish minidster,and it is clear Obama knew of the impending release before it was actually decided. At the time it had not been decided whether to release him and send him back to Libya and the Obama administration made it clear in that state department letter that they opposed his release to Libya and "preferred" to use their word, that he be confined to a home in Scotland. You saying its a lie has no weight. The state department letter which proves you wrong carries all the weight anyone needs.
Now to the 'LeBaron letter'. You write -
ReplyDelete'Just to educate you and show you just how little you actually know...here is the link to the letter sent by the State Department to the Scottish government sent on August 9, 2009...'
The text of the letter, using the link you supplied, is precisely the same as is shown on the Scottish government website -
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Justice/legal/lockerbie/correspondence
then 'Click' on the relevant link, or, directly at -
http://photos.state.gov/libraries/unitedkingdom/164203/2010/ukpapress108_letter.pdf.
The following are excerpts from the enclosure with that letter -
'- The United States respects that decisions concerning compassionate release and bail are reserved to Scottish authorities and are to be made in accordance with Scottish law and policy.
- The United States is not prepared to support Megrahi's release on compassionate release or bail...The United States maintains its view that...it would be most appropriate for Megrahi to remain imorisoned for the entirety of his sentence...
- Nevertheless, if Scottish authorities come to the conclusion that Megrahi must be released from Scottish custody, the U.S. position is that conditional release on compassionate grounds would be a far preferable alternative to prisoner transfer, which we strongly oppose.'
Pay very close attention to the phrase 'if [my emphasis] Scottish authorities come to the conclusion'. There is not one word anywhere in that letter which suggests that the Obama administration knew that Megrahi was going to be released. If you think that there is then you need your eyes tested and your head examined.
Here are some links to information which has NOT been reported by the mainstream media in the United States -
'THE LOCKERBIE DISASTER' -
http://plane-truth.com/Aoude/geocities/roblack2.html,
'THE LOCKERBIE TRIAL AND APPEAL' -
http://knol.google.com/k/robert-black/the-lockerbie-trial-and-appeal/178khla0op77w/2,
'Lockerbie - Information relating to decision on Mr Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi' -
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Justice/legal/lockerbie,
'THE LOCKERBIE CASE' -
http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/,
'THE LOCKERBIE DIVIDE', 'Some Background on Karol Sikora' -
http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/2010/07/some-background-of-carol-sikora.html.
At the end of the trial at Kamp Zeist the prosecution conceded that it had been unable to prove how the suitcase containing the bomb which destroyed Pan Am 103 got into the baggage system and onto the plane.
In your post you mentioned 'a trade embargo or sanctions'. In that event I have two questions -
1. When will the United States be removing the words 'We The People' from the preamble to its Constitution?
2. When will the office of the President of the United States be abolished?
There is an interesting article in today's issue of the newspaper 'The Herald', http://www.heraldscotland.com, 'Why was terrorist Talb cleared over Lockerbie?'. The article includes the following -
ReplyDelete'In May 1989 Talb was arrested in connection with the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103.'
There is also the post of October 19, 2009 at 'THE LOCKERBIE CASE' blog - 'Pan Am incriminee Talb freed' -
http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2009/10/pan-am-incriminee-talb-freed.html.
"Pay very close attention to the phrase 'if [my emphasis] Scottish authorities come to the conclusion'. There is not one word anywhere in that letter which suggests that the Obama administration knew that Megrahi was going to be released.
ReplyDeleteIm sorry but are you sure YOU paid attention to that line? "If Scottish authorities come to the conclusion" means that it hadnt been decide yet. Which means Obama could have threatend reprisals, sanctions, retaliation, done all he could to PREVENT the release and warn of serious consequences IF they released him. Instead the Obama administration said, "Oh, well ok if you decide to release him we'd prefer that he stay in Scotland".
All you've done is take that letter and that specific line, and prove my point and completely debunk yours. Obama knew in advance that the Scottish government could release Megrhai, he knew it 11 days before the release and offered only the most tepid opposition to it without lifting a finger to try and stop it. And the letter and the passage you quote makes that all too clear.
THANK YOU for posting! I always love visiting...
ReplyDeleteSteve
Common Cents
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com
You started by writing -
ReplyDelete'Obama knew in advance that the Scottish government was going to release Megrahi...'
and now you write -
'"If Scottish authorities come to the conclusion" means that it hadnt been decided yet.'
In other words an admission that you were wrong.
"'Obama knew in advance that the Scottish government was going to release Megrahi...'
ReplyDeleteand now you write -
'"If Scottish authorities come to the conclusion" means that it hadnt been decided yet.'
In other words an admission that you were wrong."
Im sorry but I live in a world where common sense prevails. I was using your quotes to prove how wrong you were when you tried to use that quote that proved you wrong.
Obama knew that Megrhai was going to be releasd. The letter proves it,and its you who cant admit you were proven wrong and with your own argument to boot. Again I was only taking your quote and showing how it said the opposite of what you were asserting. Its been you who have been wrong about every assertion you made and the proof of it all is in the letter that anyone can read.
Marc, just because you repeatedly insist that the sky is green doesn't make it true.
ReplyDeleteMichael's patiently parsed the statements for you, and now you're just looking unreasonably stubborn.
We take our sovereignty just as seriously in Scotland as people take theirs in the US. The decision was made in accordance wit our laws. What sort of stupid despot would Obama appear if he decided to make this into a major, prolonged international incident? (Sanctions? Really? That's pretty dumb.) Not to mention the growing attention it would attract to issues the US had better let lie unless it wants full scrutiny to fall on the CIA and successive administrations' role in the whole Megrahi affair and cover-ups.
"Marc, just because you repeatedly insist that the sky is green doesn't make it true.
ReplyDeleteMichael's patiently parsed the statements for you, and now you're just looking unreasonably stubborn."
Im sorry but his statements are beyond patently absurd and they speak for themselves and so do the letters. Obama knew in advance that Megrhai was going to be released and Michael's absurd definition of the word "If" and what he thinks it proves doesnt even qualify as parsing.
Again, Obama knew in advance that Megrhai would be released, the State Department's use of the word "if" in terms of what the US would prefer ion terms of where Megrhai would be sent UPON his release speakes for itself and any interpretation concluding that it meant that it wasnt a sure thing and that Obama didnt know about Megrhai's impending release is standing the concept of reading comprehension on its head. Secondly even if you want to accept the word "if" as meaning Obama knew that the Scottish government was only considering his release, it doesnt change the main point, that Obama did nothing to threaten reprisals IF it should occur and at a time when he might have affected the outcome made NO public statements. He just accepted it and let them know where the US would PREFER Megrhai be sent.
Anyone who reads the State Department letters can see it for themselves and no standing on one's head, no parsing of the word "if" and no destruction of logic changes the meaning, the intent or the reality.
This whole affair shows the U.S. in the worst light possible a vengeful country that will step on a soverieng entities right to decide on a compassionate decision to send a dying man home to die.
ReplyDeleteI'm not even going to touch on whether he was really guilty or not, that is for another story you can publish later, but it's the same mindset as to capital punishment.....frying someone in an electric chair won't bring back the murdered party and letting a dying man rot in jail won't bring back the Lockerbie victims. When will the U.S. become a civilized nation and stop this foolishness?
"'Obama knew in advance that the Scottish government was going to release Megrahi...'
ReplyDeleteand now you write -
'"If Scottish authorities come to the conclusion" means that it hadnt been decided yet.'
In other words an admission that you were wrong."
There seems to be a bit of confusion about my using your own statement to prove you wrong. I was not agreeing, from my point of view that the words "if Megrhai is to be released" meant the decision hadnt been decided. I was simply pointing out that even if you take YOUR point of view (which I find absurd) that the words "If Megrhai is to be released.." somehow meant that Obama didnt know he WOULD be released, it still torpedos your argument that Obama didnt know and couldnt have done anything about it. No matter how you choose to look at it, or how you want to parse the word "if", Obama had the opportunity to try and prevent Megrhai's release in a number of ways and did nothing except say they'd prefer, upon his release, that he be kept in Scotland.
I hope that clears up, not that I was wrong but that you were even if someone were to accept your definition of the word "if"( which I don't).